Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 1783
  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
    8,210
    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
    6,795
    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
    2,499
    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
    3,072
    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
    6,795
    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
    1,409
    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
    6,795
    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
    3,072
    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
    1,043
    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
    1,632
    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
    6,305
    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
    446
    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
    1,043
    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
    6,795
    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
    3,072
    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
    7,515
    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
    446
    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
    871
    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
    1,043
    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
    1,096
    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
    1,632
    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
    8,210
    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
    1,530
    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
    8,210
    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
    1,632
    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
    1,632
    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
    1,632
    [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
    6,070
    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
    1,632
    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
    6,795
    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!


Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 123456713 ... 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, 06:45 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 08:39 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-18-2009, 08:06 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, 12:03 PM

Posting Permissions

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