“Candyfloss & Dildos” was probably Perpetual Acrimony’s finest album, some say it was their magnum opus.

^^ And on that genuinely funny post…..I’m going to flounce out of this thread and go read about tyres or something. 😃

I’ll take the risk of being accused of ‘victim blaming’ (get a grip FFS, we are talking about a user account on a forum where idiots bicker and talk rubbish, not the right to vote), because he brought this on himself.

We all come on here and act like dicks, but he took it too far on this occasion.  He acted immorally, and without honour, which crossed a line, and unexpectedly got caught out.

virtually ensuring that he won’t use this forum again

I’ll make a leap here, and assume that this is because he either feels victimised, or guilty/ashamed. If it is the former, I’d advise he takes a good long look at his outlook on life. If it’s because he is ashamed, there is a way back. Pay back the money. Come on here, hold your hands up, show remorse, and admit you got this one wrong. Everyone makes mistakes. People might not forget, but I reckon they will forgive. Probably don’t continue to lay into On One/Brant at every opportunity though, as it will only bring it up again.

Not bad publicity stunt work going on here, refund one person with a grudge from years ago and make yourself look great to the foolish. What about all the other complaints about O-O on here, google search shows plenty about the frames and the CS.Can they all get a refund? Its a smart move to refund one guy and then make him look like a dick. I wonder if  Brant knew what was in the advert and saw gold before he made his offer?

I also wonder if Brant must have known there would be some level of uproar at his return. Isn’t he and Ex PR guy right? Its all about the marketing.

I’ve not had one of their bikes or frames, always considered them to be the crap end of the market based on all the threads here and elsewhere. However I have bought plenty of stuff from O-O/PX super cheap. It was/is a great source of not bad kit for naff all. But after this dodgy thread I can’t say I have any trust for the brand if Brant is there, it’s all got a bit of a smell about it now.

I’m also not completely convinced that this isn’t a highly elaborate decade long marketing scheme planed by Brant all along to drum up publicity.

@5plusn8 – Brant/Voldermort is a bike designer. Marketing may just be his peccadillo. I mean we’ve all got secrets

;o)

Anyway Poopscoop said I was funny, I can leave now and listen to “Candyfloss & Dildos” on my high fidelity contraption.

>Ex PR Guy

This is getting litigious now.

This is getting litigious now.

Please accept my apologies, I’ve just been told you were a bike journo, with an engineering degree, is that true? And if so is it better or worse?

Angeldust – I never said decades long plan, its just an interesting way of attracting attention to yourself. Its worked for you, you like him, it will work on lots of people. I prefer my brand loyalty to be based on track record not social media. Its personal, but I don’t like being made a fool of.

It wasn’t a reply to your post.  I was typing while you posted.

Ugh, this is STW at its absolute worst. A full pitchforks blazing witch hunt and bully session for a bloke who has, at some point (even if it is a loooong time ago), been wronged. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again, thankfully not often, but I hope robdob doesn’t let it bother him too much.

It wasn’t a reply to your post.  I was typing while you posted.

Sorry. Deleted it.

Ugh, this is STW at its absolute worst. A full pitchforks blazing witch hunt and bully session for a bloke who has, at some point (even if it is a loooong time ago), been wronged. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again, thankfully not often, but I hope robdob doesn’t let it bother him too much.

agreed, he has been wronged twice really, I can’t see how you can offer to refund someone and then go on to try and shame him for it to make yourself look better. It’s a pretty sorry tale that strikes me of someone with a fair bit of social media nous using someone else to further their own interests.

This thread has had its ups and downs, some comedy and some more serious matters. I have spoken to rob briefly in one of my earlier threads. He took it off his own back to contact exposure, explain the situation and they then emailed me, took my light, found the fault and returned it to me all foc. This was after i contacted them and they said they couldn’t help me as it was out of warranty. My only experience talking/dealing with rob was nice, and he seems like a good bloke. Can’t comment on any of this as it is not my place to.

From my personal experience of late, life is too short. Things have clearly happened and there is always 2 sides to every story. Things can get twisted and exaggerated etc. Aside from the comical value and banter which STW is renowned for, maybe brant and rob should sort this out and everyone can move on.

I don’t want any personal attacks against myself for my comments, i have enough to deal with and cope with already. This is just my opinion.

Well said Munrobiker.

I can’t see how you can offer to refund someone and then go on to try and shame him for it to make yourself look better

Because Brant made the offer to refund before he found out that robdob attempted to sell on the bike with no disclosure of the problem he had been moaning about (see link early in thread that scotroutes posted).

And the lesson here, is don’t piss off a forum favourite.

Because Brant made the offer to refund before he found out that robdob attempted to sell on the bike with no disclosure of the problem he had been moaning about

Brant posted on the original thread and commented here that the thread was still there and that he could still read it. It is hard to imagine that he did not know exactly what robdob had written.

Seriously Munrobiker? He took a refund for a bike he sold years ago and got found out, architect of his own downfall.

Seriously duckman, did you just get the pitchforks out without reading?

9 years ago robdob offered his bike for sale, Brant commented on the original thread about how to sort it out.

Robdob said clearly on this thread how he sold it at a loss, which is why Brant offered him a refund.

Or “don’t be a dick”

Brant posted on the original thread and commented here that the thread was still there and that he could still read it. It is hard to imagine that he did not know exactly what robdob had written.

Brant will have to confirm for himself (and I’m not reading back 10 pages to check FFS), but I don’t think that reflects the true order of how things happened on this thread.  Scotroutes found the old classified thread, and Brant expressed surprise on this thread when he realised robdob had not disclosed the issue (I don’t think he would have offered the cash otherwise).  Brant commented early in the 9 year old classified thread, so may not have seen the reply, or if he did, may not have remembered it from almost a decade ago.   Brant can defend himself on this if he chooses too, I cba to check back.

Hmmm this on the original chainsuck problem thread from Brant:

“Chainsuck isn’t a frame thing Rob. It’s a drivetrain thing. Sorry you and your brother are suffering.”

Followed by this from Brant on the for sale thread and lots of further admissions that there is a problem.

“I really must do something about that chainstay clearance. Oh, I forgot – I am ”
“he new 456’s and Summer Seasons landing in the next couple of days have a slight indent on that side too.”

All those customers who bought poorly designed bikes that were developed on the hoof as customers complained, and the cure is a one off £250 payment to aguy who then gets rubbished for accepting the money.

Anybody that thinks Rob is the bad guy has been fooled.

Yeah, 5+8, read the whole thread, your post above suggests you haven’t. But as you seem to think taking a FULL refund for a frame he sold without mentioning the chainsuck makes him wronged twice (as you posted above) then shall we just agree to disagree? Maybe you should report my post as bullying him, it is against forum rules after all.

I’ve had loads of On One frames over the year’s, 2 456’s one of which was an evo2 which i still regret selling and a carbon, a fatty which I still have, a fatty trail and about 5 Inbreds of various sizes and forms. Not had an issue, other than the usual paint made of cheese, with any of them.

Despite the horror stories about after sales suppoet I think they are a good company who have lost their way due to some questionable leadership decisions. Hopefully Brant’s return will help them back to what they do best, turn out great frames at great prices.

Can I put my request in for a modern geo 456 that will take 3 inch tyres please Brant. Ta.

Brant posted on the original thread and commented here that the thread was still there and that he could still read it. It is hard to imagine that he did not know exactly what robdob had written.

Its 9 bloody years ago, I google questions and find threads where I asked the question last year and forgot about it!

As for laying into on-one/PX, you managed to squeeze “always considered them to be the crap” and ” I’ve not had one of their bikes or frames” into the same scentance.

Of course people air a lot of their dirty laundry about them on here, at one point they probably accounted for (at least) every other bike on the forum, couple that with Brant being a regular forumite made getting a problem sorted via a thread pretty straightforward. Its probably a fairly big part of the reason behind the “No Pageing” rule!

Yeah.. err.

Years of banging on and on about Brant’s shit frame design and the distress it caused him, yet back when Rob was trying to sell the frame on he told the buyer that the frame had no problems that were any worse than any other frame.

I think that’s what folk are finding scandalous  (excuse the pun)

Come back Rob… this is waaay better than The Archers

Its probably a fairly big part of the reason behind the “No Pageing” rule!

Not in the slightest.

5plusn8, there are 2 threads from 9 years ago referenced on here.  One where they discuss the issue, and a classified thread where it is being sold.  You might be confusing the 2? Whole thread need reading if you have a spare hour or so……

Yunki’s got it. The frame may well have been mince, Rob may well have been cross about spending his money on a poor design, he might be fully justified in waging a 9 year crusade against On-One buuuuutttttttttttt…………

He then sold the terrible frame on without telling the buyer it was, in his opinion, scrap. He actually highlighted his issue with the frame but insisted it wasn’t a problem. STW, ebay, where ever, it was either faulty and he sold it as not or it was fine and he’s been banging on about nothing for years. Either way he comes out looking at least a little bit eggy and I expect that’s why he’s flounced.

Brant may have played a blinder, he may not but the facts still show Rob in a poor light IMO.

He acted immorally, and without honour, which crossed a line, and unexpectedly got caught out.

You’ve made your point several times, even starting a second thread about it. Are you still droning on because you’re a bully, or because you want to rim Brant?

I think he wants Brant to rim him.

Is there a third option?  If people keep missing the point, I’ll continue to correct them.  Until it stops entertaining me, or I can no longer be arsed.

You’ve made your point several times, even starting a second thread about it. Are you still droning on because you’re a bully, or because you want to rim Brant?

Just belabouring a point beyond any sense I recognise the behaviour because this is what I used to do but have tried to stop doing.  I now realise given this great example how ridiculous I looked

Leavened with a bit of bullying which I never did

Hi TJ, how was work today?

If people keep missing the point, I’ll continue to correct them.

*Swoon*

I’m blushing guys, all this attention 😍

It’s more than enough now.  Can’t we close this thread mods?

Best thread in ages.  Can’t you just avoid it if you don’t like it?  Let’s at least get a conclusion.

Let’s at least get a conclusion.

You must have came by now.