Surprised the new “Shed Fire” frame isn’t being ooh-ed and aah-ed over

And when will we be able to get a steel/aluminium frame without a 6-months-long delay? Will you give us a decent price (us, as in “those who have bought an on-one and raved about your genius 😉 “)?

i imagine that most of the Qs about why things are different on the frame can be answered in one word – cost

Not really.

That chainstay plate is tremendously expensive, as are the dropouts. Mark Lynskey offered me a 15% cheaper frame if I used their house dropouts and a conventional chainstay design.

Though, yes, my rivnut cable guide save a bunch of cash (which let me do fancy things with the chainstay and dropout and get it out for the same sort of cost price).

And when will we be able to get a steel/aluminium frame without a 6-months-long delay? Will you give us a decent price (us, as in “those who have bought an on-one and raved about your genius “)?

Everything has gone up in price, but the steel frame is heading off to SGS for CEN testing this week, and the alloy hardtail next week.

Pricing for those is very competitive.

We’re looking at production Mid May (chromo), Mid june (alloy)

Are these Lynskey made and do we have a ballpark price range yet?

I keep looking at the houseblend 29er they are doing and reckon they will come in at a good price when they are imported, will this be cheaper/better?

The Ridgelines are great frames. I expect to have these on for a very similar sort of price.

To confirm – yes – the ti frame here is Lynskey made.

Brant, good news about the production. What about the stock and availability? Can I book a frame for late June please? Ok, mid-July then? 16″ please.
BTW Will you be offering a singlespeed by any chance?
Competetive pricing, are we talking prices for the jobless OR prices for the potential-Cove-buyers?

Ok, fair enough, good to get some quick answers!

I do like the chainstay bit, actually. Althoug I’d imagine it would be a tricky little sod to clean.

I really don’t like that plate. If it had a little cut-out, it might look better, but a nice little tube would be cuter. and give you something to clip a mudguard onto. I’m assuming the little holes on the dropout plates are for guards? Mind, there’d also be nowt at the chainstay/bb area. I don’t spose you’re too fussed on full mudguards being used, mind.

And the cable guides; again, looks like a cheap solution (actually it is!). I much prefer proper welded on ones. I woon’t want to worry one of me cable guides might fall out, mid ride, be lost forever in the mud, and leave me with a brake hose flapping around…

Convention’s good, Brant. Convention often equals ‘it works fine, no need to mess about’.

That little plate; looks like a good place for rust to develop, on a steel frame.

And a rearward-facing seat clamp slot? On a British-designed frame??? 😯

Hope you find these comments constructive, btw. Looks like a nice frame, other than my own personal little niggles.

And Praise Be, that all the main tubes are straight! Bent tubes just look, well, bent.

Hard to tell from the photo, but does that plate actually increase chainring clearance – as I suppose is intended

(It seems to protrude a bit, or is that well behind the rings?)

I thought the frame photo was actually a 3D computer rendering at first. The joins just look so smooth, almost flow tubes together.

I like the look Brant.

I’m amazed how hard it is for people to accept that you have moved on and that th new venture is totally seperate from On-One.

All the best and I shall keep my eys peeled for further developments. Looking forward to the day I have a job again and can conside my next bike purchase.

Cheers

Andy S

No bends in the seat stays to give it any shock absorption either 😉

I like the disc mount placement- presumably there is enough room in there for folks who like big discs?

And a rearward-facing seat clamp slot?

The only seat tube slot failures I’ve seen are from front-positioned slots. There is more material and just compressive stress on the back. I am not convinced there’s any advantages to front mounted slots.

We are not looking for mudguard compatibility on this frame.

If you want “conventional” frames, there are plenty around. I don’t seek to make frames for everyone. But I believe very strongly in the ones I do make.

Hard to tell from the photo, but does that plate actually increase chainring clearance – as I suppose is intended

HUGE chainring clearance. HUGE mud clearance.

I like the disc mount placement- presumably there is enough room in there for folks who like big discs?

Oh yes. Though I’ve still not found a point to anything bigger than 160mm in the back.

I woon’t want to worry one of me cable guides might fall out, mid ride, be lost forever in the mud, and leave me with a brake hose flapping around…

Far less chance with this design, with a nice P clip and a bolt, vs an easily (frequently broken) zip tie and a standard guide. Other option is solid O guides, which then you have to split your hoses to get ’em fitted.

Looks good. What you got for the fat lads. I’m getting jealous of Ton. Starting to think that he’s going to get something that’ll make me green.

Far less chance with this design, with a nice P clip and a bolt, vs an easily (frequently broken) zip tie and a standard guide.

Bolt falls out, lost forever in mud, hose flapping around, possibly getting dragged into wheel, and ripping out of caliper…

..Vs carry a couple of spare zip-ties?

What about C-shaped guides, and a zip-tie? Belt-n-braces approach?

As for ‘convention’, I think new ideas are often tried out, just to be ‘different’, rather than giving any advantage.

Very simple, conventional and understated, yet utterly desirable:

Rudeboy, a threaded bolt with a hose through it isn’t going to be able to turn enough times to come out. I’d be more concerned about the important stuff to my bike that’s bolted on to be honest.

Bolt falls out, lost forever in mud, hose flapping around, possibly getting dragged into wheel, and ripping out of caliper…

So carry a couple of spare zip ties to wrap around the tube. We all carry zip ties don’t we?

Ed tells me to NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT THEM[/url].

As for ‘convention’, I think new ideas are tried out, just to be ‘different’, rather than giving any advantage.

No you don’t. You’re taking an obtuse point to try to liven up a discussion.

Very simple, conventional and understated, yet utterly desirable:

Not my thing at all, but the great thing is there’s bikes out there for everyone.

xx

As for ‘convention’, I think new ideas are tried out, just to be ‘different’, rather than giving any advantage.

Given there’s really pretty much zero difference between one hardtail and another given the same geometry, that’s pretty much inevitable. Though to be fair to Brant he has introduced some geometry innovations.

No, I’m not trying to be difficult, just trying to give my views. As someone who deals with stuff on a visual level, I’m just trying to offer my aesthetic point of view.

Some alternative seatstay bridge designs:

Just to throw into the melting pot, like.

As I’ve said, I like the chainstay bit. That’s a kind of ‘signature’ feature. The kind of thing I’d look for, on a bike frame, that sets it apart from others.

I’m sure that plate bit is perfectly functional and that, but imo, it looks cheap.

All those bridges look tacky compared to the Brant’s effort (in my opinion).

Fair enough. Good thing we all have diverse aesthetic values, otherwise things would be boring, eh?

Bolt falls out, lost forever in mud, hose flapping around, possibly getting dragged into wheel, and ripping out of caliper…

How often do bolts just fall out? I would be far more worried about them falling off other parts of my bike than the cable guides….and if you’re that worried about it just put some threadlock on the bolts….

Hmm. Nicely made, sweetly designed, and available in a choice of frame materials. Nice one Brant.

Is that the only bike to be available the same in three materials?

Oh and what length fork is it designed for? Please say 130mm then I can get one and re-use my existing Paces 🙂

Hang on a minute, Brant did you just write:

The Ti456 continues, as far as I know, but as I didn’t even design (or redesign) that, and with it being such a part of the on-one character, I left it there. It’s also really expensive to make.

Now I’m confused, if you didn’t design it, then who did? I always assumed it was one of yours….

I think he means the wishbone stay arrangement.

marketing is a wonderful thing, is it not? i also like Brants shonky website, disgusing the fact its all owned by the seemingly global-mega-corp of CRC.

If your not using seat-stay mounted brakes, do you need a seat-stay brace/bridge thingy?

If your not using seat-stay mounted brakes, do you need a seat-stay brace/bridge thingy?

Not really. As I say, G, it’s largely there as a throw back for something to mount (your) mudguards on.

I just put the plate at the top to add some extra weld area/stability in there.

I think he means the wishbone stay arrangement.

You’re right.

i also like Brants shonky website, disgusing the fact its all owned by the seemingly global-mega-corp of CRC.

No. It’s owned by Shedfire. Which is owned by me and the Mrs.

Oh and what length fork is it designed for?

Nominally 140’s.

Talking of aesthetics, that’s a nice clean looking frame, but how about routing ALL the cables on the downtube?
That keeps them all together and you don’t get one running on a seatstay, and the other on a chainstay. The rear mech cable would also mostly disappear under a wrap-round protector. Then the bolt-on cable guides would work better, you’d need less of them, and they’d be neater. I’m nicking this idea from my Pitch, which also has bolt-on guides: The 3 cables are secured very neatly with a sort of ‘triple n’ shaped guide which traps them to the down tube with the screw in the centre, rather than a P clip which will look rather lop-sided. It really is very neat.
🙂

(EDIT – Also, if you were cunning, you could space the top 2 guides exactly right to mount a Crud Catcher to, on top of the cables….)

(2nd EDIT – And also like this you can place the cables where you like as you build the bike then cross them over under the BB if necessary, which means the cables are not touching the frame at the headtube, no matter which side they come from)

brant – where can i find the angles and lengths for comparison ?

I saw a Specialized something or other the other day – when I was marshalling at Hit The North. Noticed the bolt on cable guides. Made me chuckle.

However, putting any holes on the underside of the downtube would inevitably lead to a premature fatigue failure, and I’m not a fan of either chainstay routed rear mech cables, or BB routed front mechs.

brant – where can i find the angles and lengths for comparison ?

you can’t yet.

I saw a Specialized something or other the other day – when I was marshalling at Hit The North. Noticed the bolt on cable guides. Made me chuckle.

Yeah, that’s what mine is. They work really well. But looking at yours, the rear brake hose must run on the downtube? So the holes are already there?

So the holes are already there?

One bolt hole on the side of the DT near the HT, then cable routes via the bottle boss lower mount, then onto the chainstay. I think that’s how I did it!

We’ll fettle it when it gets here (need another hole in pre-production model? Drill it!) but the key to longevity is to only put holes on the neutral axis in highly stressed areas. Crud Catcher bosses are a recipe for disaster IME.

One bolt hole on the side of the DT near the HT, then cable routes via the bottle boss lower mount, then onto the chainstay. I think that’s how I did it!

OK, fairy nuff, sounds reasonable.
🙂

Have you ever seen a crud catcher boss fail, then?

A couple of points if I may.

The rear mech cable looks like it will be a bit flappy, maybe another guide hole needed by the seat tube?

Lynskey must be confident in their construction methods as the way that seat stays join the drop-outs looks like one hell of a stress raiser.