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

OK, fairy nuff

Urgh, its actually ‘furry muff’ 🙄

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

One on the side of the top tube, near the head tube, then two more under the top 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.

1/4in thick Ti sheet. It’s fine.

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

I’ve seen frames fail from stress propagated from crud catcher bosses, yes.

No, it’s Fairy Nuff. She has a wand and little wings and everything.
Keep your furry muffs out of this please.

😉

I’ve seen frames fail from stress propagated from crud catcher bosses, yes.

Glad I didn’t get them put on my 853 Inbred when it was at t’menders then!
🙂

Hmmm, those cable guides should look quite neat and with the first guide being on the side of the top-tube should stop any excessive cable rub.

It reminds me of one of your earlier creations, I think it was called Compo.

is the HT noticeably short on this new design ?

is the HT noticeably short on this new design ?

115mm on 16 and 18in

what clips are you using for the cables? with the position of the hole on the chainstay wont p-style clips hold the cable either into the tyre or into the crank?

Looks nice tho, apart from the chainstay bridge = cheapsville!

How about sending one to me in Tassie for testing. I’m sure it’ll handle differently down here 😉
Honestly, I will buy one since it’s designed for a proper fork with no slidey drop out nonsense.

what clips are you using for the cables? with the position of the hole on the chainstay wont p-style clips hold the cable either into the tyre or into the crank?

That exact thing occurred to me last night Stato.
But hey – that’s what pre-production samples are for 🙂

What are the hats you planning Brant? Its about time someone came up with a decent crash helmet without it being a fortune. (one of my pet rants)

what about modding one of these?

(that site also sells seatstay bridges if your intereseted ;0)

OOps might have taken the hats comment a little too literally, hadnt noticed the tongue in cheek about the dried meat products!!! 😳

what clips are you using for the cables? with the position of the hole on the chainstay wont p-style clips hold the cable either into the tyre or into the crank?

That exact thing occurred to me last night Stato.
But hey – that’s what pre-production samples are for

Fancy drop outs at the expense of proper cable routing? Sounds about right….

😕

It’s nt entirely my cup of tea but it does look subtley different…no doubt given that, Brant’s reputation and some keen pricing it will sell.

The principle of non-fixed cable/house guides doesn’t bother me, but P clips do sound like a particularly abominable execution of the idea…

Fancy drop outs at the expense of proper cable routing? Sounds about right….

Its a shame he didn’t prototype it first eh 😉

will the steel version come in white?

100 – what’s the top tube length then ?

23, 23.5, 24in on the 16, 18, 20in model.
Seat angle is 73, 73.5 or 74deg on 16, 18, 20. Which is backwards to how it’s normally done on road bikes (ie: getting steeper as you get larger), but it keeps the rider centred better and the weight off the rear wheel, meaning it’ll climb better. Also makes the difference in tt length more than just the top tube length (as the seat angle “pushes” the front end forwards on the larger frame.

I like the overall idea and neither the BB plate or the seatstay brace bother me. Quite like ’em in fact. Nice clean lines, and could be a lot of fun to ride.

Cable routing via P-clips and rivnuts on a ti frame that isn’t going to be cheap by any sense of the word? Just. No. That would be an absolute deal breaker. It’d be OK on a £200 gas pipe steel frame, but not on an expensive one. Not a fan of rivnuts anyway – they always seem to work loose and rattle. I’d rather have welded in bosses. I’d also slightly prefer the brake hose to route under the seatstay rather than sit on the chainstay. Most (all?) brake calipers would allow the banjo to point in the right direction to allow the hose to take a neat, tightish curve up to the s/stay.

The dropout design is nice, but a) no replaceable hanger????? and b) not a fan of the method of joining them onto the stays – would rather they were notched in. The bent end looks a bit agricultural. Caliper inside the stays is nice though.

Geometry is obviously the important thing. 67° ha, what about s/a, TT length and chainstay length?

I guess most of my -ve comments are cost derived, but if I’m going to drop a large wedge on a frame, I’d rather spend a bit more and have it *right*, than a bit less and have it compromised.

Brant, any future plans for 14″ for the little people?

no replaceable hanger?????

what, exactly, are you planning to do to break plate titanium? I’m sure your rear mech would catastrophically fail first.

Yep, steel to Ti don’t need replaceable hangers, do they? Couple of adjustable spanners and job done.

Couple of adjustable spanners and job done

I suspect it would need to be a bloody big set of adjustables to bend that Ti plate back into shape.

what, exactly, are you planning to do to break plate titanium? I’m sure your rear mech would catastrophically fail first.

No idea, but I’m sure it’s possible, (I’ve put 45° bends into 1/4″ steel plate ones before, totalled the rear mech, wheel and chain at the same time), but I *know* I’d be p!ssed if I did it, and the frame was then a right off as a result.

I’ve bent steel hangars loads. Just bend em back.

Since my Pace 130mms are as long as Fox 140s, they’ll work. I’ll take one. Steel or Alu.. hmm.

Numpty mechanic cross-threading the hanger when fitting the mech? Not something that should happen, or that I’d worry about on the kind of frame I can afford, but I suppose it could be a stress on a super expensive frame.

So, a bunch of features which seem to be different, just for the sake of being different, to the detriment of the aesthetic appeal and possibly weight of the frame…

And Brant’s added things like the chain stay bit, which although very nice, won’t even be very visible on a built up bike, and mean that things like proper cable guides have to be sacrificed. And that seat stay bit is proper ugly, and looks like a bodge. I’m with JonEdwards on the rivnut thing. Cable guides are traditionally welded on, because that’s the best way to do it. If it ain’t broke…

I’m all for innovation, but when it offers an advantage. None of these new features seem to.

Why din’t you just go for a more ‘conventional’ design, with your own tweaked angles? You’d still sell ’em, and they’d look loads better.

The geometry is a no-no for me personally. Head angle’s too slack for my liking, and a 23′ top tube on the smallest size? Christ, who’s riding these things, gibbons?? No wonder you see 6 footers riding 16″ frames! And as you’re using a more conventional seat tube angle, won’t the slack ht angle and long t t make for a ‘long’ bike? And a larger turning circle radius?

Not a bike for smaller people, then. 🙁

I guess most of my -ve comments are cost derived, but if I’m going to drop a large wedge on a frame, I’d rather spend a bit more and have it *right*, than a bit less and have it compromised.

I’d second that.

What about that gearbox?! Keep your hardtail (though it looks nice) I’m interested in gearboxes? Are you building a frame for the Suntour box Brant?

TT length sounds about right. My med Soda is 23.25 vs the 23.5 on this and mine is *just* a fraction short with a 70mm stem. Another 12.5mm would be perfect and/or allow a shorter stem to speed the handling back up.

The funky chainstay plate probably allows for really short stays too, so you can pull some of the wheelbase back in there. That said, I would think it’s a bike designed for a very specific type of riding (steep up, steep down, not much flat), so the longer wheelbase probably adds some stability, and you’ll be mostly going through/over stuff rather than round it.

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.

If you Brant did not design/redesign the Ti456, so that must mean that Lynski’s built and designed the frame and was re-branded for On-One?

If you Brant did not design/redesign the Ti456,

As previously corrected – I was rather tired/emotional and referring to the wishbone, not the frame.

No, because someone else designed it long before Brant got involved.

DeKerf made it a signature frame feature, though.

I guess most of my -ve comments are cost derived, but if I’m going to drop a large wedge on a frame, I’d rather spend a bit more and have it *right*, than a bit less and have it compromised.

and

I’d second that.

Well I reckon I’m spot on then. Can’t be doing with prissy f*ckers who want dolled up bollocks for the sake of it.

If Lynskey would sell me them raw off the welding bench, I’d do that, as for me this is about function, not form.

LOL!

Very apt description 😉

ho ho

Brant – Final(ish) important dimension for me : BB height ?

Rudeboy in “armchair expert” shocker!!!