Although I think this looks ok, it’s made of chro mo 4130. Isn’t that as likely to be as heavy and strong as pig iron?
Call me a snob but I like my steel frames to be of Reynolds tubing, like my Stanton Sherpa (Reynolds 853).
Is that for the reynolds sticker or the pixie dust?
Reynolds 520/525 - 4130 (or comparable enough that you can make one tubeset that meets both spec's and then decide if you want to pay reynolds for the stickers)
Reynolds 725 - heat treated 4130
(853 is heat treated 631, which isn't 4130)
I like heavy/cheap On-One frames,
a) I don't care how battered thy get
b) They just seem to survive
c) Assuming usual On-One pricing it'll be two days of 121 coaching or a week somewhere sunny cheaper, which will make anyone faster than saving a few hundred grammes.
I've always been an On-One fan, because as an Engineer I appreciate that good designs cost no more than bad ones to build all else being equal. So on one can make frames from 4130 that are almost as good as anything from Cotic, Stanton, Chromag, etc made of higher end Reynolds/Tange/Columbus tubesets, for 1/3 the price (or less once they end up in the pricing roulette machine). And be considerably better than some badly designed bikes made from those tubesets! There's also a potential advantage in that you can specify a custom 4130 tubeset, rather than be limited to off the shelf options from a tubing brand. Which comes back to good design costing (relatively) nothing, get your custom tubeset right and you've made the bike better but not any more expensive to manufacture.
If you have 4130 in a decent design and double butted it’ll still make a decent enough frame without being wildly heavy. I had a Gary Fisher many moons ago that was out of 4130 - dB for the main frame but maybe plain gauge at the back. It wasn’t a top end frame, just a decent mid range one. I had a lot of fun on that bike.
Will On-One be getting in any similarly bargainous matching forks? X-Fusion Trace/Mcqueen?
Any ideas on availability of these new bikes and is £150 for a frame still the aim?
And are you doing the alliminium in raw and XL?
Alloy will be £150ish maybe. Perhaps a bit more. Depends on the dollar.
Steel about £100 more.
XL yes. 495 sagged reach on that.
almost as good as anything from Cotic, Stanton, Chromag, etc
None of which are bad bikes or is that the insinuation?
If you expect variable quality and absolutely piss poor customer service?, then yes you are correct.
Fortunately some brands need to cover the costs of providing decent service, the product isn't just the thing that arrives in the box.
damascus
Member
Ragley XL 19 inch? Seems small.
You have to be pretty enormous for a 19 inch seattube not to work with a 400mm post. Especially now that seat tube angles aren't all so slack that a long post puts you almost behind the rear axle.
And it's definitely looking to be balanced out by reach- old On Ones used to get taller but not much longer as you went up in sizes, if yo ulook at say the 456 Evo the small (14 inch! extra small?) had 385mm and the 20 inch had a mighty 420mm (all unsagged). So I reckon you'll get a better fitting bike all round.
(the reach seems crazy today, but the out of proportion sizes were daft even back them)
None of which are bad bikes or is that the insinuation?
Well yes that was exactly my point. The tube set and weight make probably the least impact on the frame. Even down to stuff like dropouts, on ones used to have really cheap looking plate dropouts, but they were probably lower cost with no detriment on how it rode.
If you expect variable quality and absolutely piss poor customer service?, then yes you are correct.
Fortunately some brands need to cover the costs of providing decent service, the product isn’t just the thing that arrives in the box.
Ive only ever had two problems with them. Both were solved as quickly as could reasonably be expected. A tyre that snapped the bead and was replaced there and then. A headset that wouldn't stay tight which turned out to be the stem. And they sent a set of knuckleballs FOC by way of apology for taking a couple of weeks to get to the bottom of the problem.
But then I actually phoned them up and called into the shop rather than expecting immediate answers to e-mails and going nuclear on Twitter if the customer services firstborn wasnt sacrificed to appease me by the end of lunch break.
What I obviously should have done is bring it up on every on one thread for 10 years untill Brant refunded me for something I'd already sold.
Had I not just bought a Tarn I’d have one of them (alloy or steel).
Meh at the boost. If it were non boost and in that range I'd buy one just for the nay Sayers to mock
Non boost is surely niche now weeksy? As someone with two bikes not boost even I'd say that it needs to be boost to be selling at number
Reckon? Didn't think I was that detached from it, but neither of mine are boost, I simply don't get the boost thing, I kinda hoped that was still a fad that may or may not continue
I don't get it either. I read the benefits etc but think its largely pointless. But you only have to look at new bikes to see nearly all are boost. Other than lower end models or those with swap dropouts.
Cotic - only the bfe but guess that's around having ability to upgrade from 26/650b older parts
Stanton - swapouts so both
Airdrop - boost
Bird - all boost except oldest model hardtail. Assume that'll change soon
Ragley - all boost
Nukeproof - all boost
I agree, it's probably better but is it by enough to make it worth the bother? Especially on hardtails where there's less stiffness benefit. Last achieved the same thing by offsetting the rear triangle to a boost chainline but keeping a 135 hub spacing.
I suppose a lot of people don't have drawers full of old hubs though and I'd guess that boost will be like oversized handlebars soon enough (ubiquitous). And maybe like handlebars in 10 years time travel will suddenly go up by another 100mm to finally make use of the extra stiffness!
If it is boost then surely the dropouts and axle must add quite a lot tot he cost?
Boost is just total, total horseshit. The supposed stiffness benefit won't exist with most wheelsets, the clearance/chainline for 3.0s wasn't actually needed (my standard 29er Remedy can take a 3.0, only just mind but it would only have taken a minor rear triangle tweak to get good clearance) and anyway suddenly 3.0 was uncool and it was all about the 2.6s anyway.
(if more spoke triangulation was so desperately needed, why were (and are) so many hubs built with flanges that don't maximise it? Straightpull's still cool but so many straightpull hubs are suboptimal for triangulation. And that'd be bad, if it were something worth worrying about which it's bloody not.)
But we had one of those mysterious industry wide changes that we don't get much say in, and everyone really has to follow it because now 142 and 135 are "obsolete" despite doing the job exactly as well.
The boost chainline probably does make it easier to stiffen up the triangle from the front with more metal arround the yoke. But again they could have sold us that with just offsetting the hub.
Still, it's no huge deal, ebay is full of £6 kits to space hubs out, although they look horribly easy to loose trailside.
Repurposed Gate
I like bikes with changeable rear dropouts for single speed, 142 or boost but I can't see that happening on a frame that's aiming to be £150.
I think with the money you have saved on the frame you have change to buy a hope pro 4 rear boost hub and sell your 142 hub or buy the booatinator kit.
Brant, is this a new Scandal or something else?
Any ideas when it's available ? Thanks
It says at the bottom of that page.
Bootzipper 29
Double Butted Chromoly
29in wheels
420-480mm reach
381-510mm seat tube.
Coming Summer 2019.
Imagine a Ragley TD1 with sensible walking shoes on.
Like the look of that, and the general purpose aim behind the frame. What's the rear dropout going to be? Non-boost?
Ta
the general purpose aim behind the frame.
🤔
It's for riding around on.
As it's rigid only, it's going to be non boost 29 I think.
Though I'm not 100% on that yet.
Imagine a Ragley TD1 with sensible walking shoes on.
Hmmmmm...
Does anyone do a 440mm fork with anythingcage mounts?
Hmmmmm…
Does anyone do a 440mm fork with anythingcage mounts?
I'm glad you asked that Mike. We'll be doing one. It's just I'm not sure whether to make it boost or not.
let me think this outloud.
We can make it boost at the back and people can boostinate 142s to fit.
We make a boost fork for it, and then people can run our fork and our wheels.
Or we don't boost it, and nothing really changes.
Unless it becomes very hard to buy boost wheels.
hmmm
When is the slack steel 29er likely to be available?
When is the slack steel 29er likely to be available?
I thought someone had ordered it three weeks ago, so it's going to take 3 weeks longer than I thought now.
A few months yet.
Brant, Brant, Brant
Def. not boost in either the frame or forks for the Bootzipper 29er. Sure loads of people have a spare set of non boost wheels hanging around - I no I do. Esp. if boost doesnt get you any more tyre clearance in this case. Plus you'll always be able to get non-boost hubs in 142mm as its now the road 'standard'
I think the frame needs another set of bottle cages down by the bottom bracket for bikepacking
Loved my TD1 - 475mm reach on a large would be awesome and bring it up to date!! And as its wearing sensible shoes and nice long headtube to increase the stack with the shorter forks
Clearance for 2.4/2.5 would be lovely
I think the frame needs another set of bottle cages down by the bottom bracket for bikepacking
It's got them.
Clearance for 2.4/2.5 would be lovely
It has
Def. not boost in either the frame or forks for the Bootzipper 29er. Sure loads of people have a spare set of non boost wheels hanging around – I no I do. Esp. if boost doesnt get you any more tyre clearance in this case. Plus you’ll always be able to get non-boost hubs in 142mm as its now the road ‘standard’
Dunno. We're doing a 650/700c one too. That's definitely 142. It's just that I want to build bikes, and for that, maybe 148 is better. Hmm.
Will decide tomorrow.
Sounding better and better Brant 👍
Just make it nice and long with a decent stack. As 440mm is short and were all quite a bit older than when we rode the original TD1?🤣
Zingy thin wall steel so it sings like the old version
Although I think this looks ok, it’s made of chro mo 4130. Isn’t that as likely to be as heavy and strong as pig iron?
Call me a snob but I like my steel frames to be of Reynolds tubing, like my Stanton Sherpa (Reynolds 853).
4130 is the same density as pig Iron and 853. But 4130 is stronger than Pig Iron but less strong than 4130
Using stronger steel for the same tube cross sections makes the bike lighter and more flexible. Using the same tube thickness it weighs the same and has the same stiffnees but is stronger in say a crash
I think we can assume that this is 4130 will be cheaper than Stanton Sherpa
PS they could charge £5 more and put a Reynolds 520 sticker on it, would that hel?
Dagnam that Bootzipper looks noice.
Brant, please go wild with the colours - don't listen to these charlatans with their love of dark blue or dark green, or, tut, black.
Still got my bright pink Inbred SS. Pink FTW.
RAL 6022 Olive drab for the win
It’s just that I want to build bikes, and for that, maybe 148 is better. Hmm.
Can you expand on that thought a little?
I think we can assume that this is 4130 will be cheaper than Stanton Sherpa
It would be interesting to know how much difference there is in the raw material price. You can pay almost anything you want for a 520/525/725/631/823 frame from different manufacturers to the point I'm convinced it can't account for the bulk of the difference in rrp. Maybe as a marketing thing but not simply material costs.
Can you expand on that thought a little?
Need to buy wheel sets.
Brant, please go wild with the colours – don’t listen to these charlatans with their love of dark blue or dark green, or, tut, black
Nah, no colour..... Put me down for a slack 29er frame in Raw, just a subtle clearcoat..... Not all of us like shiny bling bikes.
The new [insert name here] looks just what I'm after. Except for the boost bit. Please don't do that Brant, or at least offer a non-boost version so that decent kit that just doesn't happen to be fashionable can be kept going!
And agreed on the raw finish. Please do do that.
Thank you. Please.
Non boost for me, colour I don't care, I'll have one of them.
Raw is fine with me
Need to buy wheel sets.
Hope I'm not prying too much into insider stuff that you don't want to reveal (do say, if so) but is boost that much of a benefit when buying wheelsets! The parts at retail still seem to carry a premium over non boost, for instance
If you want to experiment, I'd go for a set of those forks in non-boost and about 490mm a-c. Much nicer looking than what's out there at the moment.
cromolyolly
It would be interesting to know how much difference there is in the raw material price
It won't just be material costs, though. Some of these are also harder to work with. They're also just used less which means less expertise out there to do things for you. And I suspect that to get the best out of them- and why do it, if you don't plan to- then you need to sweat the design a lot more which probably means more actual prototypes which is time and money
Also frankly people will have higher expectations of magic steel. Not all of those will be reasonable, or even realistic, or really based in fact at all but still. If you buy a cromo frame and the finish turns out to be weak, or every ride doesn't inspire you to write poetry, you're less likely to lose your shit about it than if you bought an 853 ego chariot.
In very much with the non boost argument too.
Loads of well priced (new/ used) non boost stuff around making the build a great value/budget option.... Though a bling build is still an option of course!
Shouldn't boost be quite replacable-dropoutable? Which is something On One have a bit of history with, even if they kind of sucked at it.
It won’t just be material costs, though
Yes, Fair point. Although I'd have thought that given there is a relatively small number of frame makers in Taiwan, they must be pretty experienced at cranking out just about any material you care to mention. Plus their production engineering types must be able to give good advice. All the other costs would be spread across the product run so wouldn't add up to a huge amount per unit - I'd guess we were talking 10s of pounds per unit not 100s.
Your last point is very likely the biggest cost. Which I tend to lump in with marketing. Use a higher grade because it's more marketable (to a certain segment) so you can mark up a bigger margin, but using the higher grade puts up your cost so you have to markup even more to maintain the margin.
All the other costs would be spread across the product run so wouldn’t add up to a huge amount per unit – I’d guess we were talking 10s of pounds per unit not 100s.
About 15 years ago, I got talking to an American guy who had a small company selling hardtails that his partner in Eastern Europe produced. His aluminium frames were in the $1000 range, IIRC, but he reckoned that Giant could produce an aluminium frame for about $50. Obviously, that will vary a lot because the lightweight aluminium frames will be trickier to weld and heat-treat and carbon frames will require a lot of labour, but his point was that having a high-tech factory set up to churn out millions of frames makes it impossible for small volume makers to compete on price because of labour costs.
I don't like to say it but I really can't see a good reason to not go boost on a frame these days. Same as most of the nay sayers I've got a garage full of non boost wheels but, making them "boost" is a few pounds of adapter, you can't do that the other way around. Boost is here and current ish, non-boost is old hat, offers no benefit over boost and unlike 148 does limit your choices.
