Page 4 of 36 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 1783
  1. #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

  2. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,632
    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.

  3. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,632
    Raising a PBR to the XC Fat Bikes as we speak! CHEERS!

  4. #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

  5. #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

  6. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    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


  7. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    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


  8. #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.

  9. #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

  10. #160
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    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.

  11. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,795
    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...


  12. #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?

  13. #163
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,609
    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.

  14. #164
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,305
    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.

  15. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,632
    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.

  16. #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

  17. #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:	2208 
Size:	114.7 KB 
ID:	640463
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja2.jpg 
Views:	2315 
Size:	96.9 KB 
ID:	640462
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	askja3.jpg 
Views:	2404 
Size:	112.1 KB 
ID:	640461
    a good look for yah!
    Read my BLOG!

    just a guy who loves bikes and exploring

  18. #168
    Technician / hoarder
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2

    a topiary

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

  19. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,632
    Looks like it fits! You gonna stay up late and look at it from every angle?

  20. #170
    Cheesiest
    Reputation: intheways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,530
    Built yet?

  21. #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

  22. #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

  23. #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.

  24. #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:	2208 
Size:	114.7 KB 
ID:	640463
    I knew a girl like that once.

    You look slightly delirious is that picture.

    Happy = New bike stuff


  25. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,824
    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.

  26. #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.

  27. #177
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Devine Intervention's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    259
    Don't mind me, I'm just jumping on this thread to find out when the frames become available.

  28. #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

  29. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    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

  30. #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.

  31. #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............

  32. #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

  33. #183
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    747
    Rohloff compatibility would be nice and the chainline should be okay with 3.7-3.8"...

  34. #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 )

  35. #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:	2404 
Size:	112.1 KB 
ID:	640461
    I thought this Shiggy pic looked familiar:



    Redirect Notice

  36. #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???

  37. #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.

  38. #188
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    135mm is looking more possible.

  39. #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

  40. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    I would hope less than SIX Months.

  41. #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

  42. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    747
    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.

  43. #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.

  44. #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.

  45. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,068
    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

  46. #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?

  47. #197
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    747
    ^ 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..

  48. #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

  49. #199
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,210
    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

  50. #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 4 of 36 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... 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
  •