The new On-One Jones...
An On One Mixte?
[img] 
[/img]
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
[img] 
[/img]
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.Would be nice if it was 953, I know Cotic tried it but they just snap apparently
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")
[img] 
[/img]
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 [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stooge-cycles-whos-interested-slack-29er-content#post-5740626 ]this thread[/url] 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:
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.
[quote=thepurist ]It'll be a really interesting test of "vertical compliance".
Laterally stiff though?
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)[url= http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxMjAw/z/LXkAAOSwq5lToGAu/$_57.JP G" target="_blank">http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxMjAw/z/LXkAAOSwq5lToGAu/$_57.JP G"/> [/img][/url]
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.
If the chainstays do not connect to the seat tube (I initially thought that was how the Jones was designed) I predict a lot of twist in the rear wheel, you may get some vertical flex but a lot of torsional flex too. Ok I'm no engineer - so it's just an opinion 🙂 ! Goes and has a look at a real Spaceframe - the three top tube/extended seat stays are all connected to form a virtual tube that has quite a large diameter, which provides the lateral stiffness. The curved centre tube allows for some (small) flex in the seat tube, which is aided by having a long flexible 27.2mm seatpost, presumably the chainstay flex comes from having a ver shallow triangle and curved ends to the seat stays, plus the flattened areas, regardless - it does flex, you can see it on the vid on Jeff's blog. Also, in the video - you can see some unwanted lateral flex (nothing's perfect!) in the seat tube - so it's possible your design would have more flex, be interesting to see how it rides!! 😉
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.
There's a lot of flex in the post + ST area when seated but stood up the whole frame seems to work as a sort of leaf spring. You can feel it when landing, ride a diamond frame off the same stuff and it feels quite different. It makes sense when looking at it side on, remembering how rigid the fork is and not thinking of flex as coming from just the rear triangle (not meant as egg sucking as I know you'd recognise that a lot of frame flex/comfort that is perceived as 'rear compliance' is front end give).
But if you put a 12PSI 650x3.3" tyre in the back of a space frame I'm not sure if there would be much frame flex, as far as I understand it's why Jeff doesn't sell a fat space frame, although there's pics of one he did make ages ago somewhere.
(you all knew I couldn't not chip in on the Jones aspect eh)
I can see how this idea could work differently, more seated flex, if the rear end's not affected too much by not attaching stays and ST. May as well try it. I cut a 1" section out of an old hardtails stays once to see how it flexed, and rode- briefly..
I can see how this idea could work differently, more seated flex, if the rear end's not affected too much by not attaching stays and ST. May as well try it. I cut a 1" section out of a hardtail stays once to see how it flexed, and rode- briefly..
Maybe I should get more bracing added, then cut it out.
The RC51 of pushbikes.
I want the return of "mega oversized tubing", ALA the era of the 'freemans catalogue bike'!
DrP
I did edit that to say 'an old' hardtail! - it was a scrapper and sometimes you just want to know.
People think that a Jones is just a bunch of whacky curved tubing, dismissed as an explosion in a spaghetti factory, but it's all there for a purpose, it really is laterally stiff, no buzz from rear tyres, and the vertical flex is there too.
Jeff's fat bike was based on a diamond frame IIRC.
Brant's new frame, but he won't say what it is yet.
[jumps up and down waving hands in air]
I know what it is. I've got one that looks just like it in the shed but mines black. I've still got the stickers if you want them Brant?
😈
^is that Michael Stipe of REM accepting a music award?
I'm just chuffed that a comment I made has helped result in this frame.
You can all carry on discussing it now 🙂
The answer to your question Waswas, is that if they're not welded to the seat tube, the bike will (probably) handle like a wet noodle 😉 we'll see I suppose.
Take the toptube out, straighten that seat tube, and it's Brant's homage to Torker/Haro Bmx bikes from the early 80's?
Torker 280x anyone? With a Redline flite crank, some Araya 7x, CW Pro Bars and a pair of Dia Compe mx1000's?
If only I stil had it ...
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Are Planet X or on one run from the box room of brants mums house.
Is that why he uses this forum for advertising, customer service, exactly how tin pot is his business.
Anyone else who uses this forum to promote there business quickly gets there head bitten off , yet he continually gets free reign to use this site as a marketing tool.
I hope he kicks a few spons to the mods by the way of thanks for propping up his business.
^^ Don't feed the troll ^^
Oh, and [i]their[/i] not [i]there/[/i].
Not trolling, just an observation..
[i]he continually gets free reign[/i]
that's right, he's the king of this site and doesn't have to pay for the privilege.
Brant isn't the only trade person to post on here, he follows the rules on astroturfing and, from what I've seen, provides a good back on customer service for P-X (he did for me anyway).
Other than that, not rising to the bait.
I do hope we get a ride report on here - I'd love to know if the stays do act as a bigger spring without introducing noodliness.
Are Planet X or on one run from the box room of brants mums house.
Is that why he uses this forum for advertising, customer service, exactly how tin pot is his business.
Anyone else who uses this forum to promote there business quickly gets there head bitten off , yet he continually gets free reign to use this site as a marketing tool.
I remember that feeling, it was quite painful 🙂
I do hope we get a ride report on here - I'd love to know if the stays do act as a bigger spring without introducing noodliness.
I am sure you will. 😀
I can't wait.
I wish Specialized and Trek were so open about their development process.
A bit of feedback from here about introducing a 148mm rear hub 'standard' because "135 is too narrow for 29er wheels" whilst doing nothing about the 100mm front "it's too complicated to change it" might have altered Trek's priorities?
Isn't this entire thread about a bike you can't buy, made at their expense as an indulgent muse about how bikes wobble?
Hardly a full page advert is it? And no, he/his employers aren't the only ones and I for one am glad the manufacturers/others show up. Little more incentive to provide some level of customer service.
not trolling
Your missing the fact your not a fanboy that's all, you will soon learn to get wedged up some buddy buddies arse just to be one of the cool kids.
Brant didn't start the thread. So far he seems to have contributed something of interest, which is more than can be said of others... 🙄
Maybe I should get more bracing added, then cut it out.
You could add some reasonably long bracing plates between the two seat stays at a couple of points to help them work together as one beam in side loading and provided you didn't connect it to the main frame anywhere but the headtube and where it crosses the main top tube it wouldn't have any real affect on the vertical stiffness.
As mentioned above, I strongly suspect that the flex in the Jones rear end is critically dependent on the vertical bend in the seat stays to take away a lot of the compression stiffness of the stays. I don't know what your stays do out of shot but if they aren't curved it'll not move too much I suspect.
^ that would certainly help! I reckon it would still twist too much though. Proof/pudding etc.
Did anyone ever get to ride this?
*Sadface* that we may never get to see it.
Would have ridden like a wet noodle. Happy to be proven wrong though.
Gopping
Indeed, one might even call it an [i]ugly[/i] word...Just one of the worst words.
*Sadface* that we may never get to see it.
Aye, maybe. Wasn't Brant responsible for all those slightly odd Ragleys (Bagger 288 etc)?
Brant - if you're looking for volunteers, I'm in Bradford and perhaps Hebden on Sat 🙂
That frame is left in the more than capable hands of the design team at Planet X.
I'm in Berwick, having been bodyboarding at Bamburgh this afternoon and riding at Innerleithen this evening 🙂
Checking out some alpacas tomorrow.