Has anybody weighed a Nimbus 36" frame before? Curious to know how it compares to the new Cokers.
Big One frame is listed as 1.761 lbs / 799g
V2 is listed as 4.127 lbs / 1872g
very quick search revieled this.
for the lazy:
Alloy Coker: 799 grams
Schlumph v1: 850 grams
Coker: 864 grams
Ken's coker: 1100 grams
Nimbus: 1141 grams
V2: 1872 grams
there is a conflict with Ken’s coker frame
The 1st Gen Schlumpf aluminium frame is 850g according to my scales (probably unreliable). But I don’t currently use it because it’s too flexy. I’d like to get the alloy Coker frame or else a Ti frame made up. I’m also working on a Peron style V-frame which I’d like to build up into a Time Trial Coker.
I’m currently using the Std Coker frame 1100g (again according to my unreliable scales). According to you it weighs 864g
I don’t think those weights are that reliable. I’d like to see all those frames weighed on the same set of scales.
Ken
p/s I’m still curious as to what the V2 frame offers the rider apart from extra weight? Why all those extra tubes? I doubt very much you’d notice any greater stiffness than the Std Coker steel frame
Thanks ntappin. That’s exactly what I was looking for. I either didn’t pick the right words for my search or just didn’t go far enough back.
Looks from the posts like the weight for the Nimbus is not including bearing caps and bolts, whereas the Coker weights do include it. Not that they would add that much weight, but it makes a little difference.
Not sure how the weights could be too far off, though. Notice in the referenced post that the same guy (dforbes) weighed both the Nimbus and the Coker frame, presumably on the same scale. The Nimbus weight he gives–1141g–matches almost exactly the weight given by another poster on the first page of that thread–1142.75 (posted by Klaas Bil). If dforbes was right on target with the Nimbus frame, it’s hard to imagine he would be so far off with the Coker frame. Then again, it’s difficult to imagine your scale being off that much either, so not sure where that leaves us. Did Coker ever change the design of their previous frame in a way that might have caused a weight difference?
Those look awesome and different which is always a good thing. 
i believe the nominal mass is 1.1kg, which seems to match data from that thread
I’m not a big fan of extra complexities for the sake of it, especially if they reduce functionality. That is one heavy frame!
If they needed that many tubes they should have designed a Pete Peron style V-frame Coker. That would make for a stronger and lighter as well as adjustable handlebar set-up.
They weigh tons because they’ve used handlebar sized tubing for everything, whereas the other four tube frames use narrower tubing.
But the design doesn’t seem to have any of the clever engineering of the Nimbus frame, which was designed with all the parts making up triangles (which is supposed to be the improvement vs. the hunter frame which is less triangley in some way).
I think you’d have to be seriously style over substance to pay $100 extra to add an extra kg to the weight of your unicycle, that seems like it’d be a noticeable amount extra to drag up the hills.
Joe
Is your coker frame the 22.2mm seatpost variety or the 25.4, if it is the 25.4, maybe that could explain it?
For those interested in the comparison, UDC has now posted the weights for the Nimbus 36" and Titan 36" frames as follows:
Nimbus 36" - 2.82 lbs (1279g)
Titan 36" - 2.55 lbs (1157g)
The weight of the Nimbus 36" differs slightly from the one given before because this includes the bearing caps and bolts. Below is the new weight line-up of the various 36" frames.
Thanks UDC! More info allows a more informed purchase decision and a happier customer…
Alloy Coker: 799 grams
Schlumph v1: 850 grams
Coker: 864 grams (?)
Ken’s coker: 1100 grams
Nimbus: 1279 grams
Titan: 1157 grams
V2: 1872 grams
Please note that the weights given for the new Cokers (alloy and V2) are both with the bearing caps and bolts included. This should be noted with any frame weight and, in my opinion, should always be included as a frame is useless without them.
Why the V2 frame? My guess is that it’s all about the look. The frame itself must be really stiff, but that’s not a huge thing because it still connects to the wheel through the same two little bearings. People buy cars and bikes for looks. Lots of people. Performance-oriented riders do not, but they are the minority. Cokers are heavy to begin with, and I still assume the majority of Coker buyers are interested in having a cool, stand-out novelty cycle. Like a beach cruiser (or a Hummer for you four-wheelers), it ain’t about the weight. The frame should look really beefy and different. Of course it would be nice if it came in more “showy” colors, or chrome, but that would up the price.
That being the case, the change to an alloy frame for the “regular” new Coker is very cool.
Before you ask, yes, I have a stick up my butt.
Why is everyone throwing the word “alloy” around like it means something? Look in a dictionary and find this: it means “a mixture of two or more metals”.
It seems UDC has started this horrendous trend of calling everything “alloy” without mentioning the actual contents of said alloy. Whether it’s steel, aluminum, titanium… it makes a huge difference!
SHAME ON YOU UDC!
When possible, please clearly state if you’re referring to the steel frame or aluminum frame. My head is going to explode if I’m confused any further.
Couldn’t the same question now be asked about the Nimbus 36"? What is the advantage, now, of the Nimbus 36" over the Coker Big One, which weighs 480 grams less?
I think it’s stiffer, and also lockable.
Agreed. I see “alloy” cranks on UDC and think: What type of alloy?!
it’s stiffer, it has a narrower profile, it has brake mounts, if fits good quality seatposts (like thompson), it can take an older style schlumpf hub, it’s blue.
Where do you people come up with this garbage. You can order the new Big One with brakes/mounts (HELLO). I just measured (with calipers) the seat post of my coker to be 25.4mm, Surprise a size that you can buy a Thompson seat-post for and coincidently the same size as the nimbus frame (wrong again). How do you know it’s stiffer did you actually test them or have you seen actual test results? UDC claims it to be stiffer but I haven’t seen anything that backs up their claim with empirical evidence. Not to mention I was rather amused when Terry(Muni Addict, I have also seen others also post the same) couldn’t feel an appreciable difference between the Radial frame and the Nimbus frame. And what’s the reason why the schlumph hub won’t fit? Bearing size, Bearing spacing, Bearing holder lip interference, or the fact you would have to drill and tap a hole for the torque arm yourself?
Am I completely off my rocker or what?
I think the nimbus frame is actually more flexy side to side but you don’t notice that at all when you are riding. What you can notice is that it is much more resistant to twisting which seems to translate into better feedback and control with a handle.
If you look at the frame designs this makes perfect sense (at least it does to me)
This is my observations but it is far from scientific. The Coker had a steel rim and my Nimbus has an airfoil so that could have made more of a difference than the frame design.