On-one Parkwood- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 94 of 94

Thread: On-one Parkwood

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    186

    On-one Parkwood

    I don't see any other posts on this yet, but was poking around the On-one site and came across this. Appears to be basically an aluminum Fireline for a third the cost. Pretty cool I think:

    On-One Parkwood Frame | On - One

  2. #2
    Short-Change-Hero
    Reputation: gregnash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,470
    Very cool... Brant is a great designer and has done much for Titus as well as On-One. Now that he is back they are coming up with some great bikes. This looks to be like a fun All-Mountain hardtail.

  3. #3
    Abby Normal
    Reputation: Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    534
    I'll be curious to see what those retail for in the USA. If I wasn't already rolling on a Paradox Banshee frame I would seriously consider picking one of these up.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoNin9r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,701
    looks great. love the logo on there. i often miss my inbred.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    186
    Not sure what you mean. They are $329 shipped from On-one.

  6. #6
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes View Post
    I'll be curious to see what those retail for in the USA.
    It says $329 USD.

    *Holmes beat me to it.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  7. #7
    Is dang happy!
    Reputation: Mr. Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,363

    Going to be a popular bike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes View Post
    I'll be curious to see what those retail for in the USA. If I wasn't already rolling on a Paradox Banshee frame I would seriously consider picking one of these up.
    Pre-order pricing on a complete is $1462 shipped from PlanetX uk.
    That is with a 120mm 15mmTA Revelation, Reverb and Clutch derailleur.
    (24mm rims are meh IMO.)
    Frame is only $275.

    On-one Parkwood-cboopwdeo_p1.jpg

    On-one Parkwood-froopark_p1.jpg

    Looks like a great (budget) Yelli alternative.
    The wheel is a extension of the foot

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: eurospek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,476
    Sizing sucks. No XL, and there's no way a 6'4 rider has sufficient reach and ETT on that large frame.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    186
    Have a link? I'm showing $329 on both On-one and Planet X

  10. #10
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,322
    I'd buy it if I could get an XL, and would really like 142x12 rear dropouts

  11. #11
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by n74740 View Post
    Have a link? I'm showing $329 on both On-one and Planet X
    Run it through the checkout and the price goes to 275 if you are shipping to US
    Last edited by ElwoodT; 05-29-2014 at 08:32 PM.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoNin9r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,701
    Not bad at all

    Posted via mobile

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fuglio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,636
    Just gonna skip reading all the comments and say.....

    " hardcore hard tails should be made of steel"


    that is all

  14. #14
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    I was nervous about that headset standard, but I'm feeling better about it: http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discu...me-914915.html
    does anybody know if there's an integrated headset that will work with a straight steerer tube (on this tapered frame)?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by eurospek View Post
    Sizing sucks. No XL, and there's no way a 6'4 rider has sufficient reach and ETT on that large frame.
    words out of my mouth. Reach at 16.5" on a large frame? yeesh, same size as a medium taro/honzo. On one is always sooooo close to making the perfect frame...but I'm really digging the long top tube short stem sort of thing, and they just haven't caught on.

  16. #16
    Abby Normal
    Reputation: Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    534
    Wow - 275 for the frame + shipping to USA? Sizing issues aside, that looks like a good deal.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,554

    On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    words out of my mouth. Reach at 16.5" on a large frame? yeesh, same size as a medium taro/honzo. On one is always sooooo close to making the perfect frame...but I'm really digging the long top tube short stem sort of thing, and they just haven't caught on.
    Crazy thing is they claim to be all about short stems and spec them for the Inbred even.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TwoNin9r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,701
    What's the average national height in England? It could very well be that if people are lightly shorter on average, it would behoove them to sell those sizes.

    Posted via mobile

  19. #19
    Is dang happy!
    Reputation: Mr. Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    words out of my mouth. Reach at 16.5" on a large frame? yeesh, same size as a medium taro/honzo. On one is always sooooo close to making the perfect frame...but I'm really digging the long top tube short stem sort of thing, and they just haven't caught on.
    ? Reach is measured differently from each manufacture ya know.
    The effective TT on the Large is 630mm (24" 3/4) that is about a cm longer than my large Yelli.
    The medium is 24", the same as a Kona Honzo.
    Pester Brant for a extra large or pay the big boy penalty and get a Kona/Canfield.
    The wheel is a extension of the foot

  20. #20
    Short-Change-Hero
    Reputation: gregnash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes View Post
    Wow - 275 for the frame + shipping to USA? Sizing issues aside, that looks like a good deal.
    Yeah I think when I bought my Inbred frame in Dec 2010 it was like $250 with shipping from England.... So this would keep with their pricing structure. Really you can't go wrong with their bikes and I wish they would have had a better deal on the Codeine 29r when I bought my HH Thumper frame. Oh well.....

    I run a 70mm stem on my 19.5" (large) Inbred and love the setup for the bike. I am assuming that this would ride slightly smaller as it seems to be a more AM oriented bike that would benefit from a slightly smaller cockpit that would allow the rider to tune how far they want the bars out when hucking something.

    The above with what TwoNin9r stated about the national average of the riders possibly being smaller would translate into a frame/bike that runs a bit smaller than we are used to (think Scott does the same thing too

  21. #21
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    I wouldn't be surprised if the reach measurement is off. Seem to be a theme to get geo numbers wrong when frames are new from on-one.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Doom View Post
    ? Reach is measured differently from each manufacture ya know.
    The effective TT on the Large is 630mm (24" 3/4) that is about a cm longer than my large Yelli.
    The medium is 24", the same as a Kona Honzo.
    Pester Brant for a extra large or pay the big boy penalty and get a Kona/Canfield.
    Not exactly. Reach should only differ by head tube length and fork length. Otherwise it's not a flexible measurement. The honzo and this bike share the same fork length, but the headtube is longer on this one by 20mm...so that's really the only difference, and it won't change reach by more than 5-10mm at most.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there is an issue with the measurements, but I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig. I see that the top tube is nice and long, but I have a hard time believing that the relatively upright seat tube and short reach combine for a long Ett like that. Something might be up...

  23. #23
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    I'm interested, too, but I don't want to be a guinea pig. On One doesn't exactly have the greatest track records with specs and production problems.

  24. #24
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236

    On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by ElwoodT View Post
    I was nervous about that headset standard, but I'm feeling better about it: http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discu...me-914915.html
    does anybody know if there's an integrated headset that will work with a straight steerer tube (on this tapered frame)?
    Of course there is, FSA, Cane Creek. Just a different crown race.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  25. #25
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    ^^thanks.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    Not exactly. Reach should only differ by head tube length and fork length. Otherwise it's not a flexible measurement. The honzo and this bike share the same fork length, but the headtube is longer on this one by 20mm...so that's really the only difference, and it won't change reach by more than 5-10mm at most.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there is an issue with the measurements, but I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig. I see that the top tube is nice and long, but I have a hard time believing that the relatively upright seat tube and short reach combine for a long Ett like that. Something might be up...
    I'll have another poke around in my drawings file today but I am sure they are right.
    We have many very happy people on Titus Fireline Evo frames and this is the same numbers.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Plugging a Large Yelli's numbers into bikecad, I get a 421mm reach dimension, vs their 432mm specified using the same measuring metric that I use on my frames.

    I guess they are measuring it differently somehow - but that's nearly half an inch that things seem awry by.

    It's slightly further complicated as the L size Parkwood is the same seat tube dimension as the XL Yelli. Which means if you size frames by seat tube length, ours seems much shorter still!

    All I can say is that I build bikes, ride them, let other people ride them. And move from there. I totally hear what some of you are saying, and I'm entirely sure that you are very sure of what dimensions you want from a bike. Reach is something we work with a lot, but it's not a dimension that should be viewed in insolation, and always passed from model to model.

    This bike has a more rearward weight bias than the Yelli. I'd wager that the 1deg slacker seat angle puts more weight on the back wheel, and makes it more playful than pushing the reach forward. The combination of steep seat angle, short stays long reach dimension doesn't automagically make a fun bike. Indeed all those items can be counter productive.

    Chainstay length is about frame stiffness and weight positioning. Seat angle is cruical in seated climbing, clearly, longer front centres purely from a reach dimension give a stood position consistence, but the variation in that between manufacturers is a toughie.

    Pulling those bars back, slackening the seat angle to put weight more rearward, works great. See that Jeff Jones bike that everyone loves? Guess what... Super short "reach" dimension.

    At the end of the day, we LOVE the way the Parkwood handles. With 35mm, 50mm, whatever stems. With 740-780mm bars. We have ripped about on Fireline Evo's for the last couple of years without LOOKING at the reach dimensions because we are grinning too much.

    I'll continue to build bikes this way.

    The numbers are there. Thanks for looking at them in detail.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    I'll leave this for now, but have just noticed that if the Yelli's 73deg seat angle is at 100mm fork, then knocking it back to 72deg with the 120mm fork, then reach shortens by another 10mm.

    Which makes the given reach dimension 21mm shorter than specified on the longer fork.

    So perhaps it's not as front weight biased as thought. And perhaps the differences are smaller than people might imagine.

    My reach dimension given is static, topped out, 120mm fork, centre top of headtube, horizontally back to directly above BB centre.

    I'm off out for a run.

  29. #29
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    Brant: Two quick questions if you don't mind:

    1. Will it fit a big rear tire (like a 2.4 Ardent), particularly with no front der.

    2. I'd be looking to run a 130 or 140 fork. Any issues there beyond the normal?

    Thanks.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    Brant: Two quick questions if you don't mind:

    1. Will it fit a big rear tire (like a 2.4 Ardent), particularly with no front der.

    2. I'd be looking to run a 130 or 140 fork. Any issues there beyond the normal?

    Thanks.
    1. It'll work with an FD.
    2. No issues beyond warranty and bar height.

  31. #31
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,817
    Brant- where is standover measured on this frame and the Codeine? Center of TT or through BB shell??
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    I'll continue to build bikes this way.

    The numbers are there. Thanks for looking at them in detail.
    That's fine. You certainly may design them anyway you would like, it doesn't make it the "right" (nor wrong) way. I've tried the rearward weight bias thing in the past, I felt it made the bike handle like garbage. Too much rearward weight makes the bike want to loop out, corner poorly while seated, makes for an uncomfortable pedaling position. A nice upright seated position, combined with a longer reach component makes for a bike that both pedals well in the saddle, with great seated and balanced riding position, but also lets you get out of the saddle and attack aggressive sections with room to move around.

    Thank you for replying. Not sure why the discrepancy exists between measurements- Kona at least provides fork length measurements alongside headtube and virtually everything else, allowing a person to compare precisely the different measurements and how they compensate. Not sure how canfield does it, but I haven't ridden one so I can't compare via feel either. All I know is that after years of riding bikes with 90mm stems, and even longer, switching to a longer top tube with a shorter stem on a bike that's meant to be ridden aggressively is a revelation, and while the Parkwood and Fireline are amazing deals and amazingly looking frames, the numbers just don't add up to a frame that suits those needs.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    Brant- where is standover measured on this frame and the Codeine? Center of TT or through BB shell??
    Saddle tip.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fuglio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,636
    Brant why not steel??

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    That's fine. You certainly may design them anyway you would like, it doesn't make it the "right" (nor wrong) way. I've tried the rearward weight bias thing in the past, I felt it made the bike handle like garbage. Too much rearward weight makes the bike want to loop out, corner poorly while seated, makes for an uncomfortable pedaling position. A nice upright seated position, combined with a longer reach component makes for a bike that both pedals well in the saddle, with great seated and balanced riding position, but also lets you get out of the saddle and attack aggressive sections with room to move around.

    Thank you for replying. Not sure why the discrepancy exists between measurements- Kona at least provides fork length measurements alongside headtube and virtually everything else, allowing a person to compare precisely the different measurements and how they compensate. Not sure how canfield does it, but I haven't ridden one so I can't compare via feel either. All I know is that after years of riding bikes with 90mm stems, and even longer, switching to a longer top tube with a shorter stem on a bike that's meant to be ridden aggressively is a revelation, and while the Parkwood and Fireline are amazing deals and amazingly looking frames, the numbers just don't add up to a frame that suits those needs.
    I've got a test frame that the chainstays wound in to 430mm I absolutely hate.

    I haven't ridden an (offroad) bike with a stem longer than 80mm for many many years.

    The Parkwood and Fireline are amazing handling bikes, inspite of what you might think of the numbers.

    It's great to have choice.

    We made it this way for a reason.

    All the best.

  36. #36
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    So, I'm seriously interested in this frame, but the numbers do appear a touch wacky. I'm trying to compare to a Canfield YS, since I know the frame well.

    For reference I'm 6'2" and about 185 pounds. I have owned two size L Yellis. What I found is I could make that size bike work from a cockpit perspective with a 70mm stem (over my preferred 50). However, the seat tube was short to the point that I had to run a mile of post to get proper pedal stroke. That forces me toward an XL Yelli.

    The L Parkwood seems to be kind of in the middle of a L and XL Yelli. It's got the seat tube length I prefer and has a TT just about in the middle of the L and XL Yelli. Chainstays are 11mm longer than the Yelli and seat angle shows 1 degree slacker, though it's unclear if that's static or sagged (Canfield provides both numbers).

    So, I'm still a touch unclear, but it seems like the L Parkwood would work for my particular needs.

  37. #37
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    All I know is that after years of riding bikes with 90mm stems, and even longer, switching to a longer top tube with a shorter stem on a bike that's meant to be ridden aggressively is a revelation, and while the Parkwood and Fireline are amazing deals and amazingly looking frames, the numbers just don't add up to a frame that suits those needs.
    To be honest I was also skeptical about the fireline geometry before buying one.

    I just got back from 2 days of camping & riding mine. 3500' vert up & down on 18 miles yesterday, all singletrack.

    The fireline geometry works. It feels way more "BMX" than a yelli screamy or kona honzo (I've owned all three). The shorter reach, and taller head tube & slacker seat angle makes the fireline easier to manual/wheelie than the yelli/kona, despite having slightly longer stays. The shorter reach also makes it easier to snap around corners. At mid speeds I can pick the front end up & change directions, something that is harder to do with a longer front-center. The fireline is easily my favorite of these three bikes.

    Sandwhich, just to play devils advocate: why would you need a longer top tube to run a short stem? I used to feel that way because I was used to "leaning" on the bars, something I picked up from road riding. I've come to prefer med-short top tubes & short stems, and relying on core strength to support myself. It was just an adjustment to my riding style and it's much better for descending and jumping.

  38. #38
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Fireline from yesterday to complete my threadjacking
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-one Parkwood-fireline1.jpg  

    On-one Parkwood-fireline2.jpg  


  39. #39
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    Interested in how it climbs, particularly in relation to your previous YS. I thought my YS was a decent climber even with a 140 fork.

  40. #40
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant View Post
    Interested in how it climbs, particularly in relation to your previous YS. I thought my YS was a decent climber even with a 140 fork.
    I'd call it a wash...
    The taller head tube on the Fireline is a minus for climbing. My fork is at 130mm with flat bars, and I'd like them to be 1-2cm lower for climbing. But again that tall headtube is great for jumping & DH!
    On the plus side, The fireline frame is nearly 1lb lighter and the ride quality is perfect- stiff torsionally but compliant at speed.

    If you like the Yelli you'll love the fireline!

    Brants mentioned possibility of a custom fireline geometry upcharge- that could be fun.

  41. #41
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    To be clear, I'm talking about the Parkwood, which I'm thinking of building up on the cheap.

  42. #42
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Of course. I can only comment on the bikes I've ridden though

  43. #43
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,846
    Understood. Looking to extrapolate some of your ride experience since the Parkwood is supposed to mimic the Fireline geo in aluminum. Obviously ride quality will be different. I personally don't mind a tall front end with my monkey arms.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post

    The fireline geometry works. It feels way more "BMX" than a yelli screamy or kona honzo (I've owned all three). The shorter reach, and taller head tube & slacker seat angle makes the fireline easier to manual/wheelie than the yelli/kona, despite having slightly longer stays. The shorter reach also makes it easier to snap around corners. At mid speeds I can pick the front end up & change directions, something that is harder to do with a longer front-center. The fireline is easily my favorite of these three bikes.
    Okay, so that confirms it for me. I like the longer front center as it makes the bike more stable at speed, and harder to throw off a line...which is pretty much the opposite of what you are saying. It's something I picked up with downhilling, and found that it transfers well to trailbikes, so long as you compensate with the seat angle and rider positioning. The longer reach measurement makes the bike feel more composed, less "sketchy". The shorter head tubes are simply for bar positioning, which gets way out of wack with long forks. 120mm shouldn't be a problem, but I have to run a zero rise stem with zero rise bars and zero spacers in order to not feel like I'm in the clouds with my enduro. It's right on the verge of being too tall. I have a friend who runs a 26" bike with riser bars and 2" of spacers, and I can't steer it- it feels like a clown bike. The low head tubes on 29ers just eliminate that.

    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Sandwhich, just to play devils advocate: why would you need a longer top tube to run a short stem? I used to feel that way because I was used to "leaning" on the bars, something I picked up from road riding. I've come to prefer med-short top tubes & short stems, and relying on core strength to support myself. It was just an adjustment to my riding style and it's much better for descending and jumping.
    You need a longer top tube to not change rider positioning. If you're after a BMX feel, then switch to a shorter top tube, for sure. If you're after a bike that fits normal, but steers a little slower, then you shorten the stem, extend the top tube/reach, and your riding position doesn't change at all, but the way the bike steers (because of the shorter stem length) does, which is a bonus, in my book, for aggressive bikes. For normal XC bikes, I'd rather have a shorter reach measurement and longer stem, as it requires less body work to maintain balance between the wheels up short climbs, which is more advantageous vs. the better handling you get with a short stem.

    So yeah, it's basically all about maintaining your happy place on the bike, then just changing the way the bike handles.

  45. #45
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    Okay, so that confirms it for me. I like the longer front center as it makes the bike more stable at speed, and harder to throw off a line...which is pretty much the opposite of what you are saying.
    Thats pretty much it.
    The advantage of the shorter/taller front, is it requires less effort to get the front end up and it jumps better. Advantages for jumps, drops or slow/tech DH. Plus it's always fun to just manual through rollers & whoops

    A longer front center makes for a longer wheelbase, which as you said is more stable & can be faster for high speed/chunky DH.
    But harder to manual/wheelie/jump. So "better" depends on what kind of DH you're after.

    The current "enduro geometry" trend of super long top tubes with ~35mm stems and super short stays is taking that to the extreme. I found the pinkbike review of the BMC pretty interesting, as far as that king of geometry goes.

    I agree its all compromise & personal preference.

  46. #46
    The Fastest of Bananas
    Reputation: FastBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,792
    I really like this frame. Short travel, aggressive geo. I have a Lurcher, but I find its too steep for me.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: monty797's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    I'd call it a wash...
    The taller head tube on the Fireline is a minus for climbing. My fork is at 130mm with flat bars, and I'd like them to be 1-2cm lower for climbing. But again that tall headtube is great for jumping & DH!
    On the plus side, The fireline frame is nearly 1lb lighter and the ride quality is perfect- stiff torsionally but compliant at speed.

    If you like the Yelli you'll love the fireline!

    Brants mentioned possibility of a custom fireline geometry upcharge- that could be fun.

    FM I've been thinking real hard about the Fireline. I've always wanted a Ti bike with relaxed "AM" geo but not the cost of a custom and this seems perfect.

    I see you are running a 130 fork, I have a 140 Pike that I'm in love with, what would you think of the bike with a 140 on it?

    Just looking for all the feedback I can find on the frame as it's one that doesn't have a ton of info out there on.

    Thanks!

  48. #48
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,465
    Hey Monty, I think you'd love it. Aside from being cheaper than custom you know what you're getting and no mysterious lead times!

    Far as forks go...does depend on the frame size and your height. For me at 5-9" on the 18", 140mm was a bit much. 130 is better but 120 would be perfect. This frame is already slack at 120 so putting a longer fork on it isn't ideal. But also, a shorter fork reduces that "stapler" effect that long forked hardtails get....so my vote would be get the fireline and drop the fork to 120!

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: monty797's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Hey Monty, I think you'd love it. Aside from being cheaper than custom you know what you're getting and no mysterious lead times!

    Far as forks go...does depend on the frame size and your height. For me at 5-9" on the 18", 140mm was a bit much. 130 is better but 120 would be perfect. This frame is already slack so putting a longer fork on it isn't ideal. But also, a shorter fork reduces that "stapler" effect that long forked hardtails get....so my vote would be get the fireline and drop the fork to 120!
    Thanks FM. I think you're right, the 120 actually seems perfect as far as travel goes. I'll be dropping the Pike down to there just to try the bike at it's intended height and figure it out from there.

    I'll be contacting Planet X in the morning to see if they have a 20" in stock! Thanks again dude!

  50. #50
    Cracker
    Reputation: thecrackerasscracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    963
    Just ordered one today to ride while I wait for my replacement Yelli frame should be a interesting comparison
    It might get a little steep from here

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Brant - why an integrated headset instead of zs and/or ec? To be honest, having the headset integrated is what's keeping me off from this new frame

    (why not release a new version that uses cups?)

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Why would you prefer a cup to an integrated component? There's almost no reason that I can see, save for people being able to see the brand of your headset and a taller stack height than an integrated bearing. Integrated bearings let you incorporate a shorter headtube and makes for a cleaner build...and I'm pretty sure you can back-convert to a 1 1/8" steerer if you need to. The only thing you can't really do is install and angleset...yet.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    Why would you prefer a cup to an integrated component? There's almost no reason that I can see, save for people being able to see the brand of your headset and a taller stack height than an integrated bearing. Integrated bearings let you incorporate a shorter headtube and makes for a cleaner build...and I'm pretty sure you can back-convert to a 1 1/8" steerer if you need to. The only thing you can't really do is install and angleset...yet.
    Just thought that integrated may damage the headtube (but apparently there seems to be no real life proof). I might bite the bullet here since I am comparing it with a yelli screamy (screaming price lol, oops).

    Anyway, the website shows the following size dimensions:
    5'2"-5'8" (157cm-173cm) - Small
    5'8"-6'0" (173cm-183cm) - Medium

    I am 173cm 5'8" dead on! What frame should I use? Any guys with the same height as me?

    (for additional info, I'll be a transplanting a tapered manitou tower pro 120mm and a 50mm to a new handsome 29er frame)

  54. #54
    The Fastest of Bananas
    Reputation: FastBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,792

    Re: On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by spyghost View Post
    Just thought that integrated may damage the headtube (but apparently there seems to be no real life proof). I might bite the bullet here since I am comparing it with a yelli screamy (screaming price lol, oops).

    Anyway, the website shows the following size dimensions:
    5'2"-5'8" (157cm-173cm) - Small
    5'8"-6'0" (173cm-183cm) - Medium

    I am 173cm 5'8" dead on! What frame should I use? Any guys with the same height as me?

    (for additional info, I'll be a transplanting a tapered manitou tower pro 120mm and a 50mm to a new handsome 29er frame)
    Go medium with a short stem

    Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by FastBanana View Post
    Go medium with a short stem

    Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk
    This guy

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by FastBanana View Post
    Go medium with a short stem

    Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by sandwich View Post
    This guy
    Is my 50mm classified as short? or do I need something else sub-50mm?

  57. #57
    The Fastest of Bananas
    Reputation: FastBanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,792

    Re: On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by spyghost View Post
    Is my 50mm classified as short? or do I need something else sub-50mm?
    Yes.

    Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,554

    On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by FastBanana View Post
    Go medium with a short stem

    Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk
    Yep!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    All frame size recommendations are approximate. A good fit will also depend on the correct choice of stem length, correct bike set-up for the rider and riding style.
    Correct frame size choice can also depend on a riderís torso and limb length.

    longer torso than legs go for the (M)

    longer legs than torso (S)

    Regards

    Phill

    The response I got from On One.... Confusing answer I'd say.
    Canfield Yelli Screamy

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,554

    On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by spyghost View Post
    All frame size recommendations are approximate. A good fit will also depend on the correct choice of stem length, correct bike set-up for the rider and riding style.
    Correct frame size choice can also depend on a riderís torso and limb length.

    longer torso than legs go for the (M)

    longer legs than torso (S)

    Regards

    Phill

    The response I got from On One.... Confusing answer I'd say.
    Sounds noncommittal like they don't want to get blamed if you're unhappy.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fuglio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,636
    grown ass men dont even know what size bike to buy.... you know your body better then anyone else. Manufacturers post all the size specs and give you a rough guide line. what more do you want?
    Quote Originally Posted by Woodson View Post
    Bandoleroooooooooooos!

  62. #62
    Cracker
    Reputation: thecrackerasscracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    963

    Got One

    On-one Parkwood-20140625_134306_6_bestshot.jpg
    It might get a little steep from here

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,554

    On-one Parkwood

    Quote Originally Posted by thecrackerasscracker View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20140625_134306_6_bestshot.jpg 
Views:	2059 
Size:	213.9 KB 
ID:	903721
    Pretty cool!

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Captain_America1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by thecrackerasscracker View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20140625_134306_6_bestshot.jpg 
Views:	2059 
Size:	213.9 KB 
ID:	903721
    Is that from Scheaffer?

  65. #65
    Cracker
    Reputation: thecrackerasscracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    963
    Yes Shaeffer
    It might get a little steep from here

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by thecrackerasscracker View Post
    Yes Shaeffer
    photo and little review from this frame please....nice photos not crappy

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Perhaps the most interesting bit is how it compares with a yelli screamy
    Canfield Yelli Screamy

  68. #68
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    ^^or a paradox...

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,554

    On-one Parkwood

    Can this go SS?

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    160
    review photos from the owners please to saw how [email protected] nice frame was!

    Στάλθηκε από το GT-I9505 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

  71. #71
    Cracker
    Reputation: thecrackerasscracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    963

    Awesome

    This is an amazing frame for the money FUN FUN FUN
    I purchased the Parkwood to ride while I wait for my replacement Yelli frame and I am so glad I did.It rides very similar to the Yelli ,the CS is longer but its not a huge difference.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-one Parkwood-20140628_143912.jpg  

    It might get a little steep from here

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Curious... What happened to your YS? Why need a replacement?
    Canfield Yelli Screamy

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    160
    me too ofcoaree

    Στάλθηκε από το GT-I9505 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

  74. #74
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,817
    thecrackerasscracker- What size Yelli did you have and how does the sizing on the Parkwood compare? Not 100% confident in the On One Geometry charts.....
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  75. #75
    Cracker
    Reputation: thecrackerasscracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    963
    I have a XL Yelli and the L Parkwood feels a tad smaller but not too small for me at 6'5"
    My Yelli developed a crack behind the weld where the TT and DT come together so now I have to wait till they get the next shipment in. I will say the Parkwood front end feels stiffer
    and less flexy then my Yelli did.
    It might get a little steep from here

  76. #76
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,817
    Gotcha, see that's what doesn't make sense the Parkwood chart shows the LG having a little over 1" shorter reach than an XL Yelli (even shorter than the LG Yelli). I had a large Yelli that I really liked but it was a little short on reach for me, sounds like the LG Parkwood might be about perfect for my body then.
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spyghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    974
    Interesting... You're the first I've heard of a YS cracking.

    - How hard do you hammer your bike?
    - How long is your fork (travel)?
    - Is Canfield replacing that at no charge? Warranty?

    I'm thinking it might be due to the leverage that's taking place in an XL YS.

    When it comes to flicking/playing (ie wheelie, bunny hop, manual) how does YS and parkwood differ? Which is easier to play with?
    Canfield Yelli Screamy

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    37

    Parkwood Size Recommendation

    Brant or anybody that has a Parkwood or has sat on one,

    Can you please recommend a frame size for me on the Parkwood. I have been talking with Michael from Planet X who recommended this frame for me but hasn't suggested a size. There seems to be some conflicting information on the standover height which is my concern. I plan to use this frame with a 100 mm Reba RLT Fork and 70mm stem. I am five foot ten with a 31 inch inseam. My measurements from a fit calculator are below. Thank you.

    Standover Height Range
    29.5 - 30.1 Inches
    Virtual Top Tube Length
    23.5 - 23.9 Inches
    Stem Length
    9.5 - 11.1 Cm
    Bb Saddle Position
    70.9 - 72.4 Cm
    Saddle Handlebar
    52.8 - 54.4 Cm

  79. #79
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    ^^70mm stem and 100mm fork, sounds like you should get an inbred

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    37
    I was considering the Inbred as well. I originally wanted a Scandal but they only have larges in stock. I am currently on a Large 2014 GT Karakoram Elite and I feel I was incorrectly fitted. The top tube is fine with the 70mm stem but the standover height at 804 mm is just too tall. I can't tell you how many times, I have banged my you know what on the top tube. Do you think I should go with a medium based off of my measurements?
    Last edited by dublinclassic; 09-17-2014 at 11:28 AM.

  81. #81
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,199
    ^^ Pedal strikes could be a problem w/100mm fork. I would guess a medium would fit you well, but I would want a shorter stem on it. Im 6ft, and ride a large with 45mm stem.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    49
    I would go with a medium if I was you. You are getting this bike for flickable and playful riding, why bog yourself down with a bigger size frame? I am 6'1" with around a 34" inseam and Im coming from an XL felt nine, now riding a L parkwood with 100mm fork and a 70mm stem I cant really much if any shorter on the stem because standing will be way too crunched up. I will eventually use a longer travel fork, but this one works fine as far as I can tell. Picture is with a 90mm stem.

    On-one Parkwood-916999d1408536670-parkwood-parkwood.jpg
    Last edited by sshapiro112; 10-01-2014 at 01:30 PM.
    roots, rocks, logs, downhills, jumps, drops, chutes, climbs...repeat

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    106
    Really liking this bike..

    120mm travel with 45mm stem..
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails On-one Parkwood-10685610_10152732946768545_6304172403567493716_n.jpg  

    On-one Parkwood-10690291_10152732936748545_8307840149240682765_n.jpg  


  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    112
    Any tall riders on the Parkwood fame? I am considering one but I am not sure if the L size is not going to be too small. I am 6'4" with 35" inseam.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    49
    I am a little over 6'1" and wear a 34" inseam pant. I have a large parkwood with a 70mm stem. If you like your bikes a little on the small side, it is probably a good bet. The bike feels very well fitted to my size person.
    roots, rocks, logs, downhills, jumps, drops, chutes, climbs...repeat

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by drabina View Post
    Any tall riders on the Parkwood fame? I am considering one but I am not sure if the L size is not going to be too small. I am 6'4" with 35" inseam.
    I'm the same size. 6'4"/35 inseam. The large fits me really well with a 65mm stem. I have a friend with both another large Parkwood and an XL Yelli-screamy. I ridden both as well. While the fit is a hair better on the Yelli, its so subtle its hard to justify the extra cost for the Yelli. I've been really happy with mine all around.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    112
    Thanks for replying guys. I wish Parkwood would come in XL size.

    fracaxis: Do you think with the raiser bar and 120mm fork, the handlebars can be a bit above the seat? I am looking for more upright position so my neck does not hurt too much after longer rides (from constantly rising my head up to look up the road before me).

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    160

    On-one Parkwood

    I run a 120 fork, 65 stem with 10mm spacers under it and a 20mm riser bar. Very comfortable. Leave a little extra steerer tube and play with the spacers if you are worried about it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  89. #89
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,652
    Hey dudes,

    Curious about the max tire on the rear. Would it fit something like a Geax Goma 2.4?

    I know we all saw the Trailblazer on the Parkwood, but did we ever get any pics of the clearance on such a tire? It'd be sweet if I could cram a VTF 2.8 or another "smaller" B+ tire on the back.

    I'm thinking of getting a Small Parkwood for my 5'6" wife.
    Work - Utility GIS Analyst
    Party - 2019 Guerrilla Gravity Revved Trail Pistol Sz 3

  90. #90
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,817
    Anyone have a small one of these built up that they could measure actual standover on for me?
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rwrusso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by dublinclassic View Post
    Brant or anybody that has a Parkwood or has sat on one,

    Can you please recommend a frame size for me on the Parkwood. I have been talking with Michael from Planet X who recommended this frame for me but hasn't suggested a size. There seems to be some conflicting information on the standover height which is my concern. I plan to use this frame with a 100 mm Reba RLT Fork and 70mm stem. I am five foot ten with a 31 inch inseam.
    Quote Originally Posted by nitrousjunky View Post
    Anyone have a small one of these built up that they could measure actual standover on for me?
    I'm considering this frame, and am not so sure about the standover measurement on the On-One site. 853mm (33.6") for the medium frame? I'm 5'8", not sure if the S or M would fit me better. But that 853mm doesn't sound right. It's shown as the 'H' dimension in the geo chart, which measures from the BB center to the top of the head tube (vertical distance). BB height is about 315? (~368mm axle height less 53mm BB drop), I estimate another 457mm (seat tube length) would more than clear the top tube at standover position, especially with the bend. Those rough estimates put standover no greater than 772. It's probably much less. 772mm is 30.4", which sounds a little tall for a medium frame. Hence that 853mm (33.6") not sounding right to me. Anyone have an actual standover height measurement for a medium, or any size Parkwood frame? Thanks.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rwrusso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    127
    I'm thrown off by the seat tube length on these frames. Geometry of a medium Parkwood looks similar to a medium Canfield Yelli Screamy or a medium Kona Honzo Al/DL, except for the seat tube lengths. Parkwood is 18" (457mm), vs. 16.5" (~419mm) for the Yelli and Honzo. Help a new guy out...does the Parkwood simply end up with a taller seat tube and that's that? Does that just create a different angle of the top tube? What else does it affect? I like these three frames for the start of a 29er hardtail build, but am not quite sure on what size Parkwood would be right. Thanks.

    Edit: I see now how seat tube length is only one part of the puzzle of frame geo.
    Last edited by rwrusso; 10-22-2015 at 08:43 AM.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rwrusso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    127
    Pretty sure I'm going either Parkwood or Yelli Screamy when I get to buying a frame. Definitely a M for the YS. Undecided between S and M for the Parkwood. Still concerned with standover on the Parkwood. S Parkwood has the same wheelbase as the M YS. Reach on the M YS is 12mm longer than the M Parkwood, 32mm longer than the S. M YS seat tube and ETT are between the S and M Parkwood. YS geo based on 120mm fork. I'm 5'8", inseam ~29.5". I'd say I'm pretty evenly proportioned (arms/legs). Anyone have any insight/thoughts? Thanks.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,593
    Quote Originally Posted by rwrusso View Post
    Pretty sure I'm going either Parkwood or Yelli Screamy when I get to buying a frame. Definitely a M for the YS. Undecided between S and M for the Parkwood. Still concerned with standover on the Parkwood. S Parkwood has the same wheelbase as the M YS. Reach on the M YS is 12mm longer than the M Parkwood, 32mm longer than the S. M YS seat tube and ETT are between the S and M Parkwood. YS geo based on 120mm fork. I'm 5'8", inseam ~29.5". I'd say I'm pretty evenly proportioned (arms/legs). Anyone have any insight/thoughts? Thanks.
    Send a PM to nitrousjunky up above - I bet he can shed some light. He picked up a small for his wife.

Similar Threads

  1. On one 45650b or Parkwood
    By Johnny1455Quid in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2014, 04:27 AM

Members who have read this thread: 1

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.