Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 253
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    106

    On-One Fatty trail

    In case you folks dont know yet.. Fatty trail Alu frame from On-One is now available.

    On-One Fatty Trail Frame | Planet X

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AllMountin''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,005
    Seems a bit short on spec info. Spacing/BB/etc..

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    119
    Does anybody know if this will be good to handle switch backs and single track? Its what I ride my fatty one and looking to make it more nimble.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    213
    wheres the full specs does this frame take a lou or bud rear ...weight ect

  5. #5
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,420
    I emailed On One about the frame and they replied that it shares geometry with the Park wood. No other details
    No moss...

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rain100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    35
    I also emailed On One, and recieved a little more info. Their response is attatched. I'm guessing that it doesn't have clearance for bud and lou as it is a 170mm frame. I am also guessing that the seatpost size is 31.6, same as the parkwood.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-fatty_trail.jpg  


  7. #7
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,420
    I wonder if it really has 435mm chainstay. The Fatty is 445.
    No moss...

  8. #8
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Man, that's a relatively short reach. The large is only 419. That's what new Medium AM bikes are trending towards.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    250
    Interesting, I like the geometry of it.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    106
    Wonder how much it would add had they opted with sliding drop outs?

    This will be a nice frame to set up 27.5+ 50mm nextie rims.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    59
    That standover can't be right. 32.6" for a small??

  12. #12
    try anything on a bike
    Reputation: blue_biker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    476
    Doesn't seem much different from regular fatty. Little bit shorter stays. But same HTA, probably same bb height. But shorter reach. I think the fatty as is makes an outstanding trail bike as is.
    The most freeride like fat bike I could make with available parts...

  13. #13
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Yeah, kinda disappointed.

    No thru-axle rear. No long reach and slack HTA. Not that much of an improvement on chainstay length.

    I hate to say it, but, yawn.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Yeah, kinda disappointed.

    No thru-axle rear. No long reach and slack HTA. Not that much of an improvement on chainstay length.

    I hate to say it, but, yawn.
    My thoughts exactly. I would've loved to see a 197 rear hub or at least a sliding dropout.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    I've been wanting to move a size up from the 16" Fatty frame I'm currently on, and the trail was similar geo but about $140 cheaper so I pulled the trigger (16" Fatty frame, carbon fork for sale - $450 - PM for details).

    Unfortunately the frame arrived like this:

    On-One Fatty trail-img_2740-768x1024-.jpg

    On-One Fatty trail-img_2742-768x1024-.jpg

    So I'm waiting for them to pick up the damaged frame and ship it back to the UK before they will then ship me a replacement (interesting customer service policy).

    I did however pull it out of the box and throw it on the scale. The 18" Fatty Trail comes in around 4.2lbs, and for comparison my 16" Fatty (with headset cups) is around 5.2lbs.

    So aside from shorter chainstays, you're probably dropping a pound or more with this new frame.

    I'll update this in a week or two when I finally get my frame.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    336
    Geometry chart is up on the link to Planet X. A bit of conflict with the Parkwood values. I'm not sure either chart is accurate.

    I had thought a rep from On-One had said this would fit the larger tires.

    Also raising my eyebrow over the standover height.

    And finally that their new frame is less expensive than the older one, but I guess that's aluminum vs steel?

  17. #17
    Trail Rat
    Reputation: devans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    92
    It's not to do with the fact it's technically a newer frame design, it's the fact it's not got 2 top tubes and it's less material

    Shame that you received it in such bad condition!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Anyone happen to know how to get things done with Planet X? Been waiting for over a week going back and forth with their customer service.

    They refuse to send a new frame before retrieving the old one and they keep telling me the carrier will be in touch with me.

    I ordered 2 weeks ago and I have a feeling nothing is going to happen this week either.

    Starting to feel like I'm getting screwed.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by skibumnh View Post
    Anyone happen to know how to get things done with Planet X? Been waiting for over a week going back and forth with their customer service.

    They refuse to send a new frame before retrieving the old one and they keep telling me the carrier will be in touch with me.

    I ordered 2 weeks ago and I have a feeling nothing is going to happen this week either.

    Starting to feel like I'm getting screwed.
    Looking at the pictures it appears as if their boxes are too small therefore they are inviting damage. Don't they use FedEx or UPS? If not, good luck, you are in for a rough ride.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by AZINGER View Post
    Looking at the pictures it appears as if their boxes are too small therefore they are inviting damage. Don't they use FedEx or UPS? If not, good luck, you are in for a rough ride.
    I believe they used DHL UK->US.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by skibumnh View Post
    I believe they used DHL UK->US.
    If they used DHL I'm surprised it arrived in that good of condition.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I ordered an 18" last weekend and got it yesterday. It weighed in at 4.7 lbs.

    I bought the FSA C-40 No. 42 Headset from the on-one web site based on the info on the web page. It's a caged bearing headset. I would suggest avoiding it. I bent one of the cages and spilled the bearings all over the floor. I ended using the race, bearings, and top cap from another - its and external headset but I set it up as internal and luckily the bearings fit. I am assuming that the head tube supports internal headsets (meaning no headset cups), but I could be wrong. I am basing this off of the parkwood page. Can anyone confirm?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Yes it's an IS headset. I went with the cane creek 40 series IS upper and lowers on my dirty disco which calls for the same FSA spec as the fatty trail and it's less expensive and fully sealed. Good value and I recommend it.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14
    I'm super excited to start seeing some build pics. I'm hoping that On One addressed the chain stay and bottom bracket junction design issues that make it impossible to make the jump from fatty to 29+ on the original fatty. Love my 6fatty, but I'm thinking that 29+ or 27.5+ are intriguing options.

    Also wondering why On One is not offering a full build yet. I bet they are waiting for a container of Bluto forks or something...

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    • 18" On-One Fatty Trail Grey on Black Frame
    • Snowshow XS (4.7) on Mulefuts - Tubeless, Surly Blue rim strips, 1 wrap of gorilla tape (2.8" wide), Stans (I think 4 Oz each wheel)
    • Turbine Cinch with 26 tooth Chaining
    • BB7 Brakes with Avid Levers (7's ? - they have the extra adjustment), 200 Front, 185 Rear
    • Set up SS with old XT Rapid Rise derailleur used for chain tensioner at the moment
    • Headset is the bearings from an external Gusset Headset I had lying around (EC34 Upper, EC44 Lower). I used the bearings with no cups, the existing race, and the original top cap
    • Stem is a Bontrager Race 90mm with about 6 degrees of rise (I think)
    • Bars are UNO 6061 Alloy risers - (I'll probably swap out for an Easton EA50 riser I have)
    • Bontrager Race Seat Post
    • Cheapie WTB saddle
    • Fork Bluto 120 - Stock with Slick Honey, No tokens
    • Pedals are Speedplay Drilliums
    • Cables are Jagwire Brake Cables
    • ESI Chunky Grips


    On-One Fatty trail-imag1413.jpg
    Weight 30 lbs even

    I have only tooled around in the neighborhood on it.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Does anyone have any idea what the real specs are on this bike? After a month of back and forth with PX, I finally got my new frame (the original they sent being damaged in shipping). I just went to throw my X9 FB cranks on and they are hitting the chainstays.

    The bike is spec'd with a 100mm BB and a 170mm RR hub spacing which are 4" specs, but the chainstays look like they could clear 5" tires.

    WTF is up with this frame? I am starting to think this is a 100mm shell, 190mm spaced cranks with a 170mm rear hub.

    I'm about to return it (Which I am sure this will take another month+) and just part out the rest of my bike at this point.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Probably no coincidence this frame has been de-listed from their website...

    On-One Fatty trail-capture.jpg

    It can still be found but you need to search for it specifically.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    What Cranks do you have? I have the 170 Spaced RF Cinch Turbines, and when I first put the cranks on, one side did hit the chain stay. However, after I adjusted the bearing pre-load they are now close but the cranks clear both stays.

    On-One Fatty trail-picture3.jpg

    On-One Fatty trail-picture4.jpg

    Measuring the outside drive-side CS to out side non-drive-side CS at the point where the pedals are on the crank shows 18 cm.

    The picture below shows a wood working clamp used as a caliper. The 18 cm mark is right at the edge of the clamp.

    Hopefully this helps.

    On-One Fatty trail-picture5.jpg

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17

    Upset

    Here are some X9 GXP100 Cranks torque'd to spec. Rubs on the drive side and way off on the non-drive.

    Drive:
    On-One Fatty trail-img_2872.jpg

    Non-Drive:
    On-One Fatty trail-img_2874.jpg

    If your measurement puts the outside of the chainstays at 180mm, the 176mm inside measurement that SRAM specs will definitely not clear.

    On-One Fatty trail-capture.png

    I guess you get what you pay for with OO/PX.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-img_2873.jpg  


  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3
    Hi!!

    I tried to install the following cranksets:

    Sram X9 100mm Fatbike version

    RaceFace Ride Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    Race Face Chester Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    The 3 models collide in the chainstay...

    I installed the "Race Face Ride Fatbike 100mm for 190 rear hub spacing" and not collide but the chainline is very bad

    Do you know any cranksets for 170 rear hub spacing, compatible with this frame?


    Thank you and sorry for my bad english...

  31. #31
    Mr.Green
    Reputation: Lars Thomsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    77
    Hi, I’ve found that the Surly Mr.Whirly, with a standard Spider and the 100mm+ Spindle (Moonlander version, the ‘Super Mondo’ ( with the 2x7mm spacers)) works fine.
    But it's not a crankset for 170 spacing!
    Quote Originally Posted by biftalatodepotasio View Post
    Hi!!

    I tried to install the following cranksets:

    Sram X9 100mm Fatbike version

    RaceFace Ride Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    Race Face Chester Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    The 3 models collide in the chainstay...

    I installed the "Race Face Ride Fatbike 100mm for 190 rear hub spacing" and not collide but the chainline is very bad

    Do you know any cranksets for 170 rear hub spacing, compatible with this frame?


    Thank you and sorry for my bad english...
    Mr.Green

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    My advice would be to return the frame set because someone screwed up in design. It's completely illogical for a 170mm spaced frame to need a 190mm spindle. Maybe someone over there thought it would be cool to run 5" tires with a 170 spacing but there is a physical reason why no other manufacturers have done that - it doesn't practically work.

    Planet X pulled the frame from the market within a couple weeks of its release, which indicates to me there was a problem they don't want to own.

    Between the first frame I received being damaged and this, It took me three months of pleading and finally some threats for a formal dispute to get them to honor their return policy. I still don't know if I'll get a full refund at this point.

    I've got two bikes from OO/PX that I like (original fatty and a dirty disco) but I consider myself lucky and hope to never have a customer service issue. I'll never buy from them again - no amount of savings is worth the risk or hassle.

    Quote Originally Posted by biftalatodepotasio View Post
    Hi!!

    I tried to install the following cranksets:

    Sram X9 100mm Fatbike version

    RaceFace Ride Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    Race Face Chester Fatbike 100mm for 170 rear hub spacing

    The 3 models collide in the chainstay...

    I installed the "Race Face Ride Fatbike 100mm for 190 rear hub spacing" and not collide but the chainline is very bad

    Do you know any cranksets for 170 rear hub spacing, compatible with this frame?


    Thank you and sorry for my bad english...

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I am running the Race Face Turbine Cinch with the 170 mm spindle. The pictures of the clearance between the pedals and the chain stay are earlier in the thread.

    I got these cranks last November.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    The part number is

    CK14TUR100A175BLK

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3
    Thank you guys for all the responses!!

    @krapper, What is the size of chainring you use?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3
    Thank you guys, for all the responses!
    OnOne has contacted me and told me the following:


    "I can confirm that this frameset has actually been recalled. We were in the process of contacting customers to recover the frame.

    I have made a case handler aware of your order, and should have further information early next week."

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I have a 26 tooth.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    100
    Seems like they are gonna give Fatty Trail another try:

    (from instagram)

    On-One Fatty trail-11820593_769150476527154_699257282_n.jpg

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,048
    And now they have it on their site: On-One Fatty Trail SRAM X5 Fat Bike | On - One for $1,700 or the X01 version for $2,300: On-One Fatty Trail SRAM X01 Fat Bike | On - One

    Tim

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    65
    Does anyone know if the "relaunch" of the fatty trail has remedied the CS/crank clearance issue? Also, does anyone have feedback about the standover on this frame? Is it really 32"+ for a small? That seems pretty tall...

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    Trying to bring this thread back......Anyone know if they resolved the crankset/chain stay clearance issue? Frames are $213 right now.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by jekyll2003 View Post
    Trying to bring this thread back......Anyone know if they resolved the crankset/chain stay clearance issue? Frames are $213 right now.
    I think they have. Where do you see $213 though? I only see $412 on both the UK and US sites.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    You have to go to Planet X US and go to menu, frames, mountain, and then scroll down and you will see it for $213. For some reason if you google the frame it comes up priced at $427. Shipping is $90 though, but still good deal if they have resolved the crank issues. Wondering if the sram x5 crankset they include on the full build will work with the frame only purchase. In theory any 100mm fat bike crank should work, but apparently weren't working on the original offering of this frame. I just don't want to place an order for a crankset only to find it doesn't fit.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    Also...anyone know what headset will fit this? P

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by jekyll2003 View Post
    Also...anyone know what headset will fit this? P
    Site says FSA C-40. The race is machined into the head tube so its going to be an IS42/IS52 in Cane Creek Speak. Easy install - no press needed, just drop the bearings into the races and go.

    FSA C-40
    FSA Orbit C-40-ACB 1.5 Headset (No.42-ACB) | Chain Reaction Cycles

    Short cap
    40-Series | Tapered IS42|IS52/40 Short Top Cover

    Tall cap
    40-Series | Tapered IS42|IS52/40 Tall Top Cover

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    108
    Thank you. Big help.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jekyll2003 View Post
    Trying to bring this thread back......Anyone know if they resolved the crankset/chain stay clearance issue? Frames are $213 right now.
    They have fixed that issue. I emailed them asking the same thing. They said the first batch wasn't built to spec but the new ones are fine. I also asked what the standover was for a small frame, and they said they had it listed as 32.6". I replied back asking if that was right and if they could possibly remeasure, but got no response. I really like the look (and price) of this frame, but that's way too tall for me to fit on it. That's about 6" taller than a lot of other size small fat frames. Apparently you need really long legs to ride this bike?

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,996
    Quote Originally Posted by versplatch View Post
    They have fixed that issue. I emailed them asking the same thing. They said the first batch wasn't built to spec but the new ones are fine. I also asked what the standover was for a small frame, and they said they had it listed as 32.6". I replied back asking if that was right and if they could possibly remeasure, but got no response. I really like the look (and price) of this frame, but that's way too tall for me to fit on it. That's about 6" taller than a lot of other size small fat frames. Apparently you need really long legs to ride this bike?
    I've got a feeling they measured it really close to the head tube or something.

    You could compare the frame diagram with a bike off a known stand over and get a good idea of what the actual is.

  49. #49
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Is a 4" On-One Floater tire the max this frame will clear in the rear?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    I've got a feeling they measured it really close to the head tube or something.

    You could compare the frame diagram with a bike off a known stand over and get a good idea of what the actual is.
    Thanks tfinator. I'll see what I can figure out. Anybody with this frame have any real world standover measurements?

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    57
    I get 29" where the top tube bends. 36" at the head tube. It's around 32+" at the midway point which is the standard place to measure stand over. This is on the new frame size medium with 120 mm bluto - no sag, and Vee snow shoe 4.5 inch tires (the original snow shoes).

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by tfinator View Post
    I've got a feeling they measured it really close to the head tube or something.

    You could compare the frame diagram with a bike off a known stand over and get a good idea of what the actual is.
    No way its 32.5" for the small - they are being lazy.

    This is my rough geometry calc for a medium (18") 15" from top tube to axle line +14.5" (assuming roughly 29" wheel diam) puts you at a 29.5" standover.

    On-One Fatty trail-rough-geo.jpg

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Is a 4" On-One Floater tire the max this frame will clear in the rear?
    If its anything like the original fatty you will have room to spare. Its also hugely dependent on the rim size. I am running floaters on an 82mm Rolling Darryl that measure 97mm. I wouldn't want to stuff anything bigger than 100-103mm in there to allow for mud clearance.

    That being said if you were running a 65mm rim, you could probably fit some narrowing measuring 5" class tires because the narrower rim keeps the profile rounder.

    For example check out 45 Nrth's geo chart

    http://45nrth.com/files/pages/13193_..._Update_V3.pdf

  54. #54
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Quote Originally Posted by krapper View Post
    Vee snow shoe 4.5 inch tires (the original snow shoes).
    How's the clearance with the Vee 4.5 Snowshoes?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by krapper View Post
    I get 29" where the top tube bends. 36" at the head tube. It's around 32+" at the midway point which is the standard place to measure stand over. This is on the new frame size medium with 120 mm bluto - no sag, and Vee snow shoe 4.5 inch tires (the original snow shoes).
    Thanks krapper. That's really helpful. It sounds like it might be less standover than they're claiming, but still on the tall side.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    I can confirm a Ground Control 4.6 on a BR710 rim clears well. Tried a Lou and it was a no go. Running a Nate at the moment as I was disappointed with the GC traction in mud, but plan to try a Dunderbeist in the future.

    They are very nice frames for the money and have a roomy top tube and modern trail geometry, love mine on muddy British singletrack. Resonable weight as well, 4.7 pounds for the large.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    On-One Fatty trail-20160106_144615.jpg

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by tim.johnston View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20160106_144615.jpg 
Views:	1979 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1040608
    That looks AWESOME! Please let us know how the Dunder fits (if you go with the full combo).

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    Will do Griffin32, have the Dunderbeist turning up next week. Fingers crossed it fits, will post pics either way.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    So the Dunderbeist fits nicely, almost identical size to the Ground Control. Here it is at 25psi while sealing...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-20160112_171740.jpg  

    On-One Fatty trail-20160112_171539.jpg  

    On-One Fatty trail-20160112_171607.jpg  


  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    95
    Can someone please confirm whether these new frames (the trail and-or white v2 fatty) can fit 170mm-specific cranks such as the Sram xx1 or 170mm Next Sl? Alternatively, can someone provide the width of the chainstays as shown in the pic?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-crank-clearance.jpg  

    Last edited by Estuche; 01-30-2016 at 09:25 AM.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Estuche View Post
    Can someone please confirm whether these new frames (the trail and-or white v2 fatty) can fit 170mm-specific cranks such as the Sram xx1 or 170mm Next Sl? Alternatively, can someone provide the width of the chainstays as shown in the pic?
    I'm running 170BB Race Face turbines on my V2. Both bikes use the 170 QR rear end, no reason the 170 cranks shouldn't work.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  63. #63
    Mayor of Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol' Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by tim.johnston View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20160106_144615.jpg 
Views:	1979 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1040608
    Good looking fatso
    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Homme

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69tr6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    661
    I see that Planet-X USA has the X5 complete bike for 25% off using the code on their site.

    PXLIQUID25

    I added one to the art and it's legit. Total cost is $1422 shipped, ($1237 before ship).

    I like how they are building the bike as a custom, so you can add items during the build like ordering from a menu. Not all items have options, but still nice, for example to upgrade the rear shifter from X5 to X9 for $13.

    Now, I must go and NOT click buy. This is tempting...

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    I see that Planet-X USA has the X5 complete bike for 25% off using the code on their site.

    PXLIQUID25

    I added one to the art and it's legit. Total cost is $1422 shipped, ($1237 before ship).

    I like how they are building the bike as a custom, so you can add items during the build like ordering from a menu. Not all items have options, but still nice, for example to upgrade the rear shifter from X5 to X9 for $13.

    Now, I must go and NOT click buy. This is tempting...
    Yeah, I built one with the dropper post. Figured I could swap out the nicer drive train bits from the current bike. Then I quickly closed the window before doing something hasty.....
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  66. #66
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,585
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    I see that Planet-X USA has the X5 complete bike for 25% off using the code on their site.

    PXLIQUID25

    I added one to the art and it's legit. Total cost is $1422 shipped, ($1237 before ship).

    I like how they are building the bike as a custom, so you can add items during the build like ordering from a menu. Not all items have options, but still nice, for example to upgrade the rear shifter from X5 to X9 for $13.

    Now, I must go and NOT click buy. This is tempting...
    Add another 10% of your purchase price on top of that; you will pay an import duty fee on a frame or bike from On-one.
    ****

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69tr6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    661
    Even from Planet-X USA?

  68. #68
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,585
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    Even from Planet-X USA?
    Don't know. I used the on-one website e-mail contact function to ask them this question. It was my impression that frames and full bikes were shipping from the UK. They were the ones who told me that Duty would be charged.
    ****

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    Planet X USA store burned to the ground a month or so ago. All orders come from the UK for now. I've bought two frames from On-One, I don't recall seeing the extra duty.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  70. #70
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,585
    I found two different pages at On-one's website regarding Duty; one said that there would be no Duty fees for the frame I was looking at, the other reference said there would be, and then the customer service rep who answered my e-mail said there would be a fee. I have never purchased from On-one, but I have purchased from Chain Reaction, and I had to pay a fee for that purchase.
    Your mileage may vary, I guess.
    ****

  71. #71
    Clears
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    90
    I bought a v2 fatty off of Planet X site. no duty fee.

  72. #72
    Mayor of Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol' Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    391
    Me too. V2 Fatso last month with no duty fee from the UK as Planet X USA burned down
    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Homme

  73. #73
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Technically, US Federal law requires import duty on complete bikes or frames in value over $500 (or $600?).

    Whether or not that actually gets levied to the recipient every time, dunno?
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    For those that got the complete bike, what is your impression of the El Guapo hubs? Are they really 72 POE? Seems like they are built similar to Hope Pro2s, I'd really like to know if the bearings are the same in the 170 QR and the 197x12, but I'll have to ask On-One for that info I'm sure. Impressions on the Emmental rims as well to please, are they tubeless ready?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dietz31684's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Impressions on the Emmental rims as well to please, are they tubeless ready?
    x2..

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11

    wheels

    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    For those that got the complete bike, what is your impression of the El Guapo hubs? Are they really 72 POE? Seems like they are built similar to Hope Pro2s, I'd really like to know if the bearings are the same in the 170 QR and the 197x12, but I'll have to ask On-One for that info I'm sure. Impressions on the Emmental rims as well to please, are they tubeless ready?
    I got the R 170qr, F 150x15mm El guapo+emmental wheels, not really impressed, but I think they will do the job for now. Rear hub may well be 72POE, firm ratheting sound but not as loud as Hope. I would not want to do trailside flat repair too often for front wheel as end caps are popping out too easily and get lost and it has loose inner pipe rattling inside the hub shell between the bearings. It's quite difficult to push the axle in while it hits the ends of the pipe.

    Emmental rims appear to be basic Weinmanns similar to his post: Fatty Stripper tubeless solution?

    So not tubeless ready. But since that guy had some luck with Fattystrippers, I thought to give it a try but wanted something even cheaper and hopefully a solution that will last several tire changes.

    I bought a roll of 50mm 3M 764(i) strechy vinyl tape and did one continous run over the trimmed original rim strip. Then foam rods fitted taped both sides over once more and taped one run in middle cavity to finish it off. The new rod tire shelves needed some lubing to get both sides seated with inner tube, so I felt quite confident. Visited local gas station to use the free compressor and after removing the valve core (these are schrader valve drilled rims) tire popped on nicely. Put in 120ml of Contineltal Revosealant as it's supposed to be safer for tape glue than stan's. Tire was left at some 15psi over night and yesterday did a short 20km ride dropping the pressure gradually from 12psi to 8psi. I'll have to go lower stilll as we have some snow to ride now, but so far so good. This was for front wheel, tape and strip added 155g + sealant, so not superlight but not too bad if it proves to be a solid setup. Pictures here: http://1drv.ms/1mOxW1B


    Otherwise I'm really liking the Fatty Trail, fast and agile... (no former true fat experience)
    On-One Fatty trail-kuva0471.jpg

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    11
    OK, tubeless solution above does not work past 8psi, when lower sealant starts to leak a little between tire and rim sidewall and its easy to to burb the tire just by pushing with fingers, it needs more support between tire bead and rim bead seat. Like a slit tube or latex strip I'm ok with that frontwise but rear tire needs to be lower pressure for comfort and traction, quess I'm going to order some Fattystrippers

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by tim.johnston View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20160106_144615.jpg 
Views:	1979 
Size:	153.1 KB 
ID:	1040608

    I've been shopping around for Fat bikes and was looking for more info on the On-One fatty Trail. i haven't heard any reviews from anyone who actually had one yet. its about a $1k less than some of the big name bikes like trek farlely or specialized fat boy and seems to come with great specs. Could you let us know how you like it, what terrain you ride it on, or any other Pros/Cons you have with the bike or overall spec. appreciate it. Bike looks great!

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by bostonsr5 View Post
    I've been shopping around for Fat bikes and was looking for more info on the On-One fatty Trail. i haven't heard any reviews from anyone who actually had one yet. its about a $1k less than some of the big name bikes like trek farlely or specialized fat boy and seems to come with great specs. Could you let us know how you like it, what terrain you ride it on, or any other Pros/Cons you have with the bike or overall spec. appreciate it. Bike looks great!
    I built mine up from a frame only so I can't comment on the other parts. It's a great little frame, quite light and perfect for blasting round trail centers in the UK. The Treks look good to me as well, with good angles, but the Specialized is a bit old fashioned for my tastes in the geometry department. Depends where and how you ride obviously, but I can say for sure that the Fatty Trail lives up to it's name, it makes a good trail bike on hardpack, singletrack mud roots and all.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    2
    T.J., thanks for the quick response. As you said the geometry seems great for the fatty trail and looks to be a capable bike at much better price point than the farley. was wondering what hubs/Wheel set you went with and if you have thru axles or quick release? i don't know about and couldn't find much info about the el guapo hubs that come on the trail fatty. aside from what info was on the Planet X web site, prob slightly biased. The bike they ship has the "el Guapo" hubs and are quick release axles. those were my only points of contension. Im not sure if they could be converted to thru axles as I'm fairly new to the "modern" mtn biking scene. also keep in min I'm not going to Bombing down hill or tearing to pieces single track. I'll go down hill and see. So maybe the stock quick release axles and El Gluapo hubs are fine for me? let me know what you think. anyone else with some experience on this bike feel free to chime in, i welcome your opinion and any more info. Thanks.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by bostonsr5 View Post
    T.J., thanks for the quick response. As you said the geometry seems great for the fatty trail and looks to be a capable bike at much better price point than the farley. was wondering what hubs/Wheel set you went with and if you have thru axles or quick release? i don't know about and couldn't find much info about the el guapo hubs that come on the trail fatty. aside from what info was on the Planet X web site, prob slightly biased. The bike they ship has the "el Guapo" hubs and are quick release axles. those were my only points of contension. Im not sure if they could be converted to thru axles as I'm fairly new to the "modern" mtn biking scene. also keep in min I'm not going to Bombing down hill or tearing to pieces single track. I'll go down hill and see. So maybe the stock quick release axles and El Gluapo hubs are fine for me? let me know what you think. anyone else with some experience on this bike feel free to chime in, i welcome your opinion and any more info. Thanks.
    I wouldn't get hung up on the quick release personally for stiffness. I have both on different bikes and on a stiff 26" fat wheel I'm hard to pushed to feel a difference. If you upgrade your frame at a later date then it would be good to know more about the Hub adaptability though. I went with Hope Hubs and BR710s, light and plenty of end caps for compatability.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    I have a neighbor with the Tomac Hesperus which has the El Guapo hubs. I think I saw somewhere on here that they were possibly Novatec? He seems to like them just fine, but thinks they could be heartier. The rear for the Fatty Trail is 170 with vertical dropouts, so it's a QR and it may not be convertible to thru axle. Even if you could drill out the end caps it's nigh impossible to find a 170x10mm thru axle. The 190 is thru axle and may be a slightly different design besides the additional width. If the cartridge bearings are the same there should be room for a 12mm axle to fit, but again the drops are for 10mm. With 72 POE, seemingly easy to maintain/work on, and at the pricepoint they seem worthy of giving them a chance. The frames do look nice, I'm debating picking up a frame and swapping over parts.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  83. #83
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Welp... Don't shop at work, b/c you'll end up doing impulse buys...

    A pair of Floaters and a Fatty Trail frame are now soon to be headed my way
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  84. #84
    Mayor of Waterdog
    Reputation: Ol' Bromy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    391
    MTB Tools Mtn Bike 12mm x 170mm thru Axle to Standard 5mm QR Wheel Adapter | eBay

    I found this on eBay and have one on the way to me. My Fatty wheelset came with removable end caps and is thru bolt adaptable, the only problem is that On One/PlanetX doesn't have one. This axle looks like it will help to stiffen up the rear quite a bit. 12mm X 170mm that tapers down to 10mm at the ends to fit into normal drop outs. I'm gonna just slide my Hope skewer thru this and I'm sure I'll be set. I have the same type of axle on a SunRingle wheelset and it worked beautifully. I asked PlanetX about a thru bolt when I was building my Fatty, and they said that there wasn't one for my hub, but there was one for the Guapo hub if I wanted to go that route. Good luck!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-One Fatty trail-image.jpg  

    “We bring Saturdays” ~ Homme

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBLoCo29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    134
    I'm running Novatec 4 way hubs on my Fatty, they came with 9 and 10mm skewer/axle. It's basically a cross between a thru-axle and a qr. You can switch end caps to run a regular QR or a full on 15 or 20 mm thru axle. http://www.amazon.com/NOVATEC-Bicycl.../dp/B00K1TK1XQ

    On the front, I use the skraxle on the rigid fork, 15mm thru axle with the suspension.
    On heavy rotation: Stooge 27.5+ SS, On-One Fatty, On-One 456 EVO, Surly Cross-Check, Scott CR1 (SS road)

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 69tr6r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Welp... Don't shop at work, b/c you'll end up doing impulse buys...

    A pair of Floaters and a Fatty Trail frame are now soon to be headed my way
    Congrats Hokie, what are your plans for this bike?

  87. #87
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Quote Originally Posted by 69tr6r View Post
    Congrats Hokie, what are your plans for this bike?
    Still working on that. Debating between a beat around snow bike with a 2nd set of wheels for urban use; an AM hardtail with 4" tires; or something in between.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  88. #88
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    And tracking info was here before lunch. That was fast.

    Estimated Delivery: Monday, April 04, 2016 By End of Day

    That's even faster!
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    39
    Congrats on the bikePlease post some pics of it when you will have it build up.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    Anybody put a rigid fork on the Fatty Trail? Perhaps a carbon one, 483 a-c, 150mm axle?

    Other options for a rigid fork that would work?
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    impulse buys...A pair of Floaters and a Fatty Trail frame are now soon to be headed my way
    Well I thought about it for 2 months and decided to try. I figure for now I'll swap things over from the Framed MN and let it roll. On-One is having a sale with 15% off everything except bikes. Even though it cost me 35 dollars more than a few days ago I jumped after I ran some numbers and presented the case to the wife. I had a lil' money from my gma that my lady is allowing me to spend on myself, since I've been constructive with the rest. I didn't really need a bike project, but at the price I felt like I had to give it a chance. I'm also gonna start with a rigid fork, thinking I'll just go with something corrected for 100mm because availability. It will steepen the HTA a bit, but don't have the rest for the sus quite yet. Eager to see that blue frame, electrified to roll those Floaters.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Anybody put a rigid fork on the Fatty Trail? Perhaps a carbon one, 483 a-c, 150mm axle?

    Other options for a rigid fork that would work?
    I would like to know this as well. Particularly the On One Fatty steel fork (which I currently have) or the On One Fatty Carbon fork. How much would it screw up geo and handling as this was designed around 120mm suspension fork? Going from 67.5 to a bit steeper head angle would be fine with me looking at this from a very simplistic perspective.

    I found these photos online a while ago and saved them, but did not find any more info at the time.

    On-One Fatty trail-8db1acf5-2ce8-4a8a-be6d-45ac4c99069e.jpgOn-One Fatty trail-10d48304-2599-4597-804b-2dd82e3a0d3b.jpgOn-One Fatty trail-cab2bf06-4849-4f13-8360-4ce947625104.jpg
    2014 Giant Trance 27.5 3
    2016 Norco Sasquatch 6.1

  93. #93
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Well I thought about it for 2 months and decided to try. I figure for now I'll swap things over from the Framed MN and let it roll. On-One is having a sale with 15% off everything except bikes. Even though it cost me 35 dollars more than a few days ago I jumped after I ran some numbers and presented the case to the wife. I had a lil' money from my gma that my lady is allowing me to spend on myself, since I've been constructive with the rest. I didn't really need a bike project, but at the price I felt like I had to give it a chance. I'm also gonna start with a rigid fork, thinking I'll just go with something corrected for 100mm because availability. It will steepen the HTA a bit, but don't have the rest for the sus quite yet. Eager to see that blue frame, electrified to roll those Floaters.
    Bought it already?

    Thinking I might sell my blue, Medium (more like a Large) frame and pair of Floaters.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  94. #94
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,451
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Anybody put a rigid fork on the Fatty Trail? Perhaps a carbon one, 483 a-c, 150mm axle?

    Other options for a rigid fork that would work?
    The steel Surly ICT fork is 150mm T/A and 483mm a2c.

    A 120mm Bluto has a static a2c of 531, so a sagged a2c of 501mm (25% sag)

    (Remember kids, unlike F/S, a hard tail gets steeper when you sit on it)

    So running the ICT fork will steepen the 'felt' HTA by about 1* (18mm shorter a2c)
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Bought it already?

    Thinking I might sell my blue, Medium (more like a Large) frame and pair of Floaters.
    Why sell? Stupid price on the Fatty trail right now as of this morning.

    As far as the fork, I'm looking at the 150mm 485a-c fork from carbon-cycle. I figure the HTA will steepen, but I'm ok with that. I think for every 20mm less travel you increase the HTA by a degree. So if I go for the 100mm sus corrected fork I should be increasing the HTA by a degree or so. Honestly I'm ok with that.


    .....and I see you already mentioned the HTA change in your next post.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by dbhammercycle View Post
    Why sell? Stupid price on the Fatty trail right now as of this morning.

    As far as the fork, I'm looking at the 150mm 485a-c fork from carbon-cycle. I figure the HTA will steepen, but I'm ok with that. I think for every 20mm less travel you increase the HTA by a degree. So if I go for the 100mm sus corrected fork I should be increasing the HTA by a degree or so. Honestly I'm ok with that.


    .....and I see you already mentioned the HTA change in your next post.
    Are these you are looking at?

    http://www.carboncycles.cc/index.php...=fork_selector

    Aren't all the fat forks on carbon-cycle 468 a-c?
    2014 Giant Trance 27.5 3
    2016 Norco Sasquatch 6.1

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    ^ pm sent.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    336
    I'm thinking of jumping on the frame deal, but the fork is giving me worries. I too want a rigid fork, and prefer the steel, but I fear it would be a hideous combination. Thinking even a Surly fork would be a better match, say an ICT one.

    Also, anyone know if 29+ fits, and if so how tightly?

    Also, anyone know how narrow a Q-factor these can work with? I'm one of those folks who needs minimum Q. I have a square taper 135mm BB and a number of cranks to try out to get the best spacing, but I'm looking to see how far I could physically take that with the frame.

    Would a regular fatty be better in that regard?

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dbhammercycle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,645
    I don't disagree, it's difficult to find the right rigid fork. I haven't seen anything that is 120 sus corrected, only 100. However, I don't think a degree steeper HTA will hurt for the riding I would intend. Also, the Surly Wednesday fork is 468?mm I think, but you can put a 100mm sus on it as mentioned. The rigid is 17mm shorter than the sus corrected a-c of 485mm. Surly even goes so far as to say there is no advantage to running a longer rigid fork. So if it's good enough for the Wednesday then I'm ok with running the frame with a fork of 485, like the ICT fork for example. I'm still thinking carbon and may get it painted to match the frame.

    Can't speak for the other questions you have, but I am anxious to see a b+ in the frame. I have the 170 Turbine crankset now on my MN fatty, doesn't feel too wide, which is one reason I prefer the 170/177 rear hub vs the 190/197. I would be more worried/annoyed about heel strike with the 190/197 too since I've had some scrapping with boots in the winter.
    I don't know why,... it's just MUSS easier to pedal than the other ones.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    70
    Just picked this up on the last frame sale. Size large. 4lbs 11oz. Can't wait to build it up.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fatty Trail
    By nitrousjunky in forum On One
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-06-2016, 03:25 PM
  2. On One Fatty and Baby Fatty, complete or kit
    By eugenemtbing in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 10:39 AM
  3. Trail fatty post Eurobike?
    By ubergn0men in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-02-2013, 08:42 AM
  4. On-One Fatty versus Crawler for Trail Riding
    By Venturewest in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-09-2013, 09:26 AM
  5. Choosing a Fatty for trail use.
    By MidNight_Rider in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-01-2013, 06:10 AM

Members who have read this thread: 94

Posting Permissions

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