On-One: Fat Chancer retro steel frame

[PIGEON]

I think you miss the point of this thread if after 9 pages you still think this thread is about how bikes made in Taiwan can never be good bikes.

 

[brocklanders023]

BROCKLANDERS Ok i will apologise for that comment. Anyway iv given you my opinion on this topic so thats me done,, no hard feelings

Accepted.

 

[kaiser]

I think you miss the point of this thread if after 9 pages you still think this thread is about how bikes made in Taiwan can never be good bikes.

Me?

 

[Neil G]

So lets just say The Yo Eddy Fat Cance was remade by the same people in the same way to the same speck.......... BUT went modern what would people think to that? Would anyone complain he had gone all modern?
I reckon 95% off people would by the On-One version over an identical new old version????? of Yo eddy. Not that im an On-One fan cos im not
That is what calaiswoodburner was meanig in the previos post i think, Pace going all modern, the thing is people want new modern bikes now with all the latest technology not old bikes that dont really ride that well, but yep i know what you are thinking we are on retrobikes... true but dont slate companies for developing new frames in a modern way

I'm sure if the original people made a 'modern' Fat to the same standards as the old ones people on here would have less of an issue. The point being that On-One are not the original people and will not build it to the same standard as the early Fats. It's a bit like the early Kleins compared to the Trek ones (but at least Trek actually bought the company!).

On-One have their own position in the market with their own fans so why ponce off someone else? :evil: :roll:

I couldn't agree more.

 

[drystonepaul]

This thread has turned into another interesting read...

On-One proposing to brand up a modern bike with a very close play on a highly regarded classic bike name, does remind me of a certain quote about putting lipstick on a pig.

"You can clean up a pig, put a ribbon on it's tail, spray it with perfume, but it is still a pig."

Now I'm not suggesting that On-One's are pigs here, but I am suggesting that it is a fine example of some very cynical marketing.
It is also sad that many potential buyers won't have a clue about, or be able to distinguish between, either the 'pig' or the 'lipstick'.

 

[sinnett177]

Does it really matter? The On-One Fat Chancer will be a modern bike with disc brakes and all mod cons. It will look nothing like a Fat Chance and with all its modern tubes, geometry and mod cons handle completely different to an original Fat City bike. I think Fat Chance fans should see this more as a compliment to the original Fat City bikes, here is a modern company tipping their hat to their inspiration and nothing more.

 

[PIGEON]

Me?

No not you, reading back I can see how my post can seem like a response to yours but it was more like an addition to it

 

[MikeD]

I'm just trying to work out which bit of the point Andy R has apparently missed ;-)

 

[PIGEON]

Ok let me explain myself as I wasn't clear apparently

I meant this discussion was never about whether Taiwanese made frames have a right to exist. Of course they do, I think few people would disagree with that. The point is that naming your product after another product that's got absolutely nothing in common with your product is a lame thing to do, especially if your product is of inferior quality compared to the product you're naming it after.

I have nothing against the bike, it's the marketing I have a problem with.

 

[graham1975]

Does it really matter? The On-One Fat Chancer will be a modern bike with disc brakes and all mod cons. It will look nothing like a Fat Chance and with all its modern tubes, geometry and mod cons handle completely different to an original Fat City bike. I think Fat Chance fans should see this more as a compliment to the original Fat City bikes, here is a modern company tipping their hat to their inspiration and nothing more.

Exactly