Please, please, please stop posting photos of the Stooge, I may not be able to resist much longer
Stooge Cycles - who's interested? (slack 29er content)
I've bought some brakes 'just in case' I can't resist
Placid, that looks awesome but you have your tyres the wrong way round!
Post some more, please, just as soon as you're ready.
What's the timescale for ones with a normal BB?
The first 100 frames all have EBB. If they sell and there's a second run, i'll probably do 50/50.
Clink, your new brakes need a home.
Clink, your new brakes need a home.
Very nice! Any ride reports...?
3 decent rides in now and am getting a very nice flow with it
The front is incredibly light... yet well planted
The bike is responsive for sure and quickly forms a how far you going to go type of relationship. Very nearly came unstuck having too much fun today
It does everything you need it to. Climbs, mashing is great of course, and honks it down rollercoaster stylee
Fat front Stooge looking hot
^ proper looking machine
What's the tyre clearance with this framset; i.e. can you fit 29+ rims and 3" tyres front and back as well?
Looks great by the way
All looking great.
The BIG question (at least for me!) is has anybody yet ridden a Stooge and a Jones to compare?
The shorter fork on the Jones, IMO, is what makes it so brilliant over rough ground, so precise. Although a different beast the Ragley TD1 was also great due to the shorter axle to crown on the fork - much more stiff, less flutter. On the other hand I couldn't get on with the Jones climbing out of the saddle ss on Jones bars - bars always felt too close to my body.
Why do you need to compare?
The Jones geo does give a short cockpit, especially when standing climbing
Martin has both now, though i'm not sure he's on here.
Re the 29+ rear end, no it won't, but it will take a wide rim with a 2.4 or 2.5 rear tyre with plenty of room to spare. There's a reason behind this, and that's short stays. I wanted the Stooge to have a light front end that can be placed anywhere at any time, 29+ doesn't really lend itself to this due to the need for longer stays.
Also, The Knard is a brilliant front tyre for absorbing trail chatter. I don't think this is anywhere near as important on the back and prefer a lighter, tighter tyre to aid acceleration.
I guess this is just my take on it. I designed the bike having ridden loads of rigid bikes over the years, all of which felt wrong in some way, shape or form. For me, the Stooge feels absolutely perfect. i can ride down anything i want and at any speed and it inspires nothing but confidence. I've not ridden a Jones so couldn't compare, but the Stooge is longer and slacker, albeit slightly.
All i really wanted to do was bring a fast and fun rigid bike into existence at a price that isn't prohibitive, that allows people to discover that a simple bike with great geometry is a genuine option.
Old trails become new trails, your skill levels go through the roof, and no more wasting hundreds of pounds on new Fox sliders because you forgot to service them every 30 hours
Best ride yet yesterday. What can I say except the bike and rider are getting more synergised
The riding is getting more comfortably quick, easier to get round/over stuff etc etc...
The bike is doing exactly what I was hoping for, and more. It is a lot more fun than I had imagined it would be. While it does the bump absorption stuff admirably while still being a rigid, has a beautifully weighted front and overall benign balance.
It is as comfortable as any other bike inc dare I say a full suss (for my woods riding, hilly terrain), but what is continuing to make my smile grow wider each ride is the fun factor.
It really is staggering what a rigid bike can do
All as the above and more
Re the fork length, i designed them this height because i wanted the front end to be tall. If i'd used a regular fork the headtube would have appreared too long, i think.
I'm interested to know peoples views on rigid forks. My take is that a bit of flex is a benefit for comfort and ride qaulity. The whole idea behind a 'fork' is that it provides a little spring to the ride, isn't it?
In other words why 'design out' the inherent spring benefit of steel?
Thanks for the replies chaps.
Now with Mary Bars
Do you want to borrow a loop bar to try on it?
In my opinion, experience, the benefit of a rigid fork, is the rigidity. You don't want it to flex at all if possible. This will give the most precise, direct handling characteristics - the main benefit of a rigid fork. Comfort comes from the tyres, 3" Knards, or even better a 4.8" tyre.
A new rear option may be a 650B wheel with a 2.8" tyre. I'd like to see a frame with slider/swinger dropouts to take 29+ and 29er wheels and have short chainstays.
The Jones, by the look of it, also has a lower bottom bracket.
I'am new on this forum. Dutch and VERY interested in this Stooge 29er......close to push the "order button"
I am just under 6'1" .
Interesting why you put a Marybar now? (would be my idea too) and at what length of stem ?
I see you are running a Knard upfront, at what internal rimsize ?
I have a Karate Monkey and its shortest chainstay position is very similar to the Stooge.
I have found it difficult to keep the frontwheel down on steeper (granny) climbs. Sliding it 14mm back to 445mm (using so called "monkeynuts" in the sliding dropouts) improved that very much. How about the Stooge?
Hi monkey, and welcome
I'm trying the Mary bar soley on a recommendation from Mr Stooge. I have to say so far it's lasted one ride. More on that later. 90 stem. Bit more on bars here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/difference-between-mary-bars-and-jones-h-bars/page/2#post-6088041
Knard is on a Stans Flow at 25.5mm internal width. Went up tubeless first time and so far performing well at ~18psi. May try a little lower, say ~15
Climbing seems OK. Mind you, I did a last season's mostly worn out Racing Ralph (2.4). It's pretty good considering, but in the wet woods does slip and clag up, so halts progress temporarily
I run a Marybar on a rigid Karate Monkey same TT, same 90mm stem. I love them on a rigid bike, great for singlespeed too. Gives you more flexibility on your wrists and arms if it gets rough on a rigid bike.
I was just wondering how it worked on a Stooge, if you compare them to a "standard" wide bar.
I have quite narrow rims (internal 19mm), probably that too narrow for a Knard. Flow seems to be within limit.
Tip: Onone Smorgasboard is great in muddy, wet conditions. Quite heavy but amazing traction and rolls quite well.
Great to see your ride reports on the Stooge !
The 'inspirational' Stooge...
Keep Pedalling in Manchester are now a Stooge stockist and have a demo bike, should anyone wish to try one out.
Charlie the Bikemonger is also on board and will be holding frames in stock as of next week. Charlie has strong legs, he snapped the chain on my test bike halfway up the first hill, either that or it was Sram's fault for making chains from toffee. Anyway, the sport of chainless downhilling was resurrected for a day. All good.
Any more pics (especially of purple or singlespeed ones)?
Also interested to hear how it works with the loop bars or similar...
bike works great with Jones bars, though my personal fave is the Salsa 23 degree. Here's a photo of my latest build with Dually rims and fat tyres. Unbelievably capable machine that dares you to launch yourself of anything.
oooo Very interested in this.
Have been riding a Scandal 29er with 2.4's and 100mm sus fork for a while. But have been lusting after a simple, beautiful but capable machine for a while. Not found the right one until now.
I have never ridden rigid of road in anger. So one question I keep coming back to is, Rock Gardens.
How do rigid bikes and specifically this Stooge with 29+ tyres fair? For instance I feel I can ride my 100mm forked 29er with 2.4s through a local rock garden quicker than a 26'' 5'' trail bike I used to have....
am interested to know peoples views on rigid forks. My take is that a bit of flex is a benefit for comfort and ride qaulity. The whole idea behind a 'fork' is that it provides a little spring to the ride, isn't it?
Andrew, I hope this helps, mainly because a key reason I didn't buy a Stooge was it is rigid only. (This is not idle talk, I just bought a very similar & quite expensive US frame that can take sus forks).
my take on forks, all from experience. mostly I ride Surrey Hills, XC and trails:
* '2 tubes' style carbon forks are quite twangy (fore and aft style), I didn't notice much damping
* I had some Niner carbon forks, very stiff but again I found them too harsh
* I rode some steel Swift forks for a while, on a Swift frame. Felt a little gentler but the bloody things weigh so much there is near no weight advantage over sus forks.
* some people think rigid and SS are natural bedfellows, I ride my trail bikes SS a lot and actually find sus forks work well both up and down. (On the ups they help stop the bike getting hung up on trail crap).
* sure one can put a big rim and tyre on the front, but then you're getting a bike that takes an awful lot of effort to get up to steam. OK for Clydesdales but I'm a middling sized (and age and fitness) guy, I don't need the handicap.
Mucho 'spec to you for keeping to and executing your vision, obviously this is only 1 person's view and I hope to buy a Stooge one day, I'm on your side, but not for now.
rock gardens? Pedal like hell and try and clear them all!
But seriously, there are certain types of terrain that will never be suitable for fully rigid, but then there's a whole lot more (like most trail centres) that will allow you to totally rip. It's a different kind of ride, a lot more technically demanding and ditto a whole lot more rewarding.
Mattjq, cheers for your words. It's a little known fact the Stooge will take 100mm forks very happily. I call it rigid specific because i recommend it's ridden as is, but the forks are tall to get the front nice and high. The biggest problem would be finding nice suspension forks with an 1 1/8 straight steerer these days.
You must log in to post.