Stooge Cycles – who's interested? (slack 29er content)
futon river crossing – Member
Looks great! Lovely colour. Don’t need another rigid 29er, but if I did, and couldn’t afford a Jones, this would be right up there.
The Stooge seems very much in the flavour of the Jones – no bad thing
One thing is the Stooge CS is shorter. Enough to make a difference I would sayPosted 4 years agomick_rSubscriber
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 4 years ago
[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! ]
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 4 years agosinglespeedstuSubscriber
I think you’re missing a trick by not making the fork compatible with 29, 29+ and 26 fat.Posted 4 years ago
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?
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 4 years agotakisawa2Subscriber
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.avdave2Member
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 4 years agosinglespeedstuSubscriber
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.Posted 4 years ago
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. 🙂mattjgSubscriber
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 4 years agojupiterMember
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, 1×10 gears, goldtec hubs and some nice wide and light rims. It seems either this or the Singular Rooster, choices, choices.Posted 4 years agoDaveyBoyWonderMember
Clicked on this out of idle curiosity.Posted 4 years ago
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.
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 3 years ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.