[Closed] That new On-One one

oooh, we were wondering where that had gone a week or two back.

Any further info?

Nope, I just saw it on their FB page.

it doesn't have a name yet but we're going to ride the crap out of it over Xmas and see how it shapes up

I'm guessing that since it's 650b+ you could just run it as a 29er

The paperclip bike has a serious challenger

I was thinking of putting those forks on my Lurcher for a semi 29+ setup.

Wasn't that a Brant design before he left? He discussed it on here I think, he also discussed the seat stay flex idea a while back also.

I like that, whatever it is 🙂

[i]Wasn't that a Brant design before he left?[/i]

It was *my* design (kindof).

Brant just translated it into a working frame 😉

Looks like a fatty that's dieted...

[img] [/img]

I was disappointed when this thread was not news about the new Codeine 650b.

That's mingin

I like it, will probably get one.

Could someone please explain why it needs 3 top tubes where one normally works just fine?

Cantilevers.

Annoyingly i like that a lot

Not much of an explanation?

Assuming that they arent welded together the long chainstays will flex allowing the rear wheel to move, and the seatube will bow allowing the saddle to move. Loks ace but I'd rather have suspension if the grip is aproaching anywhere near fat bike levels and its indended to be more agro.

Will it weigh more or less than Lisa Riley in a centrifuge?

Chain stay flex = Yorkshire suspension!

I like it. It'd look even better with a truss fork.

A budget alternative to a Jones / Stooge?

But the stooge is already great value and works with 650b+ and doesn't look like a geordie lass on a night out (bright orange, showing its gusset and ugly as sin)

Lets imagine it can also run 29" wheels.... Now can we also imagine some sort of swap-out dropout arrangement to enable single gear use? I like this.

@tazzy - chances are it'll be cheaper.....

If the rear wheel is able to move up and down by the flexing of the chainstays - what stops it from rotating from side to side?

If the rear wheel is able to move up and down by the flexing of the chainstays - what stops it from rotating from side to side?

Also, the left and right seem to be a different shape, so is force vs deflection the same for both sides?

I for one actually don't like it, looks like it will weigh another tube heavier than a Fatty. I've suggested it should be called the IronBru or On One Forth after the rail bridge!

Nooooooooo! I just bought a hard tail!

N+1

Again. 🙄

Split top tubes are gross.

I like it, would like to see how it rides

[quote=Nobeerinthefridge ]Split top tubes are gross.
[img] [/img]

r On One Forth after the rail bridge!

I quite like the look of it, I imagine it'll flex a bit though (side to side).

Sorry Druid, that looks like the bastard love child of Apollo bikes and the ark royal....

Nobeer/scotroutes - It also looks like extended seat stays joining a single top tube to me. Still gopping though.

[quote=Nobeerinthefridge ]Sorry Druid, that looks like the bastard love child of Apollo bikes and the ark royal....I was posting it to back up your point. 😆

Best looking fatty I've seen. And by best looking I mean looks like it will ride well.

Nobeerinthefridge » Sorry Druid, that looks like the bastard love child of Apollo bikes and the ark royal....
I was posting ito back up your point.

😯 😀

I guess lots of calc's and CAD have been done for the inevitable bottom bracket flex and to try to eliminate it without using scaffold poles for the main triangle.

Placement of butting. double or triple, tubeset type and gauges. very interesting stuff and then to test the theory. Very exciting.

Even though I wouldn't have one myself, Ive already got two orange coloured bikes 8)

molgrips - Member
Best looking fatty I've seen. And by best looking I mean looks like it will ride well.

B+ isn't even 29+ fat, so more 1/4 fat than half fat, but not a fatty

Given that Brant said it was a wee experiment, I'd imagine it's mostly PG.

So - where's it going to fail first? Driveside CS/BB or ST/TT junction?

😉

If it does indeed flex like a pregnant yoga teacher, would not the caliper mounted on the chainstay/seatstay be at risk of failure ❓

[quote=slackalice ]I guess lots of calc's and CAD have been done for the inevitable bottom bracket flex and to try to eliminate it without using scaffold poles for the main triangle.
Placement of butting. double or triple, tubeset type and gauges. very interesting stuff and then to test the theory. Very exciting.
Even though I wouldn't have one myself, Ive already got two orange coloured bikes

I'm sure it's very carefully designed with just sufficient lateral and torsional flex to make you think it's flexing vertically without being a complete noodle.

Or maybe it's laterally stiff yet vertically compliant?

I like the idea, but it definitely looks like an experiment/prototype (which I believe it is). It's got a long way to go before it rivals the looks of the Stooge and I'll be interested to hear how the flex pans out.

Quadangle?

Lisa Riley in a centrifuge 😆 😆

Will it weigh more or less than Lisa Riley in a centrifuge?

That is to 'post of the year' what a Steven Gerard free kick is to Liverpool
Bit late but a blinder

Will it weigh more or less than Lisa Riley in a centrifuge?

I am crying/choking.

OH is looking at me funny as she doesnt know who Lisa Riley despite being from rural Yorkshire.

SE Quadangle for fat middle aged men?

Interesting that they haven't bowed the seatstays to get some softail flex out ot it.

I guess the average stw On One fanboy desk jockey has the weight to get any BB flex out of it if not the strength 😛

Also...B+ narrower than 29+, what's the point?

Also...B+ narrower than 29+, what's the point?

They'll go nicely in the back of my 29er with the 29+ front & make the O-O fatty more versatile

Interesting, I wondered if that frame was ever going to see the light of day. I'd be interested in it, looks fun.

SE Quadangle for fat middle aged men?

Quite. Although there's only one bike I'd want to own with a split top tube, and it's not an SE:

[img] [/img]

[quote=cynic-al ]Also...B+ narrower than 29+, what's the point?

Did you not get the memo?

cynic-al - Member

Also...B+ narrower than 29+, what's the point?

Is B+ not supposed to fit in many normal 29ers and existing fatbikes? Which is kind of uncharacteristic for this sort of thing, it's supposed to require a new bike...

That rear axle looks too narrow and weedy.

cynic-al » Also...B+ narrower than 29+, what's the point?

[i]I might have this wrong [/i]but there seems to be some sort of challenge in getting a 3" tyre on a wide rim to work with a 73mm BB. This works for 29+ though, so I can only assume it's something to do with shorter chainstays creating a strange angle?

It pains me to say it but, if that's the case, then a wider BB, wider rear axle should help.

Is B+ not supposed to fit in many normal 29ers and existing fatbikes? Which is kind of uncharacteristic for this sort of thing, it's supposed to require a new bike...

finbar 8) a childhood icon for me and a reason I do like twin top tubes.

I though we where on about this new on one -

[img] [/img]

(WTF is that??? 😯 )

[url= ]Linko[/url]

Looks like a baby Fatty, fitted with 700c wheels and Midge bars.

That ^ is what the word [i]abomination[/i] was invented for.

[img] [/img]

Also...B+ narrower than 29+, what's the point?

[img] [/img]
Just because you can doesnt mean you should, someone call the bad taste police.

It's On-One - the Bad Taste Police gave up years ago.

😉

speaking of bad taste...
here's my version of the whole "plus" thing.

26+ ragley pig-dog. 50mm rims, 3" tyres.
[img] [/img]

Christ, there can't be much clearance on max compression! You have checked that haven't you?

ermm, you do realise that it's the crown/ stanchions that move during compression, not the bridge/ lowers?

And you do realise that the bridge can rise above the bottom of the crown?

nope. full compression has been achieved and all teeth are in order.

More pics please anotherstan, that's ace.

They'll go nicely in the back of my 29er with the 29+ front

Just what I was thinking.
Should fit in my Niner.

More pics please anotherstan, that's ace.

+1

What 26x3 tyres are available?

So there's normal at 2.4", plus is 3" and fat is 4"?

Yeah, that's what i believe.

finbar - Member
Quite. Although there's only one bike I'd want to own with a split top tube, and it's not an SE:

A Noughties repro Haro Freestyler? Each to their own I suppose.

I'd prefer a Gen One freestyler or an old Torker - the bike that Bob based the design of his bike on...

[URL= http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k134/redxxvi/museum/torker_haro.jp g" target="_blank">http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k134/redxxvi/museum/torker_haro.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Sorry about the hijack. Elderly Haro fanboy here. 😆

And 650b+ (at least in the tyres available at the moment) has a smaller outer diameter than a 2.4 Ardent so to me it seems a little pointless doing the 650b+ rear and 29+ front.

Hope the paint on those Maguras is tough or are you only using it when you're guaranteed no more than a thin layer of dust on the front tyre.

molgrips - Member
So there's normal at 2.4", plus is 3" and fat is 4"

It's all in the tyre volume; a tyre like a 3" Surly Knard is only a few millimetres wider than a 2.4" Ardent or similar, bits it's way bigger in the volume department which gives it that floaty feel of a full-fat bike tyre along with ability to run much lower air pressures.

Personally, I like it a lot 😀

Given that Brant said it was a wee experiment, I'd imagine it's mostly PG

I think he's continuing the experiment. Maybe not with the dodgu looking frame but I think with 650B+.