Forum menu
Stooge Cycles - who...
 

[Closed] Stooge Cycles - who's interested? (slack 29er content)

Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Higher BB


 
Posted : 05/02/2014 5:03 pm
Posts: 8401
Full Member
 

Just looking again at the photos- are there any bottle bosses on the prototype? Also have you considered crud catcher mounts, much nicer than cable ties and I reckon this bike will appeal to those who ride in all conditions.


 
Posted : 05/02/2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 628
Free Member
 

Yes, I understand what you were implying but I don't understand why a higher bottom bracket would mean a bike has more 'snap' to it? By snap I take it to mean acceleration, or perceived acceleration at any rate, but I may be getting the wrong end of the stick.


 
Posted : 05/02/2014 8:41 pm
Posts: 9597
Free Member
 

/edited


 
Posted : 05/02/2014 8:50 pm
Posts: 3644
Full Member
 

Looks really nice - twin top tubes is on my wishlist one day (liked them ever since seeing the Corratecs from the mid '90s).

Is that 16.5" horizontal or actually along the stay centre to centre? I just had a measure in the garage and with a very stretched chain I'm running ss at 16.25" / 413mm along the stay, which gives a good 20mm of overlap between the chainring and tyre. Those pics don't look to have much overlap so I'm guessing it is horizontal distance (so maybe 16.75" c to c).


 
Posted : 05/02/2014 9:12 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Gotma - totally spot on 🙂


 
Posted : 05/02/2014 11:12 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[i][Looks really nice, pretty similar to what I've been designing in my head only thing I'd like different is a shorter headtube and or fork. With a 4" headtube it'd be perfect! ]
[/i]
My idea behind the headtube height is that it takes the weight from your wrists with a rigid fork, and it works. You could run it with a 5mm spacer and a zero degree 40mm stem and it should downsize nicely, the standover is about the same height as a regular small (14") frame.

The one problem I've had with all the rigid bikes I've owned is that they've all had what I call a low xcish position that punishes the wrists. I don't get this with the Stooge, the riding position mimicks a long travel bike in relation to bar/seat position. The front end seems to skip over obstacles with a lot less manhandling than I'm used to. Couple with the slammed, tight rear end, it has a really nice pivot point, you certainly don't need to pull on the bars much to get the front up.

Bonesetter, I understand what you're saying. Many years ago I ran an Ellsworth Specialist with the original Pike forks. It was the street trial frame intended for rigid forks. With the Pikes set at 100mm it rode in a way that was nicely planted, but when I hiked it up to 140mm the bike became mentally capable, even though on paper the geometry was shot. The higher bb certainly made the bike kick forward when you pedalled. Obviously the Stooge is nothing like that bike 🙂


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 12:03 am
Posts: 17783
Full Member
 

I think you're missing a trick by not making the fork compatible with 29, 29+ and 26 fat.
Being able to run all three wheel sizes on the front of my Jones is ideal for setting the bike up for different conditions/trails.
Looks great apart from that and the high BB.
I wouldn't mind a test ride on it though?


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 12:21 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Hi Stu, I wouldn't exactly call the bottom bracket high, in fact it's a lot lower than most bikes (60mm drop), just not as low as a certain bike. The front fork is compatible with 29+. I figure that if anyone wants to mount a full fat front they can use a fork from surly or salsa, the option is certainly there.


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 12:53 am
Posts: 10654
Full Member
 

My idea behind the headtube height is that it takes the weight from your wrists with a rigid fork, and it works.

Agreed. I used to run a 470mm rigid on a 26" wheel Inbred for that very reason. And you are spot on.
The bike took on a comfier, more relaxed feel, but sat on it, it felt as it would with a sagged 5" fork, at just the right angles. Never understood why it was assumed that anyone wanting rigid would automatically be on a 80-100mm forked XC bike.


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 12:56 am
Posts: 8401
Full Member
 

it should downsize nicely, the standover is about the same height as a regular small (14") frame.

You may well have just sold it to me

The one problem I've had with all the rigid bikes I've owned is that they've all had what I call a low xcish position that punishes the wrists. I don't get this with the Stooge,

I can get rid of my flexstem?!!!


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 8:10 am
Posts: 17783
Full Member
 

just not as low as a certain bike.

That low BB seems to be one of the things that make that "certain bike" handle so well.
To me even with the EBB in the upper position I can feel the difference in handling (in a less good way).
I'd still love a blast on the Stooge though? Numbers don't mean everything and it'd be nice to see what it felt like out on the trail. 🙂


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 8:41 am
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 10:16 am
Posts: 920
Free Member
 

I found running rigid on my Selma a bit too shaky for comfort, I also looked at the Swift steel fork and it's not quite a featherweight - the upshot being I run suspension on my SS, for little weight penalty, and I find it works well.

But I certainly would like a try out of a Stooge, and I buy into the geometry totally.


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 11:49 am
Posts: 55
Free Member
 

At only 5'9" (and a bit), is this frame going to be a bit large for me? I think not (I hope), 50mm renthal stem, nice wide flat bars, inline seatpost, 1x10 gears, goldtec hubs and some nice wide and light rims. It seems either this or the Singular Rooster, choices, choices.


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 5:25 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Jupiter, I'm the same height as you. This is what I was told..

The size will be perfect for you, I'm 5'11 and run mine with 70mm stem and 730 bars. Get yourself set up with a 50 or 40mm and it'll be great.


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 5:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Free Member
 

Looks good in bonesetter's pic above, looked fairly ungainly to me in others.


 
Posted : 06/02/2014 5:39 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Looking forward to seeing it in purple 🙂


 
Posted : 07/02/2014 8:15 pm
Posts: 9043
Free Member
 

Clicked on this out of idle curiosity.
Frame looks lovely.
Oswestry is mentioned. Immediately start thinking its going to cost a million pounds per frame.
£400>£450 for the frame and fork.
I don't need a 29er. I have a perfectly good Curtis 26er which I love.
I don't need a 29er.
I don't need a 29er.


 
Posted : 07/02/2014 8:36 pm
Posts: 4993
Full Member
 

If course you do..


 
Posted : 08/02/2014 12:01 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

agreed, you really do!


 
Posted : 01/03/2014 9:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Very lovely looking bike, nice job. Even with the big wheels, the proportions look kinda right.

I would be very interested if it was 650B.

No troll intended.


 
Posted : 01/03/2014 10:31 am
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Anyone managed to throw a leg over one of these?

A couple have been sold so I believe...


 
Posted : 31/03/2014 2:58 pm
 Olly
Posts: 5269
Full Member
 

Very pretty. Like the slack angles too. Might suit me as a play bike (6'5") if anything was to tempt me over to wagon wheels, that would be it.


 
Posted : 31/03/2014 3:04 pm
Posts: 1980
Full Member
 

The more I see of this the more I think it's going to be my next bike.


 
Posted : 31/03/2014 4:10 pm
Posts: 4064
Full Member
 

Their/his website appears to be down...Facebook says frames to be in the UK 4 weeks after the 22nd March.


 
Posted : 31/03/2014 4:36 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Any thoughts on comparisons with the Rooster from Singular?


 
Posted : 02/04/2014 6:32 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I like what Sam does and came very close to buying a Gryphon once upon a time. Been looking at the Rooster and other than the obvious visual differences, I'd say it's all about the geometry. Both the Stooge and the Rooster share a 55mm fork offset, but the Stooge Head angle is slacker, especially with a Knard up front (about 67), whereas the Rooster has amore traditional head angle. The other difference will obviously be in chainstay length. I prefer a 'normal' 29er rear wheel and tyre because they make the bike quicker out of the gate, so to speak. The Stooge also has a taller front end, for reasons listed above. The Rooster looks like its futureproofing with its tapered headtube, whereas I'm stuck on the old school traditional set up with the Stooge.I don't see anyone putting suspension forks on a Stooge and it would compromise the handling to a degree, though it would be possible if you could find a straight steerer fork.

I know from experience that the larger fork offset works better with a sub 70 degree head angle. It's nothing new, but the idea was popularised by the Gary Fisher 29ers (who adopted it after GF had a conversation with Jeff Jones). Ibis now use it on their Ripley bike. In a nutshell, it makes a 29er feel more like a26er in the tight stuff, and it works too.

The Rooster looks cool, though a little too 'normal' for my tastes.


 
Posted : 04/04/2014 9:48 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Alive & well in Llangollen

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 20/04/2014 9:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

http://stoogecycles.co.uk/

The website is now live, at last.


 
Posted : 01/05/2014 4:40 pm
 Keef
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

really nice looking frames ! don't forget peeps,there will be one in the prize pot at SSUK2014 😉


 
Posted : 01/05/2014 7:18 pm
Posts: 762
Free Member
 

Is the email address on the website correct? I tried to email, but it bounced back. I think I typed the address correctly...


 
Posted : 01/05/2014 7:31 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

yikes, just checked out the website and the wrong e-mail address has been posted - should be andrewj.stevenson@hotmail.co.uk. I'll get this updated asap.


 
Posted : 04/05/2014 10:39 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I had a brief ride on one at the start of the WRT, very impressed ... as everyone else who had a go seemed to be.


 
Posted : 05/05/2014 7:50 am
Posts: 216
Full Member
 

I think this is exactly what I have been looking for, any photos of it in purple?


 
Posted : 06/05/2014 7:25 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 06/05/2014 10:43 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Exciting news, and good to hear from folk who have actually spent time on them, albeit short


 
Posted : 07/05/2014 10:12 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

What a great web site

Looking forward to a ride, which maybe very soon as Andy the owner thinks delivery of new frames is any day now


 
Posted : 08/05/2014 12:06 pm
Posts: 8401
Full Member
 

Can't help thinking a Ti one would also be very nice.

The only thing I'm not really convinced about is the one size fits all.


 
Posted : 08/05/2014 1:15 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Yeah, little disappointed the ETT is 23.5" (thought I had read it was going to be 24"), also the stays appear to have grown a smidge.
Still, don't think much come close to it for the price.


 
Posted : 08/05/2014 9:48 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

That's the point of this bike I think. If it works like it says, and it looks as if it should, then all's good 🙂


 
Posted : 08/05/2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

re the toptube length, it shrank a little in the wash! But in all seriousness, i', 5' 11 and i'm using a 50mm stem for it to fit nicely, turned out that the 24 was just a little too long. re the chainstay length, the frame had to be redesigned to fit the ebb, the option is still there for 16.5 stays providing you run gears.

Regarding the one size fits all - that's not really my ethos, but at this stage it's economy of scale coming into play. The frame really does build up big (100mm stem etc, builds up huge, in fact), BUT, if it proves succesfull and there's enough genuine demand then i will certainly build both larger and smaller frames as required. As it stands, the frame handles sooo well on tight, technical trails. It's been tested by riders from 5'6 to 6'2 and neither had a problem with fit.

If anyone fancies checking it out and getting sized up correctly you'll be more than welcome to come on over when i have the demo bike(s) built up. Includes free coffee!


 
Posted : 08/05/2014 10:05 pm
Posts: 8401
Full Member
 

if it proves succesfull and there's enough genuine demand then i will certainly build both larger and smaller frames

I certainly hope it does, I really like the idea, a bike that has taken on all the improvements in mountain bikes over the years barring those that require more maintenance. I'ts as simple as the first bike I bought 28 years.


 
Posted : 09/05/2014 7:15 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

The frames are (finally) arriving next wednesday (21st May). Looking forward to getting them dispatched to my first customers and seeing the results of their builds. Planning an open day in the near(ish) future with a couple of test bikes, should be fun, i'll keep you posted on here.


 
Posted : 18/05/2014 4:50 pm
Posts: 3
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Thanks Andy. Could you update on FB too as there's notifications there. Ta


 
Posted : 20/05/2014 10:27 am
Page 2 / 33