[Closed] Why non on-one for women or small person?

Supply and demand?

Are there as many riders riding bikes that small?

Not trolling, genuine question..

I doubt Brant wants to be left with 0000's of little frames that no-one wants?

they always produced small numbers of 14" frames in steel for MamaDirt but I think the economies of carbon are in bigger numbers.

Well any rider under 5.6 would ride a 14"...

I guess the costs of tooling up moulds for 14" would be greater than the number of frames sold.
It's easier/cheaper cutting tubes to size.

I think the steel 14" inbred frame was possibly the best looking on-one frame they ever made 😉

My Mrs loves hers & tbh, when I get a chance to play on it, its a blast to ride being that size 😉

It's God's way of saying he hates short people.

It's God's way of saying he hates short people.

I know some people are a bit in awe of Brant, but deification is a bit extreme.

They dont make frames for tall people either

Juan, are you thinking of Mrs Juan in particular?

Millie is 5'7" (or 170cm in new money). and she once bought a 14" inbred which she was too big for. She is now very happy with a 16" inbred now with an inline seatpost and 60mm stem.

They dont make frames for tall people either

Which is God's way of saying anyone over 6'2" is a freak.

Im only 5ft 16` though

I built a 14" Steel 456 for my 5' 4" girlfriend a couple of years back and it was biz boz exactly right for her.

BUT

It got chainsuck from the start even though it was brand new XT kit etc throughout and no amount of fettling would totally cure it...although I did manage to get it slightly better by going for a longer bb on a square taper chainset.

I never had a similar problem on two 18" 456s I owned. My guess is that they cannot afford to have their chainsuck problem on their small frames ripping through carbon chainstays.

julian yes but not in the immediate future 😀 We're going to change her myka first. She tried my meta and loves it, so we're going to see if we can get her a meta, or something approaching (a kona tanuki or a SH scott ransom carbon frame)

Juan, I think you have ridden Lou's 16" SS Inbred she is only 5'4". She also has a 16" Whippet which is a good fit, she runs a fairly short stem. I am pretty sure a 14" Whippet (if they made it) would be too small for her.

I went down to a 14" kona with my kula lisa and my hoss is a 16. Same TT length though. Would she be interested in my 15.5 cove hustler? 🙂

Ok hang on 5'4" is 163 so marina's size. I guess she'll have to try lou's this year at the BBB then 😀

She is more than welcome too.

LOL @ DGOAB. Not sure about the cove, but I'll ask her anyway.

I need to start planning an trainning for the bbb then 😀 As I want to kick some asses this year 😀

It got chainsuck from the start even though it was brand new XT kit etc throughout and no amount of fettling would totally cure it...although I did manage to get it slightly better by going for a longer bb on a square taper chainset.

I never had a similar problem on two 18" 456s I owned. My guess is that they cannot afford to have their chainsuck problem on their small frames ripping through carbon chainstays.

Does anyone really believe that the frame causes chainsuck?

As a very small player in the great big world of bikes, we can only offer a limited size range. If you're outside the bell curve of "normal" I'd hope those big corporate manufacturers who make millions of bikes a year might have something for you as they have hundreds and thousands times the market penetration little on-one does.

As I understand it on-one sizing is a bit weird. If you usually have a 18 or 17" frame you are meant to go down to a 16. And if you are usually ridding a 16 you are meant to go to a 14" frame.

ps: this isn't really true. I just think that people should ride a smaller frame than they might otherwise. I am 6'1". I ride an 18in frame. Yet I know people who are 5'9" and are convinced they also need an 18in frame. They don't. They need a 16in frame.

I just think that people should ride a smaller frame than they might otherwise

What about seat post lenght? On a A7.5 my seat post is usually extended to the limit, but I just good in term of TT lenght (usually). On a 16" the seat post will probably be too short surely?

What about seat post lenght? On a A7.5 my seat post is usually extended to the limit, but I just good in term of TT lenght (usually). On a 16" the seat post will probably be too short surely?

How long is your seat post?

From the On One website;

"Fits you in sizes from 14in to 20in", that's the steel 456.

So, why not interested in having the carbon bike "fit us"? Just not enough profit in it?

I love my 14" 456 and 14" Scandal, gutted I can't get a carbon friend for them.

APF

So, why not interested in having the carbon bike "fit us"? Just not enough profit in it?

Yes.

From the top of my head it's 350...

Brant - "yes"

Simple direct honesty? You haven't "got" this forum internet thingy yet have you?

[img] [/img]

So Brant, suppose a carbon 456 sold as well as the steel one did in 14", how much would you need to charge to make it worthwhile?

APF

Tooling costs for carbon frames is a huge investment so I don't blame them at all. It is a wise business decision to not make 14" as the demand simply isn't there. There are plenty of other frame makers if one doesnt make something you want try a different one or splash out on a Titanium one 😉

brant - Member

As I understand it on-one sizing is a bit weird. If you usually have a 18 or 17" frame you are meant to go down to a 16. And if you are usually ridding a 16 you are meant to go to a 14" frame.

ps: this isn't really true. I just think that people should ride a smaller frame than they might otherwise. I am 6'1". I ride an 18in frame. Yet I know people who are 5'9" and are convinced they also need an 18in frame. They don't. They need a 16in frame.

i'm 6'2" and have an 18in scandal which feels perfect, but seatpost length is a slight issue for me, too. got a thomson 410mm on it at the mo, but the frame/post are close to their limits for height.

do the '£150 on ebay' carbon frame bods do very small/large frames?

theflatboy - blackspire do a 425mm one 🙂

[url= http://www.blackspire.com/qs/product/83/5953/263253/0/0 ]http://www.blackspire.com/qs/product/83/5953/263253/0/0[/url]

juan - Member
From the top of my head it's 350...
POSTED 27 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

So a 400mm post would let you ride a frame 2in smaller.

interesting, WW. i think mine's just about ok but i'll bear that in mind. cheers!

So a 400mm post would let you ride a frame 2in smaller.

Yes but once again I'll be on the limit. And having 400mm of post showing would kinda scare me.

Does anyone really believe that the frame causes chainsuck?

Yes

New chainset, new chain, new cassette and still suffers with chainsuck seems to confirm this.

the frame design doesn't actually cause the chainsuck, it's just that some frames let you know it's happening because of the design of the chainstays giving you an aural response to it.

juan - Member
So a 400mm post would let you ride a frame 2in smaller.
Yes but once again I'll be on the limit. And having 400mm of post showing would kinda scare me.
POSTED 20 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

You aren't meant to have 400mm of post showing. 100mm should be in the frame.

The chain wrapping that leads to chainsuck is nothing to do with the frame - unless something is seriously wrong like a floppy/snapped chainstay or massively out of alignment BB/wheel. But the chain system is obviously able to deal with any minor misalignment otherwise you wouldnt be able to use all those sprockets on a cassette.

The frame does however dictate if and where the chain gets jammed or just locks up.

Chainsucking on new stuff is either bad setup or a fault - eg chain with stiff/bent links or chainrings not put on right (with the markers aligned together).

As for long posts - I run a 16". I could ride an 18" but I like plenty of standover and have a nice 400mm Thomson with a couple of inches to go before the min insert mark.

OK then andyl, how does that explain exactly the same chainset, chain, cassette being installed on another frame by the same person not experiencing chainstuck, in exactly the same conditions?

ie: the only variable which is different is the frame.

On-One size fits all, surely?

richc - they're probably both experiencing chainsuck (ie.e the chain is 'climbing' up the front chainring).

the other frame has a chainstay design which means that when the chain does climb up the chainring it doesn't hit the stay so you don't know it's happening.

So you can get chain stuck, without the chain being stuck ....... Is that a bit like a wheel skidding without actually slipping, or a fork bottoming out, without actually moving?

NB: If the chain was sticking to a ring, I would expect to see the rear mech flapping ..... or can the chain ride up without causing this?

[i]chainsuck[/i] is the act of the chain sticking to/climbing up the front chainring.

What you're calling chainsuck is the chain hitting the frame [i]after the chainsuck has already happened[/i].

richc - Member
OK then andyl, how does that explain exactly the same chainset, chain, cassette being installed on another frame by the same person not experiencing chainstuck, in exactly the same conditions?

ie: the only variable which is different is the frame.

Badly set up on one frame. Better on the other OR just the frame is knocking the chain off the ring in better place. As I said earlier, the frame dictates where and if the chain actually gets jammed. As wwaswas says - the act of chainsuck is the chain getting stuck on the rings.

Also where all the variables the same? Rear dérailleur at the correct angle. Cable outer leading to it free to move okay? Chain the correct length?