Another Spaceframe- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 66 of 66
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916

    Another Spaceframe

    Thought I'd let this one accumulate some miles before putting in a review.

    I've ridden it in the mountains of western North Carolina, the mountains and foothills of California, and the forests of Virginia and Maryland.

    It's as great as they say, and I've sold my Behemoth and Milk Money, this is my only offroader now.

    It is definitely a rigid bike, maybe a bit more compliant; but the setup and angles make it simply pure fun to ride. I've never had a bike I like to ride more. It goes where you point it, climbs really well even on steep gravel roads, and is incredible in tech sections; it handles really well in slow speed situations. I have a back that gets sore after riding for a couple of hours, but the more upright position on this alleviates that problem, which is a huge plus for me.

    I've ridden it fixed, with a Rohloff, but it's best for me as a SS. It's 21 pounds even as a SS, and that's with non crazy-light tires with tubes, the cyclometer, and a 1/8" drivetrain with steel cog and an Izumi V chain.

    It's a great piece of gear.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Another Spaceframe-img_0223.jpg  

    Another Spaceframe-img_0224.jpg  

    Another Spaceframe-img_0225.jpg  

    Another Spaceframe-img_0226.jpg  

    Another Spaceframe-img_0227.jpg  


  2. #2
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,564
    Frame looks way too small for you. Even if you have the "min insertion depth" for the seatpost, that's for the seatpost and the frame is seeing an incredible amount of leverage.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  3. #3
    the test dummy
    Reputation: insanitylevel9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,487
    oooohhhhh nice
    Quote Originally Posted by craftworks750
    Riding a mtb is like a reset button, 10 mins in and there is nothing else in the world that matters.
    my bikes
    -
    Ben

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Frame looks way too small for you. Even if you have the "min insertion depth" for the seatpost, that's for the seatpost and the frame is seeing an incredible amount of leverage.

    Size is perfect, thanks. This size frame is ridden by much taller riders than I, seatpost is not close to min insertion. I'm only just over 6' w/35" inseam.

  5. #5
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,907
    This is at least the seventh or eighth Jones I know of in our area. We need to start a club or at least have a meetup or sumthin'
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | ssoft | flickr

  6. #6
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    32,564
    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    Size is perfect, thanks. This size frame is ridden by much taller riders than I, seatpost is not close to min insertion. I'm only just over 6' w/35" inseam.
    Ahh, so it's a large. Nevermind.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  7. #7
    V-Shaped Rut
    Reputation: big_slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,169
    I looked at that seat height and thought, what is this guy, 6'5" riding a med frame? But if its the fit you like, more power to you.

    I've often wondered how those ride, no demo days obviously.

  8. #8
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Frame looks way too small for you. Even if you have the "min insertion depth" for the seatpost, that's for the seatpost and the frame is seeing an incredible amount of leverage.
    nope...short as possible seattubes rock. looks good to me...thats how these frames roll

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mattbryant2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,166
    Hell yeah, son. I would love to ride that bike.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil
    This is at least the seventh or eighth Jones I know of in our area. We need to start a club or at least have a meetup or sumthin'
    Could be because we're a bunch of guv'mint lackeys up here drawing decent salaries while the rest of the country is looking for jobs.

    Good idea about a meetup...I've been trying to get on some of the MORE epics but keep missing cuz I'm out of town or whatever. This weekend?

    Re seat height, Fo hit it...it's not my particular preference, it's the way the bike is designed. It's a great feeling having that much space (hence the name) between you and the top tube...feels like you have a ton of room to move around (and you do) without smashing something on the frame with your legs, knees, nuts, whatever. As Jeff has said to me and many others, everything about the frame is wrong but it all morphs into an incredibly rideable package. It's also not something most of us can appreciate on a quick ride around the parking lot.

    My advice to anyone who has thought about buying one (and I understand the many people who either don't get it or hate it), if you have the opportunity to get one and can afford it, just get it. If you really don't like it after riding it for a month or two, you can sell it for little or no loss, and you'll never have to wonder what it is you're missing. I'd give odds that most people who buy one will never sell it.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vindiggitydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    243
    It looks like you are riding so far above the frame?? Seems like it would give you a disadvantage in handling.

  12. #12
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    Re seat height, Fo hit it...it's not my particular preference, it's the way the bike is designed. It's a great feeling having that much space (hence the name) between you and the top tube...feels like you have a ton of room to move around (and you do) without smashing something on the frame with your legs, knees, nuts, whatever.


    few months ago i would have been a skeptic but after receiving my latest (non Jones) bike with a super short seattube (16.5") I am SOLD on the fact "traditional" geo is for the sheep

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by vindiggitydog
    It looks like you are riding so far above the frame?? Seems like it would give you a disadvantage in handling.
    simply answer: it doesn't matter. If the distances between saddle, pedals, bars, wheels, etc are the same then you can make the frame any shape you want without affecting the fit or handling

    that said, technically this low frame design probably handles a bit better because of a lower center of gravity

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    simply answer: it doesn't matter. If the distances between saddle, pedals, bars, wheels, etc are the same then you can make the frame any shape you want without affecting the fit or handling

    that said, technically this low frame design probably handles a bit better because of a lower center of gravity
    Agreed...low CG designed by JJ, the BB is low and as a result I run very short cranks (167.5mm) which makes the saddle height even higher...the seatpost would be 1/2" lower if I was running 180s. I'm a big fan of short cranks as I spend a lot of time on a fixie.

    The low CG is one reason the low speed handling on these is so good. If you look at some of Aquaholic's vids, that boy can do a trackstand plus on his Jones and reposition the rear end while he's standing still. No way do I have his skills, but I can still do a lot more at slow speed on this bike than I can on any other I've ridden.

  15. #15
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    simply answer: it doesn't matter. If the distances between saddle, pedals, bars, wheels, etc are the same then you can make the frame any shape you want without affecting the fit or handling
    The irony of dismissing frame shape's importance to handling in a thread about a Jones Spaceframe...

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    The irony of dismissing frame shape's importance to handling in a thread about a Jones Spaceframe...
    i think you think I'm stupid

    A bike with Jones geometry but a normal frame shape will handle very similarly to a full-on Spaceframe, the difference being in center of gravity like I mentioned. On top of that, construction and tubing design that supposedly make the Jones feel plusher should not be confused with the issue of geometry.

    My point was comparing like to like, not Jones to non-Jones

  17. #17
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    A bike with Jones geometry but a normal frame shape will handle very similarly to a full-on Spaceframe, the difference being in center of gravity like I mentioned.
    I believe both aspects of that comment are wrong and I suspect Jones would say so too. Not sure why you think compliance has no impact on handling and I can't imagine anyone not seeing that the spaceframe shape is chosen to effect compliance. You think the frame shape is simply style?

    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    On top of that, construction and tubing design that supposedly make the Jones feel plusher should not be confused with the issue of geometry.
    No one has confused that, but if you are suggesting that it is tube choice, and not tube shape, that has that effect you are mistaken.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    I believe both aspects of that comment are wrong and I suspect Jones would say so too. Not sure why you think compliance has no impact on handling and I can't imagine anyone not seeing that the spaceframe shape is chosen to effect compliance. You think the frame shape is simply style?
    I never said it was about style. I certainly understand that the funky design of the tubing is especially for achieving the holy grail of "vertical compliance and lateral stiffness" and I don't doubt that these are noticeably more comfortable because of their compliance. But I do still say that compliance has no more than a minute effect on handling or traction. Vertical compliance on a rigid HT isn't going to do what an FS bike does for traction and the most effect I think it would really have on handling would be settling in a bit more around turns. Certainly not a game changer. I've done enough rigid riding to understand how harshness vs compliance can change how the rider pushes the bikes, but it doesn't change the handling

    Jeff sells a steel version of the frame done in a traditional double-diamond style, about which he says the "Steel frames have the same geometry, clearances, features, gearing options, handling and balance points as the titanium frames but at a lower cost". The only difference he really tries to sell for the spaceframe is comfort, but that does match well with goal for an all-day rigid bike for rough riding. He talks about handling a lot on his site, but only in the context of his funky geometry.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    No one has confused that, but if you are suggesting that it is tube choice, and not tube shape, that has that effect you are mistaken.
    nope, not what I meant.

  19. #19
    craigsj
    Guest
    You might be right about the stupid part.

    I wonder if you would ever propose this in any other thread or whether you would expect anything other than laughter in response. Nevertheless, I will expect nothing other than repeats of your position here. It's not about discussion now, it's about winning.

  20. #20
    Ride 'Til Your Knees Hurt
    Reputation: cycljunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle


    few months ago i would have been a skeptic but after receiving my latest (non Jones) bike with a super short seattube (16.5") I am SOLD on the fact "traditional" geo is for the sheep
    Couldn't agree more! For my latest bike project I also went with a smaller seat tube than usual and the bike just felt great (going up or down)!

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    I wonder if you would ever propose this in any other thread or whether you would expect anything other than laughter in response.
    Sorry if I was pushy; I will readily admit I get too wrapped up in this stuff. Not sure what you mean by this line though; is that an insult or am I stupid on this topic too

    edit: not to keep dragging this out, but I don't believe it was ever a discussion from your comments either. I just realized you are the same person I had another recent "discussion" with, and I say we both suck at this civil discussion thing. We are destined to butt heads again

  22. #22
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by cycljunkie
    Couldn't agree more! For my latest bike project I also went with a smaller seat tube than usual and the bike just felt great (going up or down)!
    good call and looking good! to paraphrase the words of a famous 29er surgeon, get the smallest dimensions possible, to which i wholeheartedly agree.

    i mean who the f cares if you are at or close the max (or min depending on how you look at it) on the seatpost? the only disadvantage is that it shows a lot of post which some people may not look, but ALL else is an advantage

    obviously you dont want a seattube length so short that a 410mm post cannot work but thats not what we are talking about here...we are talking about e-sheep worrying about nothing cuz others have rad frames that by design use more post than the aforementioned e-sheep are used to seeing

  23. #23
    V-Shaped Rut
    Reputation: big_slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,169
    FWIW I was talking about seat HEIGHT, not seat tube length. Look at how high the seat is relative to the bars. The OP mentioned upright seating so I'm wondering how high the seat on his previous ride was and how far he was leaned forward? Going downhill must be scary!

    A pic on the bike might be worth a thousand words though. Super long legs and chimp arms?

  24. #24
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by big_slacker
    FWIW I was talking about seat HEIGHT, not seat tube length. Look at how high the seat is relative to the bars. The OP mentioned upright seating so I'm wondering how high the seat on his previous ride was and how far he was leaned forward? Going downhill must be scary!

    A pic on the bike might be worth a thousand words though. Super long legs and chimp arms?
    gotcha...yeah, thats a separate issue indeed which of course seattube length would have no impact on assuming all else held constant

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,266
    Don't forget that the long ass seatpost acts like a giant lever working the tubes that its inserted into. Better make sure that the tubes are able to withstand that force.
    Maybe not a problem on a burly steel frame, and maybe not a problem if the post is flexy titanium. But otherwise watch out.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jeff in Bend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    423
    Seat tube length or is it lower top tube height that is the advantage?

    Another cool feature of that bike is you can step through the frame to mount it!

    Name:  51s81xq5z7l__aa400_[1].jpg
Views: 1591
Size:  24.9 KB

  27. #27
    ( )
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    You might be right about the stupid part.

    I wonder if you would ever propose this in any other thread or whether you would expect anything other than laughter in response. Nevertheless, I will expect nothing other than repeats of your position here. It's not about discussion now, it's about winning.

    Have you ever wondered to yourself why it is that you always end up in these types of exchanges?

  28. #28
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160

    Screwy photo me thinks

    Quote Originally Posted by big_slacker
    FWIW I was talking about seat HEIGHT, not seat tube length. Look at how high the seat is relative to the bars. The OP mentioned upright seating so I'm wondering how high the seat on his previous ride was and how far he was leaned forward? Going downhill must be scary!
    OP, am I right in guessing that your saddle is actually only 1" or so above the resting spot of your hands on the bars? If so, then this is not an issue at all. I ride the heck out of my bikes and intentionally set the bars 1" below the saddle. I ride a hard tail like this, so that 1" turns into 2" or more when the suspension is active, all without issue. Considering that fork isn't going to sag, I'm guessing it handles very well as is.

    Bar to saddle height is a personal preference, and for folks with more legs than torso (myself included), that inch or two below isn't all that uncommon.

    Anyway, sweet rig Dude! Would love to have one some day.
    Last edited by Entrenador; 07-06-2010 at 09:52 PM.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    OP, am I right in guessing that your saddle is actually only 1" or so above the resting spot of your hands on the bars? If so, then this is not an issue at all. I ride the heck out of my bikes and intentionally set the bars 1" below the saddle. I ride a hard tail like this, so that 1" turns into 2" or more when the suspension is active, all without issue. Considering that fork isn't going to sag, I'm guessing it handles very well as is.

    Bar to saddle height is a personal preference, and for folks with more legs than torso (myself included), that's not all that uncommon.

    Anyway, sweet rig Dude! Would love to have one some day.
    Exactly...bars are 1" lower than saddle at center of bar where the hands rest. With an upright seating position it is absolutely not an issue.

    Going downhill in techy sections is easier and more confidence-inspiring than any bike I've had. I can't bomb thru them as there's no suspension, but I feel I can handle almost anything.

  30. #30
    SyT
    SyT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by boomn
    simply answer: it doesn't matter. If the distances between saddle, pedals, bars, wheels, etc are the same then you can make the frame any shape you want without affecting the fit or handling

    that said, technically this low frame design probably handles a bit better because of a lower center of gravity

    I'm thnking the c of g on a 20 something pound machine with a rider whose mass is something like ten times that is mostly irrelevant.
    When you're sitting on the bike, c of g is going to be somewhere around the seat area, when standing, somewhere around the BB area. I think the twenty pounds would have to be concentrated (ALL of it) above the riders knees to make any real world difference. IOW, I call bs.

  31. #31
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    My advice to anyone who has thought about buying one (and I understand the many people who either don't get it or hate it), if you have the opportunity to get one and can afford it, just get it. If you really don't like it after riding it for a month or two, you can sell it for little or no loss, and you'll never have to wonder what it is you're missing. I'd give odds that most people who buy one will never sell it.
    Great advice. Did you pick this up used or new? I would love to try one as I am liking rigid, slow speed riding more and more and would like a more capable, more trialsish (with big wheels) frame/fork combo.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by SyT
    I'm thnking the c of g on a 20 something pound machine with a rider whose mass is something like ten times that is mostly irrelevant.
    When you're sitting on the bike, c of g is going to be somewhere around the seat area, when standing, somewhere around the BB area. I think the twenty pounds would have to be concentrated (ALL of it) above the riders knees to make any real world difference. IOW, I call bs.
    I never said how big a difference did I?

    when talking about the whole system (rider and bike) moving in unison I agree with you, but when talking about a rider moving the bike around underneath himself I think there is room for it to make some small difference at least

  33. #33
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    Exactly...bars are 1" lower than saddle at center of bar where the hands rest. With an upright seating position it is absolutely not an issue.

    Going downhill in techy sections is easier and more confidence-inspiring than any bike I've had. I can't bomb thru them as there's no suspension, but I feel I can handle almost anything.
    Wow - from the photo it looks like there is about 3 or 4 inches of difference between the saddle and the grips, vertically. It really doesn't matter though - as long as the bike feels good to YOU who cares what anyone/everyone thinks about your positioning. If you are long-limbed/short-torsoed (opposite of me!) it makes total sense to me the way the bike looks to be set-up. I put a pair of Jones-style J-bars on my rigid 29" SS a couple of years ago now, and I love the way they ride and the control they give. I ride with a grip height that is just below my saddle height - maybe less than an inch difference, and sometimes wonder if being a little higher may be better... Not for everyone, but that is fine. I did a demo ride with Jeff and really would love to have one of his bikes. Someday, maybe...
    R.I.P. Corky 10/97-4/09
    Disclaimer: I sell and repair bikes for a living


  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    I hate butting into a thread about another's bike, but it might be of some use.

    CG on something so light will be hard to detect. Until someone sets up a double-blind study, we won't know the psychological effect of a perceived CG. And a low CG would likely assist high-speed cornering, but hamper low-speed direction changes... if your body didn't weigh 10 times what your bike does.

    The exposed post doesn't bother me, but the nose-down saddle does. Usually indicates an attempt to avoid numb junk, caused by too-long reach or too low bar.

  35. #35
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160

    Give it a little while

    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    I can't bomb thru them as there's no suspension, but I feel I can handle almost anything.
    The rigid bike will slice it up like no other. Not sure if you've been riding rigid much yet, but if not, it'll get easier as you get used to it -- hands, arms, legs and hips will loosen up, and pretty soon that bike will will just float under you. It'll never be a point & shoot kind of bike, but I expect you'll be able to handle fairly techy stuff at speed, with more savvy and less tension, in the near future. Maybe you're already doing this?

    Ride reports when you get a few good ones on it, por favor!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Great advice. Did you pick this up used or new? I would love to try one as I am liking rigid, slow speed riding more and more and would like a more capable, more trialsish (with big wheels) frame/fork combo.
    I got this used from Craigslist, of all places. Turned out I knew the owner peripherally as he has a proprietary cycling business (fixed gear hubs) and I had done business with him before.

    This frame is perfect for slow speed, picking through obstacles riding. You'd love it.

  37. #37
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,849

    Even so...

    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    Size is perfect, thanks. This size frame is ridden by much taller riders than I, seatpost is not close to min insertion. I'm only just over 6' w/35" inseam.

    ...it doesn't look so great. But then again, I never thought the "grandpa's truss" forks looked too great either on such an otherwise great looking design. It's what you think that's important though.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    541

    about the small crankarms

    First, love the way the bike looks
    Second, who cares what anybody else thinks

    -------
    However....
    I wonder if Jeff Jones or you would want to chime in about running the small crankarms. Everything I have read (mostly Leonard Zinn and zinn bicycles and on velonews) says that big guys need big crankarms. I have an inseam of 34 (pant leg style not cycling style) and he said I should think about 180 cranks. Wonder if you are not getting as much power as you could if you were running at least a 175 crank. You have long legs so you should be able to turn a bigger crank because you have more leverage. Hope I am explaining it ok...

    Anyway don't worry too much about what I think, enjoy the bike!!!!

  39. #39
    ( )
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by jvossman
    -------
    However....
    I wonder if Jeff Jones or you would want to chime in about running the small crankarms. Everything I have read (mostly Leonard Zinn and zinn bicycles and on velonews) says that big guys need big crankarms. I have an inseam of 34 (pant leg style not cycling style) and he said I should think about 180 cranks. Wonder if you are not getting as much power as you could if you were running at least a 175 crank. You have long legs so you should be able to turn a bigger crank because you have more leverage. Hope I am explaining it ok...

    Stand by to be corrected in the most arrogant and condescending way by craigsj. He lives for posts like this.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by jvossman
    First, love the way the bike looks
    Second, who cares what anybody else thinks

    -------
    However....
    I wonder if Jeff Jones or you would want to chime in about running the small crankarms. Everything I have read (mostly Leonard Zinn and zinn bicycles and on velonews) says that big guys need big crankarms. I have an inseam of 34 (pant leg style not cycling style) and he said I should think about 180 cranks. Wonder if you are not getting as much power as you could if you were running at least a 175 crank. You have long legs so you should be able to turn a bigger crank because you have more leverage. Hope I am explaining it ok...

    Anyway don't worry too much about what I think, enjoy the bike!!!!
    Yeah, I'm so bummed about how fvcked up the bike is that I got the sawzall and cut the frame into 1,000 pieces and scattered it in the Potomac River. I'm getting a XXXXXXXL Karate Monkey instead. The seatpost is too long, the saddle is tilted too far forward, it's too long, too short, angles are too shallow or steep. etc so even though it's the best ride I've ever had, and I've had more than most, I had to dump it.

    Re the cranks I've tried them all. I have 190s through 165s on various bikes and like shorter much better. JJ actually told me to run 165s (which he runs as well), but I compromised just a bit by going 167.5 for no reason other than I could get them in XTR. His BBs are low which is one reason he likes shorter cranks in terms of pedal clearance. I've ridden these cranks with the bike as a SS all over the place including some wicked climbs, and I don't think longer cranks would have made a significant difference, I still would have had to walk a lot of the climbs. Maybe longer cranks would have let me get a few yards farther before I dismounted, but I would have hit a lot more roots and rocks with them. So you gear down a tooth in the back and spin faster, it's a compromise.

    Appreciate the kind words, spaceframes are more polarizing than the Obama administration!

  41. #41
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160

    Bad angle again?

    Quote Originally Posted by D.F.L.
    The exposed post doesn't bother me, but the nose-down saddle does. Usually indicates an attempt to avoid numb junk, caused by too-long reach or too low bar.
    I know some folks prefer dumping the nose on their saddles, but I too think a level or a slight tilt up is the optimal position. My hands and arse agree.

    I've never seen this bike in person, but looking at how close the front wheel is to the bottom of the photo, compared to the rear wheel, suggests that the bike is tilted somewhat in the photo. This is why I don't see the bars as much lower than the saddle. Might explain the appearance of the nose-down saddle tilt as well.

    OP, can you humor us and post another photo of the bike from a level perspective? Also, I am hereby claiming my right to 1/2" of leeway on this too: bars up, or seat down, or both, since this rig is new to the rider and he might do some follow up adjustments.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    10,035
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    I know some folks prefer dumping the nose on their saddles, but I too think a level or a slight tilt up is the optimal position. My hands and arse agree.

    I've never seen this bike in person, but looking at how close the front wheel is to the bottom of the photo, compared to the rear wheel, suggests that the bike is tilted somewhat in the photo. This is why I don't see the bars as much lower than the saddle. Might explain the appearance of the nose-down saddle tilt as well.

    OP, can you humor us and post another photo of the bike from a level perspective? Also, I am hereby claiming my right to 1/2" of leeway on this too: bars up, or seat down, or both, since this rig is new to the rider and he might do some follow up adjustments.
    they really do have a ridiculously short wheelbase though

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    463
    That's interesting to hear about the cranks - I've been thinking about putting 165mm cranks on my Spaceframe - mainly because I find the BB to be a bit low and have been getting some pedal strikes.

  44. #44
    I'm just messing with you
    Reputation: wv_bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,423
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    I've never seen this bike in person, but looking at how close the front wheel is to the bottom of the photo, compared to the rear wheel, suggests that the bike is tilted somewhat in the photo.
    Look at the horizontal board in the fence, it should be level.

    Nice bike. You need to get your wife to spray some Thompson's on that fence though.
    Chasing bears through the woods drunk with a dull hatchet is strongly not advised

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    OP, can you humor us and post another photo of the bike from a level perspective? Also, I am hereby claiming my right to 1/2" of leeway on this too: bars up, or seat down, or both, since this rig is new to the rider and he might do some follow up adjustments.
    As you can see, saddle is basically level, and there's 1" diff btwn saddle and bar.

    Bike is comfortable as is, I've done many 4+ hour rides and one 8 hour ride on the bike and it stays as is, very comfy. I've tried 35mm, 50mm, and 70 mm stems (JJ suggested 50mm) I like it at 70mm).

    This is a 24" frame which is larger than the 23" frame in length (43.5" wb) but not height.

    WVBob, house is a rental, I don't give a sh*t about the fence!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Another Spaceframe-img_0231.jpg  

    Another Spaceframe-img_0235.jpg  

    Another Spaceframe-img_0234.jpg  


  46. #46
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160
    That's it right there.

    Great lookin' ride. Have a blast, and again, post the ride reports.

  47. #47
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    I've tried 35mm, 50mm, and 70 mm stems (JJ suggested 50mm) I like it at 70mm).
    Wow, sounds so short to me. I know it's a geometry / fit thing, but I'm very accustomed to my 100-120mm stems these days, and just pulled off a 90mm on my 29er because it felt too short, and my frame too long. Then again, JJ uses fairly slack angles and longer offset -- which reminds about a story about a conversation between he and GF before the G2 offset appeared on the market, but that's another topic.

    Maybe someday I'll be fortunate enough to get a good long ride on one, and be able to fully appreciate the shorter stems. Until then, I'll be keeping mine in the triple digits.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    Wow, sounds so short to me. I know it's a geometry / fit thing, but I'm very accustomed to my 100-120mm stems these days, and just pulled off a 90mm on my 29er because it felt too short, and my frame too long. Then again, JJ uses fairly slack angles and longer offset -- which reminds about a story about a conversation between he and GF before the G2 offset appeared on the market, but that's another topic.

    Maybe someday I'll be fortunate enough to get a good long ride on one, and be able to fully appreciate the shorter stems. Until then, I'll be keeping mine in the triple digits.
    what bars are you using? it's impossible to have a worthwhile conversation about stem length without specifying what bars are being used i.e. backsweep and overall width.

    my xc bikes tend to have 710+mm bars with 9 or 10 degrees backsweep, and a 70 mm stem.

    a hundred years ago i rocked the 110 mm stem / narrow bar combo. neon purple, i think.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    158
    I want your bike! V. Nice!

  50. #50
    master blaster
    Reputation: veloreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    what size is that cog?
    it looks so damn sexy big and stainless!!!

    bike is also awesome

  51. #51
    breathing helium
    Reputation: cocheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,094
    Congrats on find THE bike for you. I've always wanted a Jones. Someday...

    No offense to anyone, but this place never ceases to amaze me. Not only do you get people making suggestion about how you should setup your bike, but you are getting suggestions about possible home improvements.

    Again, congrats on the new bike. Enjoy the heck out of it!

  52. #52
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by frorider
    what bars are you using? it's impossible to have a worthwhile conversation about stem length without specifying what bars are being used i.e. backsweep and overall width.

    my xc bikes tend to have 710+mm bars with 9 or 10 degrees backsweep, and a 70 mm stem.

    a hundred years ago i rocked the 110 mm stem / narrow bar combo. neon purple, i think.
    Nice. Yeah, I know my 3-digit stem lengths are old skool for sure. I think my shortish torso (relative to my extended leg length, and therefore "xtra" seat height) make it more important to ride with a bit more weight over the front wheel; IOW, I don't naturally sit out over the front end as far as someone with more torso length.

    Good point you make: I was using a slightly trimmed Fleegle bar, which has a bit of forward bend before it sweeps back.

  53. #53
    V-Shaped Rut
    Reputation: big_slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,169
    I rock a 120mm stem. "You are not alooooooone, I am here with yooooooou!" Probably because I also have relatively long legs and a relatively short torso. At 5'11" I used to try to be WW and ride the smallest frame I would fit on (had a M intense tracer) but ended up with a high saddle and some occasional OTB moments. I've since taken to riding L or 19" frames. I can have the seat lower and a bit forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by 105millimetersofpleasure
    Nice. Yeah, I know my 3-digit stem lengths are old skool for sure. I think my shortish torso (relative to my extended leg length, and therefore "xtra" seat height) make it more important to ride with a bit more weight over the front wheel; IOW, I don't naturally sit out over the front end as far as someone with more torso length.

    Good point you make: I was using a slightly trimmed Fleegle bar, which has a bit of forward bend before it sweeps back.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    463
    Just ordered a 70mm stem for my Spaceframe.

  55. #55
    Bored
    Reputation: bigwheelboy_490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,982
    I like reading about how other people think you should set up your frame.

    Anyway, nice ride!

  56. #56
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by big_slacker
    I rock a 120mm stem. "You are not alooooooone, I am here with yooooooou!" Probably because I also have relatively long legs and a relatively short torso. At 5'11" I used to try to be WW and ride the smallest frame I would fit on (had a M intense tracer) but ended up with a high saddle and some occasional OTB moments. I've since taken to riding L or 19" frames. I can have the seat lower and a bit forward.
    I used a set back post + 110mm stem on the M (18") Zion (23.7" ett) and a straight post + 90mm stem on the 19" Tuscon (24" ETT) to get the same cockpit size. As noted earlier, the bar difference certainly had something to do with it. I'm reassembling the Zion soon, and with any luck, it will feel even better than before with a few changes -- bar options: an H-bar, or a 12* sweep flat bar (replacing a 9* sweep), better fitting shoes (anyone else notice their feet shrinking?), etc. and a hair more fork offset (45mm Cromoto replacing the 43mm KM). Fingers crossed for just right. It's really in the minutia, isn't it?

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dRjOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,598
    when i first started using jones bars, i went with same stem length. then i went 10 mm shorter, following jeffs advice. then i went 10mm shorter again...no issue, better infact.

    just because you do something one way for awhile doesnt mean another way isnt good...i strongly suspect that the alteration in elbow orientation afforded by high sweep bars affects the position positively and allows a much greater range in the fore - aft weight distribution.

    its been interesting recently to change back from jones bars, through groovy luv handles to wide low risers and back again....

    if i lived in the alps, id probably want to use low rise wide bars with about 10 degree sweep ---- and a chairlift!....in most other riding situations, i prefer high sweep and a slightly more compact position....

    qui gon would say 'feel, dont think.' not a bad mantra....
    For a rock steady Gas Tank bag > the DeWidget

    bit.ly/BuyDeWidget

    https://www.instagram.com/drj0n_bagworks/

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by veloreality
    what size is that cog?
    it looks so damn sexy big and stainless!!!

    bike is also awesome

    Thanks...it's a 23t number from ISuckatRiding, paired with a 34t ti chainring from ISAR, both in 1/8". I like using 1/8" stuff as it lasts a lot longer....

  59. #59
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,907
    Quote Originally Posted by dRjOn
    when i first started using jones bars, i went with same stem length. then i went 10 mm shorter, following jeffs advice. then i went 10mm shorter again...no issue, better infact.

    just because you do something one way for awhile doesnt mean another way isnt good...i strongly suspect that the alteration in elbow orientation afforded by high sweep bars affects the position positively and allows a much greater range in the fore - aft weight distribution.

    its been interesting recently to change back from jones bars, through groovy luv handles to wide low risers and back again....

    if i lived in the alps, id probably want to use low rise wide bars with about 10 degree sweep ---- and a chairlift!....in most other riding situations, i prefer high sweep and a slightly more compact position....

    qui gon would say 'feel, dont think.' not a bad mantra....
    Over the years, I too have evolved into a more laid-back, upright creature. When I first got my Mutinyman 5 years ago, I had a 0 degree 120mm stem coupled to a Jones bar. A couple of years later, I swapped to a downward pointing 100mm stem, then a little while after that, I flipped the stem up. Maybe I just started off wrong or I just find it more comfortable this way nowadays. Whatever the case, I'm good to go (for now).

    As another data point, I'm 5'8.5" w/ 32" inseam, and I use a downward pointing 90mm Thomson stem and a straight post on my Jones.
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | ssoft | flickr

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,064
    sick bike!

    from one east coast singlespeeder to another; you ever consider getting a ti seatpost?

    i think, especially with that much post showing, you'd realy enjoy the added suspension.

    i ride a steel frame and really like the added cushion from my moots post.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,609
    Quote Originally Posted by 2xPneu
    Thanks...it's a 23t number from ISuckatRiding, paired with a 34t ti chainring from ISAR, both in 1/8". I like using 1/8" stuff as it lasts a lot longer....
    What kind of chain do you use with your 1/8" ti parts?

  62. #62
    Birthday Collector
    Reputation: ATBScott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,604
    I really like running 1/8" drivetrain parts too - the life I get off of them is really impressive, and with the chain being a little less flexible, I feel like it is less likely to jump off under a really hard effort. Been using a steel rear cog, for over 3-1/2 years now, wonder how long Ti would last...
    R.I.P. Corky 10/97-4/09
    Disclaimer: I sell and repair bikes for a living


  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by Wish I Were Riding
    What kind of chain do you use with your 1/8" ti parts?
    I use an Izumi V track chain. Kinda pricey, but they last a long time if you take care of them.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2xPneu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    916
    Quote Originally Posted by max-a-mill
    sick bike!

    from one east coast singlespeeder to another; you ever consider getting a ti seatpost?

    i think, especially with that much post showing, you'd realy enjoy the added suspension.

    i ride a steel frame and really like the added cushion from my moots post.
    Thanks!

    Yeah, I could easily get a ti post from James at Black Sheep, I've got his ti posts on a couple of other bikes.

    But with the length of exposed Thomson post combined with the nice flex of the Speedneedle saddle, I've got plenty of movement. The bike is amazingly comfortable as is for a rigid, but at some point I'll likely try one of James' posts just to see if I'm missing anything. Although I don't know if I'd want much more flex than is already there...

  65. #65
    Geordie biker
    Reputation: saltyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,376
    everyone is different i guess.......im 6ft tall and i run my jones with a straight post and a 110mm stem, fitment is perfect. also the seat isnt too high.

    2014 milage so far - 2,485
    www.ukfatbikes.co.uk

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,330
    I'd bet my On One frame + lots of seat post out gets the very near the same level of compliance for 1/10th the price.

    If you want a compliant bike then for 1/4 the price you could of bought a Full Suspension frame.

    It does look pretty though.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.