Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1797
  1. #101
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    So the dual top tube is stiffer than a single tube? It could be an additional place to strap on gear like fishy poles or IK paddles.

  2. #102
    AJT
    AJT is offline
    I like bicycles
    Reputation: AJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130
    short axle to crown while we're at it
    Adventures off the beaten path
    www.backcountrybiking.co.uk

  3. #103
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    It would seem foolish not to.
    Yes!

    This bike will be one I must have as well.

    Now........about that single legged suspension fork thingy you brought up earlier....
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    This thing looks great, and I would so want one....if I didn't have a frame about to be sent off to powder


  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,501
    any any ANY chance that one of the swop-out options will allow for 135mil width IGH?
    If steel is real then aluminium is supercallafragiliniun!

  6. #106
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    This thing looks great, and I would so want one....if I didn't have a frame about to be sent off to powder
    They may not offer this one in BLACK anyway.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    They may not offer this one in BLACK anyway.
    Color is still up in the air!


  8. #108
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    This thing looks great, and I would so want one....if I didn't have a frame about to be sent off to powder
    I thought you would like it! Remember all the questions I asked on RM?
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    68
    I just posted in the fatback size thread asking if the fatback is the best tool for Florida or do you all think this one will be better. Once again it will never see snow, Thank you all

  10. #110
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    So the dual top tube is stiffer than a single tube? It could be an additional place to strap on gear like fishy poles or IK paddles.
    Should be stiff laterally. Might (might) have some vertical give. I like the look and it should make it visually less bulky.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  11. #111
    WAWE
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,415
    Is this trendsetter for future not-just-for-snow fat-fun-bikes? Sign me up. The head angle may not be ideal for snow/sand but there's no shortage of other frame choices for that purpose. For general trail riding, it's fine... plus, the big headtube and 29"er fork length makes it pretty versatile. The low twin toptube looks very useful... begs for a matching above/below pack.

    Just make sure there's plenty of mounts for bottles/accessories and clearance for Moonlander rubberz!

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    I thought you would like it! Remember all the questions I asked on RM?
    Just wait 'til you see what's cooking

    If folks think the geometry for yours isn't ideal for snow...they're really gonna love mine!


  13. #113
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    Just wait 'til you see what's cooking

    If folks think the geometry for yours isn't ideal for snow...they're really gonna love mine!

    I'm ready to see your 3.0!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by aosty View Post
    Is this trendsetter for future not-just-for-snow fat-fun-bikes? Sign me up. The head angle may not be ideal for snow/sand but there's no shortage of other frame choices for that purpose.!
    Sandman's designs are for the most part all centered around that concept (not just for snow).

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    Sandman's designs are for the most part all centered around that concept (not just for snow).
    Not seein' to many Sandman's making it state-side yet though... unless your flying over and bringing it back yourself. Any news on they're German Answer Fat Fork project?

  16. #116
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Like.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    458
    This will compliment my 1/2 fat Jones nicely - sign me up!

    How about a carbon truss fork - just to be different LOL.

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Not seein' to many Sandman's making it state-side yet though... unless your flying over and bringing it back yourself. Any news on they're German Answer Fat Fork project?
    You are right- I think there are only two over here so far. I was more mentioning that the On-One frame isn't the first to be designed with more than snow and sand in mind. For what it's worth, shipping my Sandman over here cost only 60 euro, and for some reason I wasn't charged any customs duty. But, the exchange rate is not in our favor right now, so unfortunately us Americans will to pay a premium for any Sandman products.
    Haven't heard much on the German A forks lately, but it sounds as if they have held up with zero issues so far. When I last spoke to Conrad they were still working on coming up with a reliable tool-less wheel removal system, and deciding what to do about hubs (custom wide hub, or provide brake and axle spacers to use standard 20 mm thru hubs).
    Sorry for the derail- I really like the looks of the On-One- particularly the dual top tubes.

  19. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    102
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7792762@N08/6113407286/" title="On-one fat bike proto by Shaggy John, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6113407286_fb5f7dea58.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="On-one fat bike proto"></a>

    It's built now. Fairly random parts and broken brakes but the first ride was good. Second ride was some bloke I met at the pub. He says its "amazing".

    31lb as it stands. Flat-Top 80mms, Larrys, 30t chainring, 11-34 cassette, Sunline 762mm bars.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    It needs a pair of Nates
    Looks great!


  21. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    102
    Nates look great. Want to try the BFL as well, I'm going to see about getting some.

  22. #122
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    interesting looking fork

  23. #123
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,262
    Looking sweet!!!
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  24. #124
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    interesting looking fork
    Fork clearance is not quite as much as I wanted. May need to reduce the angle of the struts.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  25. #125
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    shaggyjohn's flicker gallery:
    On-one fat bike

    I am liking the tire clearance I am seeing.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  26. #126
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,905
    Your right, Holy tire clearance!!! That is turning out awesome!!

  27. #127
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Your right, Holy tire clearance!!! That is turning out awesome!!
    shaggyjohn mentioned 123mm of clearance (seat or chain stays, I do not know) on another forum.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    458
    Quote Originally Posted by shaggyjohn View Post
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7792762@N08/6113407286/" title="On-one fat bike proto by Shaggy John, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6113407286_fb5f7dea58.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="On-one fat bike proto"></a>

    It's built now. Fairly random parts and broken brakes but the first ride was good. Second ride was some bloke I met at the pub. He says its "amazing".

    31lb as it stands. Flat-Top 80mms, Larrys, 30t chainring, 11-34 cassette, Sunline 762mm bars.
    Jonestastic! ;D

  29. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    shaggyjohn mentioned 123mm of clearance (seat or chain stays, I do not know) on another forum.
    There's 123mm on the chainstays. More on the seat stays.

  30. #130
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    886
    Great looking, & good job!

    Can't wait to hear more about the geometry and how it works with the new tires.

  31. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Great looking, & good job!

    Can't wait to hear more about the geometry and how it works with the new tires.
    By those measurements, it should fit BFL's on hundies.

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,224
    that was my first thought, Jones Fatbike, and that is a huge compliment. I've been thinking of an all round fatbike for endurance racing/touring for a while now and had a lot of discussion with Speedway. The German:A fork on the Ti Sandman coupled with this development seems to be bringing it together.

    All I'd like now is for German:A to do a true 135mm front spacing to take a Hadley or Paul non offset front hub as they are so strong and for one of those to allow 15mm or 20MM QR. That would be the boy. Add the ability to run an angleset and you don't need to compromise on rigid/suss fork use. The A fork is also nice and light.

    Having said that they seem to have done extensive testing on the 20mm std hub front wheel and not broke it...looks like the German:A Flame for fatty's will be available from Sandman from October as aftermarket....might be worth trying on this frame?

    The grip you get from a Larry on the trail is outstanding and the rolling resistance very low as I'm sure Shaggy/Futon can testify.

    I've seen Ti Fatbacks built at 23lb too without silly parts. The 80mm speedway rims are light at 800g and stood up to Trans Provence rim bashing brilliantly.

    I'm suddenly very exited again!! Might have to change my plans for the next bike :-)
    Last edited by the_pilot; 09-05-2011 at 10:19 AM.
    Aka chainline...

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    WOW! That's a SWEEEET looking fat bike built up! This one's definitely got my attention!

  34. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    What's the expected price of this ?? even it's just Frame / Fork / Wheels / Tubes / Tyres ??

    Or better still full build ??

  35. #135
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by shaggyjohn View Post
    There's 123mm on the chainstays. More on the seat stays.
    Thanks, john. I was more concerned that the seatstay clearance would be tight from the blueprint.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  36. #136
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd View Post
    What's the expected price of this ?? even it's just Frame / Fork / Wheels / Tubes / Tyres ??

    Or better still full build ??
    Too early to make a guess on price or how it would be bundled.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  37. #137
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Too early to make a guess on price or how it would be bundled.
    First off, congratulations on a stellar looking rig, and the reports from John are encouraging. This is awesome!

    I just got back from a day of hob-nobbing, urban assault, ravine dropping, skinny riding, gravel roading all on fat bikes. I have a couple of observations that pertain to this bike.

    -If you keep the dropper seat post routing and capabilities, it will be cheered on by me. That was one thing I found myself wishing for more than once on my ride.

    -The bike should be geared more towards off road, and maybe not so much just a snow bike geo. I like my Mukluk off road, but I did ride a size smaller than mine which had a shorter wheel base, (not by much, but enough to notice). I would like to see that in the On One offering. I think I am leaning towards slightly shorter chain stays/longer front end type of geometry, but that is just me.

    I do like the aesthetic of this rig as well. Very nice! Hopefully you guys green light this thing. I think it could be awesome.
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  38. #138
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    First off, congratulations on a stellar looking rig, and the reports from John are encouraging. This is awesome!

    I just got back from a day of hob-nobbing, urban assault, ravine dropping, skinny riding, gravel roading all on fat bikes. I have a couple of observations that pertain to this bike.

    -If you keep the dropper seat post routing and capabilities, it will be cheered on by me. That was one thing I found myself wishing for more than once on my ride.

    -The bike should be geared more towards off road, and maybe not so much just a snow bike geo. I like my Mukluk off road, but I did ride a size smaller than mine which had a shorter wheel base, (not by much, but enough to notice). I would like to see that in the On One offering. I think I am leaning towards slightly shorter chain stays/longer front end type of geometry, but that is just me.

    I do like the aesthetic of this rig as well. Very nice! Hopefully you guys green light this thing. I think it could be awesome.
    Hallelujah! I want to see what this thing looks like with one of the German A forks. With an adjustable rear dropouts to vary the wheelbase from 16.5-17.5" inches, this frame has the possibility to be one of the coolest frames I never owned: an Evil Imperial


    Hoorah!...keep the good times rolling!

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Too early to make a guess on price or how it would be bundled.
    Hope you can stock some Fat bike related goods then atleast.


    I do want 1, wanted a FB for some time, ofcourse!!

  40. #140
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted View Post
    First off, congratulations on a stellar looking rig, and the reports from John are encouraging. This is awesome!

    I just got back from a day of hob-nobbing, urban assault, ravine dropping, skinny riding, gravel roading all on fat bikes. I have a couple of observations that pertain to this bike.

    -If you keep the dropper seat post routing and capabilities, it will be cheered on by me. That was one thing I found myself wishing for more than once on my ride.

    -The bike should be geared more towards off road, and maybe not so much just a snow bike geo. I like my Mukluk off road, but I did ride a size smaller than mine which had a shorter wheel base, (not by much, but enough to notice). I would like to see that in the On One offering. I think I am leaning towards slightly shorter chain stays/longer front end type of geometry, but that is just me.

    I do like the aesthetic of this rig as well. Very nice! Hopefully you guys green light this thing. I think it could be awesome.
    The On-One stays are ~10mm shorter than the Salsa and wheelbase slightly shorter than a medium Mukluk. The front length can be picked via frame size. The stand over is pretty low (should be ~27.8" using the Salsa method).

    The cable routing on the sample seems odd to me. I do not remember speccing the downtube RD guides or seeing them on the blueprints. Easy enough to have all the guides we may want under the TT.
    Last edited by shiggy; 09-06-2011 at 04:56 PM.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  41. #141
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    The On-One stays are ~10mm shorter than the Salsa and wheelbase slightly shorter than a medium Mukluk. The front length can be picked via frame size. The stand over is pretty low (should be ~27.8" using the Salsa method).

    The cable routing on the sample seems odd to me. I do not remember speccing the downtube RD guides or seeing them on the blueprints. Easy enough to have all the guides we may want under the TT.
    Awesome. Perfect rockcrawler geo, I'm betting. Thanks!
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Fork clearance is not quite as much as I wanted. May need to reduce the angle of the struts.
    Or one less degree at the HT... or lengthen the whole Ft. triangle a hair. could fix this one with a little more rake though, good idea!

  43. #143
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Or one less degree at the HT... or lengthen the whole Ft. triangle a hair. could fix this one with a little more rake though, good idea!
    I meant the tire/fork clearance. I have no desire to change the geometry.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  44. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    I meant the tire/fork clearance. I have no desire to change the geometry.
    We think it's a bit steep - but 44mm HT allows up to 3deg of angle adjustment according to my headset maker (WorksComponents).

    shiggy - your sample should be shipping out today I hope. Sorry for the delay.

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    I meant the tire/fork clearance. I have no desire to change the geometry.
    HT Angle does affect tire clearance, so does the Ft.triangle geo. But so will changing the fork. Since it's a proto, I wouldn't change a thing 'till you've ridden it a bunch in all the "elements". Was just offering up tire clearance issue options. Really curious to see how it rides as is in soft sand. I know that wasn't your main purpose for this build, but if I buy one, It will have to work well in the soft stuff too. If it's too short (in the FT. end) and too steep, it's going to have issues descending in snow of questionable firmness and the steep side of soft dunes. not to mention the "holes of softness" that exist in these conditions. Again, I know your going for more of a "rock crawler", Just sayin', My FB's deffinatly end up in the Soft stuff. All that said, the steeper one does work better for XC and the slacker one does work better in the sand and snow... and the steeper one does have a longer Ft. Tri. to keep my toes from contacting the tire w/ the Mav.

    Looks like your's is on the way!

  46. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    [QUOTE=ward;8429949]

    Three degrees of adjustment... that may make it a non-issue. and may make this truly an "all around" FB...

    I see some comments about a short Axle to crown measurement on here too. So, someone who wanted to change the front end could just swap for a longer fork. In fact,(truth be told) when my Maverick is loaded, especially on a descent, My HT angle is probably closer to what you have here... Sorry, brain's workin' overtime on the subject, I'll shut-up for a while...
    Last edited by ward; 09-09-2011 at 10:45 AM.

  47. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,518
    As far as I'm concerned, a steep head angle is a good thing on a fat bike so long as the fork offset suits.

    It gets rid of the flat tyre feeling on paved surfaces and the bike feels nimble.

    You can always slacken the angle by using more fork. It's easier to modify a fork than a frame.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Gotta post a retraction of my "too steep" comments. Took an angle finder and a tape measure out to get the true spec's on my custom FB. With the Maverick loaded, HT angle is 70.5 degrees w/ an A to C of 490mm (with a standard cane creek S3). With shiggys fork it would be at least 71 if not steeper. Looks like my BB is a bit higher too (a full 13", again, that's w/ the fork loaded) however the TT is a little longer at 24 1/4"(effective), but I think it's a little bigger bike. The Chain stays are 17.5" and the seat tube angle is 73 degrees (though I do use a swept back seat post). For snow and sand, I do prefer my Fatback w/ the hunddies... but for the last 3 years, in the mountains, desert, single track, double track and every other kind of track, I haven't rode anything else but this wonderful machine. Built 3 years ago by Simple Bicycles here in Yakima WA. of Easton AL... first AL FB I know of, pre-dating the AL Fatback by a year or so and built w/ the Mav. and XC riding in mind. I LOVE THIS BIKE! and definitely on board with the "all around" FB format On One is going for!

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/51222326@N04/5198787169/" title="FILE0017 by wardee61, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5198787169_c5eba30417.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="FILE0017"></a>

  49. #149
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Gotta post a retraction of my "too steep" comments. Took an angle finder and a tape measure out to get the true spec's on my custom FB. With the Maverick loaded, HT angle is 70.5 degrees w/ an A to C of 490mm (with a standard cane creek S3). With shiggys fork it would be at least 71 if not steeper. Looks like my BB is a bit higher too (a full 13", again, that's w/ the fork loaded) however the TT is a little longer at 24 1/4"(effective), but I think it's a little bigger bike. The Chain stays are 17.5" and the seat tube angle is 73 degrees (though I do use a swept back seat post). For snow and sand, I do prefer my Fatback w/ the hunddies... but for the last 3 years, in the mountains, desert, single track, double track and every other kind of track, I haven't rode anything else but this wonderful machine. Built 3 years ago by Simple Bicycles here in Yakima WA. of Easton AL... first AL FB I know of, pre-dating the AL Fatback by a year or so and built w/ the Mav. and XC riding in mind. I LOVE THIS BIKE! and definitely on board with the "all around" FB format On One is going for!

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/51222326@N04/5198787169/" title="FILE0017 by wardee61, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5198787169_c5eba30417.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="FILE0017"></a>
    Thanks for the update, Ward.

    The On-One sample frame size is about equivalent to a medium Mukluk. I think your bikes are a bit bigger.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    ...definitely on board with the "all around" FB format...
    Yup, been rocking it for a while now as well



    Got a new one coming! I can't wait!


  51. #151
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    Yup, been rocking it for a while now as well



    Got a new one coming! I can't wait!
    I was looking at your bike a lot while researching my design.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  52. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    Yup, been rocking it for a while now as well



    Got a new one coming! I can't wait!
    Really nice! How are those 50's holding up ridin' hard in the rocky stuff? Love to have a pair, probably lighten up my XC rig up a bit and maybe better handling on the Summer single track but have stuck w/ the LM's for strength in the miles of rock strewn routes we have around here.

  53. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Raising a PBR to the XC Fat Bikes as we speak! CHEERS!

  54. #154
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    Yup, been rocking it for a while now as well



    Got a new one coming! I can't wait!

    HS droooooool.


    hint hint

  55. #155
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    HS droooooool.


    hint hint
    Hammerschidt is not an option for a production fat bike.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  56. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Hammerschidt is not an option for a production fat bike.
    My new one will be a 1x1 (or 10sp) only as well...no HS.
    I will definitely miss it on some rides, but simplicity is also nice


  57. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Really nice! How are those 50's holding up ridin' hard in the rocky stuff? Love to have a pair, probably lighten up my XC rig up a bit and maybe better handling on the Summer single track but have stuck w/ the LM's for strength in the miles of rock strewn routes we have around here.
    Uma II's have held up well, honestly. I am tempted to try the new Marge Light rims (60mm), and may have to build up a new wheelset


  58. #158
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Hammerschidt is not an option for a production fat bike.
    You mean cause there is no HS compatable bb wide enough for a fat bike?

    Seems like it is tailor made to eliminate any front derailluer conflicts with fat tires. I love the way it can be shifter under load even though it adds weight.

  59. #159
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by scottybinwv View Post
    You mean cause there is no HS compatable bb wide enough for a fat bike?

    Seems like it is tailor made to eliminate any front derailluer conflicts with fat tires. I love the way it can be shifter under load even though it adds weight.
    Yes. jncarpenter's bike has an 83mm shell. It is possible to make a dedicated HS fat frame but not so easy on that can also use other common drivetrains.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  60. #160
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    I'd also like to add that, practically speaking, the HS can't handle shifting under load as much as you'd think. Don't get me wrong: it's not the internal mechanism. That thing is bomb proof solid. What I'm saying is they ****ed up the cable clamp! It's ridiculous! It's a little 4mm allen, not a 5mm like most shifting clamps, and the supplied washer is constantly slipping on me. Drives me crazy. If I'm not careful about backing off during a shift, it slips.

    Maybe I'm the only HS user with this problem, I don't know.

  61. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I'd also like to add that, practically speaking, the HS can't handle shifting under load as much as you'd think. Don't get me wrong: it's not the internal mechanism. That thing is bomb proof solid. What I'm saying is they ****ed up the cable clamp! It's ridiculous! It's a little 4mm allen, not a 5mm like most shifting clamps, and the supplied washer is constantly slipping on me. Drives me crazy. If I'm not careful about backing off during a shift, it slips.

    Maybe I'm the only HS user with this problem, I don't know.
    I'm not exactly sure what is being described here, but the only problem with shifting I have had with mine was related to a slightly bent tab. After I fixed that, it was golden again. I have about 2 years of hard riding on mine...


  62. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    110
    Shiggy / Brant
    I know that there almost certainly isn't but will there be anyway of fitting a Rohloff?
    What about a custom GH version for an extra cost.
    I ask a lot I know
    You are doing a great job and have designed what I've been after for ages, I think they'll take off in a much bigger way than people think.
    Have you looked at the Pinion gear system?

  63. #163
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what is being described here, but the only problem with shifting I have had with mine was related to a slightly bent tab. After I fixed that, it was golden again. I have about 2 years of hard riding on mine...
    Shifting into the easier gear with high pressure on the crank causes the cable to slip, which causes inability to get into the easy gear at all, or in other cases makes for an "in between" where it is in neither gear. I'm using the stock cable supplied with the HS shifter.

    I'm glad to hear it is just me, so take it with a grain of salt.

  64. #164
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what is being described here, but the only problem with shifting I have had with mine was related to a slightly bent tab. After I fixed that, it was golden again. I have about 2 years of hard riding on mine...
    The shifter pod took a dump on mine after a couple months. Replaced with a grip shifter and it has been golden since then.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  65. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Not experienced w/ HS, Rohloff, etc. so I can't compare or comment, but for what it's worth, gear set-up wise, Though I seldom use my big chainring in sand or snow ( have used it a couple times on the hard sand at the beach w/ a very strong tailwind), I have used it quite a few times on my XC fatty... bombing down forrest roads, completing a loop on a paved section and etc. Could have gotten by w/o it, but I'd a been way behind. And it's a blast rippin' down a logging road on mine w/ the Mav. and Larry's. Gotta get the tire pressure right though, too much and when you hit wash boards it'll bounce you right off the road.

  66. #166
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    My sample frame arrived.

    Lots o' room in the stays.
    On One Fat Bike Frame-askja1.jpg
    On One Fat Bike Frame-askja2.jpg
    On One Fat Bike Frame-askja3.jpg
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  67. #167
    Really I am that slow
    Reputation: SlowerThenSnot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,781
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    My sample frame arrived.

    Lots o' room in the stays.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja1.jpg 
Views:	2222 
Size:	114.7 KB 
ID:	640463
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja2.jpg 
Views:	2326 
Size:	96.9 KB 
ID:	640462
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja3.jpg 
Views:	2414 
Size:	112.1 KB 
ID:	640461
    a good look for yah!
    Read my BLOG!

    just a guy who loves bikes and exploring

  68. #168
    Technician / hoarder
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2

    a topiary

    you could put it in the garden and support you climbing plants.

  69. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,631
    Looks like it fits! You gonna stay up late and look at it from every angle?

  70. #170
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,558
    Built yet?

  71. #171
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by ward View Post
    Looks like it fits! You gonna stay up late and look at it from every angle?
    I did that last night.

    I like this angle. Looks like a trials frame.
    On One Fat Bike Frame-askja4.jpg
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  72. #172
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by intheways View Post
    Built yet?
    Almost.
    Just need a crank spindle, fork, headset, wheels, tires, front derailleur, FD mount...
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  73. #173
    mtbr member
    Reputation: singlespeedstu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    563
    I had a quick spin round on Shaggys bike yesterday and was very impressed with it.

    It handles a lot more like a conventional mountainbike that my Mukluk.

    I think for trail riding it'll be fantastic.

  74. #174
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    My sample frame arrived.

    Lots o' room in the stays.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja1.jpg 
Views:	2222 
Size:	114.7 KB 
ID:	640463
    I knew a girl like that once.

    You look slightly delirious is that picture.

    Happy = New bike stuff


  75. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,985
    Quote Originally Posted by singlespeedstu View Post
    I had a quick spin round on Shaggys bike yesterday and was very impressed with it.

    It handles a lot more like a conventional mountainbike that my Mukluk.

    I think for trail riding it'll be fantastic.
    SSS Were the two bikes set up with similar wheelsets. I've been reading all the posts about this or that bike being specifically designed for snow or trail or dirt or whatever. Also discussions about head tube angle etc. I have an old Ti Fatback which has a pretty shallow headtube angle (somewhere around 69 degrees) and with Endos on 80 mm rims it handles like a truck in the dirt, as did my Pugsley on the same tires and Large Marges. However with Larrys on 47 mm rims the Fatback handles very much like any other mountain bike.

  76. #176
    mtbr member
    Reputation: singlespeedstu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    563
    Both bikes have 80mm rims* with Larrys so yes a very similar setup.

    Well they looked like 80's to me anyway.

  77. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Devine Intervention's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    263
    Don't mind me, I'm just jumping on this thread to find out when the frames become available.

  78. #178
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Devine Intervention View Post
    Don't mind me, I'm just jumping on this thread to find out when the frames become available.
    We are still in the first prototype stage. There will be some changes for production.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  79. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,518
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    We are still in the first prototype stage. There will be some changes for production.
    On-One will need it tested in Scottish bogs first. I'm ideally placed to do that

    I'd like to see an EBB on it - it's also handy for lifting the BB up when venturing into rocky stuff.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  80. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    8
    Here I'm thinking, with that low top tube, you could have some serious fun at the local snowboard terrain park.

  81. #181
    Racing Snake
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    195
    Don't change it, I rode Shaggy's at SSUK I did a 1/4 of the lap and back, very different to my Pugsley. If it comes as a SS option my Pugsley will be for sale. The On One is so much better for the real world... and I ride the Pug at least twice a week............

  82. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: motorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Is it really that good? Tell us more...
    Is this going to me a 135mm or 170mm rear? Swapouts are great, but needs to fit IGH to open up the full potential of the bike as a trail/bog/rock crawler in my opinion. Do we have a guesstimate on the timeline for this bike?
    Drink coffee....ride bikes....eat cake
    http://morayfatbike.blogspot.com

  83. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    781
    Rohloff compatibility would be nice and the chainline should be okay with 3.7-3.8"...

  84. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by satanas View Post
    Rohloff compatibility would be nice and the chainline should be okay with 3.7-3.8"...
    second that, maybe 135mm spacer option...... and an EBB or sliders.......I'm in the market for a FatBike but will be with a Rohloff for sure (don't know how to operate mechs anymore )

  85. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    My sample frame arrived.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja3.jpg 
Views:	2414 
Size:	112.1 KB 
ID:	640461
    I thought this Shiggy pic looked familiar:



    Redirect Notice

  86. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    110
    Another one here who needs a IGH in my fatbike, all the other lads I ride with run IGH's or SS too. Will there be any options to cater for this, maybe a custom run of 135 rears at a cost??? There seems to be a bit of interest, could we club enough people together to persaude you to do a limited run???

  87. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    I was wondering if it was an easy thing to cater for hub options via 4 individual swapouts, attached as paragon drop-outs. Two NDS, with one being fat to provide offset for a 135mm hub. Two DS, one with, and one without a mech hanger.

    Then you could run pretty much anything you want.

    Not sure if the fat NDS would work though. Just throwing ideas around.

  88. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    135mm is looking more possible.

  89. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: motorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Good stuff.....so, am I going to be able to buy this in less than 12 months is the big question?
    Drink coffee....ride bikes....eat cake
    http://morayfatbike.blogspot.com

  90. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    I would hope less than SIX Months.

  91. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    135mm is looking more possible.
    YES! that would be sooooo cool


    and within 6 months sounds even better

  92. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    781
    Might I suggest that if the 135mm (symmetrical I hope!) frames are to be for Rohloff or SS use only, then one of the reasons for the 100mm BB shell goes away since the chainline required can be achieved with a normal MTB crank. If cranks were chosen carefully and clearances arond the 3.7-3.8" rear tyre weren't too excessive, then there'd be the possibility of a fat bike with a normal Q factor (or almost), which would make some people's legs a lot happier!

    And you would likely corner that part of the market which cares about such things - there must be somone else besides me...
    Last edited by satanas; 10-19-2011 at 04:25 AM.

  93. #193
    127
    127 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    43
    Its gonna be dark and cold winter, but my mind is clear, I want one.

  94. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Smallfurry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    413
    I still think some sort of spacer system, like the Mukluk is the way to go (or clever swap-oouts). I'm pretty much commited to a 1x10 set-up, and am definitely going for a non-offset rear wheel. Unless your running an IGH, offsetting the rear wheel is a solution to a problem, that already been solved with the availability of 170mm hubs.

  95. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,518
    The ability to take a Shimano Alfine is going to be an important consideration for many people, and that won't work with a symmetrical layout unless Shimano or someone else comes up with a modification to allow wider chainlines.

    A derailleur doesn't last long in heather or forest undergrowth, and Rohloffs limit the target market because of the expense.

    Can we pre-order? Get one in time for the 'Puffer?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  96. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6
    Just some thoughts/questions........., Rohloff set-up with 32/13 ratio, normal 135mm drop-out, EBB, slightly longer rearstay and normal size BB.........would this work with a 3.8 Larry??

    What's the smallest ring you use with an Alfine?

  97. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    781
    ^ Width of Endo is said by Surly to be 94mm on a LM rim, so width from centreline is 47mm. Larry = + .010" = + 2.54mm = + 1.27mm from centre, so width from centreline increases to ~48.3mm. Rohloff chainline is meant to be 58mm with the 13T cog, and chain is unlikely to be wider than 7mm max, so chainline minus half chain width = 58 - 3.5 = 54.5mm, which is ~6.2mm more than 1/2 tyre width, thus yielding 6.2mm clearance. With a normal (15, 16, 17T) Rohloff cog, chainline moves in 4mm, so there should still be 2.2mm clearance, not a huge amount but enough.

    Re Alfine hubs, the best solution woud be to make it possible to use a more offset cog to push the chainline out, rather than changing the overlocknut dimension, or having to engineer adapters. Still, with the current cogs offset outwards, chainline is ~47mm, so 7mm offset (rather than the 17.5mm Surly uses with derailleurs) would bring the chainline to the same place as Rohloff and SS. Another way to achieve this would be to increase rear spacing to 150mm, also compatible with DH rear hubs.

    Swappable dropouts could make it possible to use both dishless wheels (Rohloff, SS) and offset Alfine wheels on the same frame. While it would be possible to make dropouts to accommodate 170mm hubs as well, this would require making the stays unneccessarily wide when used with SS or IGH hubs, IMO.

    FWIW, I'd prefer narrower stays, a 68 or 73mm BB shell and normal cranks please, even if this means the chainstays need to be plate rather than tubing around the widest part of the tyre - like the Hammerschmidt-equipped bike pictured, plus various others..

  98. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation: motorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    The ability to take a Shimano Alfine is going to be an important consideration for many people,

    Can we pre-order?
    X2
    Drink coffee....ride bikes....eat cake
    http://morayfatbike.blogspot.com

  99. #199
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,258
    A few observations.....

    If I were On One, I would want to maximize my selling opportunities. In that case, I think the following would apply...

    Clearance for Big Fat Larrys
    Ability to go single speed or geared
    "Future-Proof" frame design, (tapered steer tube compatible, modular drop outs.)

    In this case, I think Swap Outs are the way to go, and making that compatible with 170OLD and 135OLD would be ideal, if it can be done. Of course, single speed is easy.

    This would necessarily preclude much of the IGH ideas being bandied about here, but in my opinion, new fat bike designs and current IGH dimensions are at odds with each other.

    Just look to the Origin 8 Crawler for an example- IGH hub, chainline not exactly straight, and there is no way you'll fit 100mm rims and BFL's in that frame. (Probably not even BFL's on 80mm rims. Not to mention chain clearance)
    Riden' an Smilin'
    Guitar Ted

    Blog
    RidingGravel.com

  100. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    110
    I think that if the new on one fatbike is aiming more towards being a trail bike it wouldn't be essential to take BFL's and 100mm rims.
    By using an offset 135 rear end I think you'd get most of your current Pugsley / 907 owners converting to on one ( if they were after a better trail bike ) anyway.
    If On One sold offset wheels I don't see an issue for people with the offset.

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Broken frame on Mongoose, new frame? or new bike?
    By Dooms101 in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 07:45 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 08:39 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 09:06 PM
  4. whats the difference between a road bike frame and an xc frame?
    By tomsmoto in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 05:51 PM
  5. Broken 9357 frame in bike/frame discussion
    By grnxb in forum The ReCycle Bin
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 01:03 PM

Members who have read this thread: 61

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •