Mountain bikes are not really fit for purpose, incredibly fragile gears and mechs, designed for the road, suspension designs that get fubared in the gloop, in the blink of an eye, I want hold my breath for change anytime soon.

Rohloff Fatty mush?

http://clelandcycles.wordpress.com/

Apollo Feud?

Mountain bikes are not really fit for purpose, incredibly fragile gears and mechs, designed for the road, suspension designs that get fubared in the gloop, in the blink of an eye, I want hold my breath for change anytime soon.

?

Edit, not that specific one, clearly, as it’s got slicks on. Try this one:

Slicks and reflectors? 😀

Slicks and reflectors?

Yes, unfortunate smartarse fail, there.

Mtb gear components are purpose made and quite different from road group sets. Also break off hangers were conceived as a frame saving measure for off road bikes. There’s a lot goes into the design. I think it’s flippant to suggest they aren’t purpose built.
There’s no way to protect a mechanical component indefinitely from the off road environment. Unless of course you keep it nicely lubed and polished and in the shed.

I see your point, the front mech is painfully open to the elements. Whenever I ride through mud and 20 minutes into a 3 hr ride, the front mech is covered in goo I imagine drip drip of gritty dirt dropping into my chain with every revolution.
I guess the answer is until someone designs something better. Get to it.

Maybe when everyone stops obsessing about super-lightweight components and the appearance of their bike 🙂

When are we going to see a bike designed purely for offroad use

Give me enough money and I’ll build you something with Rohloff and belt drive that’ll solve all your problems…

edit: too late as usual..

Something like this ?

Yep, belts, internal gears and discs solve a myriad of problems. One area where they, notably internal gearing, fall down at the moment, is in making super-lightweight “purely offroad” race bikes, IMHO.

However, for all round trail riding? Perfect. If you’re worried about suspension, ditch it. If not, ride with it and maintain it. It’s not that hard to do, really.

or move somewhere dry and not muddy

Mountain bikes are not really fit for purpose

Bollocks.

Next.

I think we already have them but then you may have different requirements than most.

Incredibly fragile gears and mechs

Not really at least not for most IME. I’ve broken one mech offroad in 15+ years mtbing. Given the crap that we ride through I reckon drivetrains actually last pretty well (and IME no worse than 7+ speed despite the doomsayers).

Designed for the road

Originated through road use. I’m not sure that means the best solution has to be different for mtbs.

suspension designs that get fubared in the gloop, in the blink of an eye

Well, suspension has been designed purely for offroad use so that’s a bit silly but some are unquestionably fragile. That’s usually because they’re designed for non-UK/horrible conditions. Without spending lots more money or adding much more weight, you’re not going to get lots more robust suspension with what’s available at the moment.

IGH, encased chain, sealed pivots. what’s not to like?
aside from the fact that Katz went bust…

It’s perfectly possible to make a bike that could be used off road, continuously with no maintenance whatsoever. But no one would buy it.

(it would be heavy, in-efficient, and not very fun to ride)

A modern qualify MTB will shrug off a lot of abuse and keep riding. You might need to wash it occasionally, maybe even buy a chain or something every now and then, but broadly speaking, even in the worst conditions, they just get on rolling along!

i sense an OP that is using “everything SRAM”… there’s your problem.

They don’t exist you have to make them yourself.
Here is my mud machine……

Maybe when everyone stops obsessing about super-lightweight components and the appearance of their bike

Applause.

It’s perfectly possible to make a bike that could be used off road, continuously with no maintenance whatsoever. But no one would buy it.

(it would be heavy, in-efficient, and not very fun to ride)
Well, if ‘no’ maintenance became ‘almost none’, it could be rigid, SS and have more money spent on hubs and BB than many spend on their gears, but also be light, fun and handle very well. You wouldn’t win the EWS on it or ride at ego-flattering pace compared to some others, but you may find it good for a lot of your riding. There’s times you’d want a more maintenance-needy performance bike too, neither would be great for everything.
(edit to add, the Cleland bikes are almost the no-maintenance bike ideal and they never sold successfully, so I guess there’s a balance to be had over how durable and maintenance free things need to be. A bit of tinkering now and then is enjoyable, 20 mins or more after most rides is a bit much for me)

The same could be said about my commuting bike and it is an Alfine with full mudguards! The tyres and brakes wear out, the chain stretches, I still get wet and cold in the winter and too hot in the summer.

Belt drive Rohloff fatty. Done. Next?

maxtorque – Member
It’s perfectly possible to make a bike that could be used off road, continuously with no maintenance whatsoever. But no one would buy it.

(it would be heavy, in-efficient, and not very fun to ride)

Such a bike exists, I have it.

Purpose built, it is heavy, yet there’s nothing on it without a purpose.

It is efficient and it’s very effective at its job.

It’s a hoot to ride.

It’s built for riding in the worse conditions I can find.

I have used it for 3 solo ‘Puffer 24 hrs and also all my foul conditions riding in between. It has had no maintenance other than an occasional wipe down and chain lube.

On it I have done more solo laps in the 24 hours than on my thoroughbred lightweight weighing half as much.

Oh, and it still is on its original chain, brake linings, BB and Headset and wheel bearings. The only thing changed has been the tyres as better ones became available.

Best of all it keeps me happy, warm and dry (pic taken after 20 hours on the bike)

(pic by Jon Brookes)

Luckily for the fashionable people with delicate eyeballs, the bike is rarely seen on trails where other riders go, and spends its time guddling around swamp in the back of beyond.

I think you must have had bad luck.I use my dh bike off road only, its on the same mech, chain, cassette etc since I built it in 2011. Done 6 weeks in spain, 4 in france and umpteen uplift days here.
My AM bike I built in 2011 ridden it a fair bit, and it too is on the same gears etc.
A good dash of mechanical sympathy, regular maintenance, gentle gear changes and making sure you dont lay your bike down mech side can lead to long life.

Here’s a recent picture of my 1988 Highpath Engineering built Cleland.

If I were to sum up the vast majority of modern mountain bike designs I would describe them as the equivalent of a rally car. This is because they are both designed for trail/road use and not for riding completely off-piste. Clelands however, are no compromise off-road machines, the equivalent of a tractor.

There are no reasons why a modern Cleland style bike must be inherently slow and heavy, nor fun to ride, as these considerations could be overcome via adequate investment in the design.

Nor is it true that Cleland stopped making bikes because they did not sell. In reality, they were forced to stop production in 1984 because, for some reason, Ron Kitching Ltd refused to supply the company with vital components that could not be obtained elsewhere.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbWuIHESe5M[/video]

http://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/off-piste/

This may be of interest to anyone who appreciates the difference between a motocross motorbike and a trials motorbike.
Current mountain bike design development is exclusively in the area equivalent to motocross, optimised to ride fast over pre-prepared trails.
Trials riding, on the other hand, is all about negotiating normal un-prepared terrain carefully, slowly and successfully.

more details on the build please, epicyclo…

Current mountain bike design development is exclusively in the area equivalent to motocross, optimised to ride fast over pre-prepared trails.
Trials riding, on the other hand, is all about negotiating normal un-prepared terrain carefully, slowly and successfully.

It’s a good distinction. I think a commercially-viable bike needs to be able to do much of both, most do. Many modern bikes are capable of speed/technical terrain performance way beyond the rider and that sells, most aren’t willing to buy a bike more optimised for off-piste and deep mud/winter use that compromises more typical MTB trail speed and handling. It’s fun to ride like that. That’s more what I meant about the Cleland style ‘not selling’ ie the concept, that what people want from a bike diverged from that design’s use, or at least how people understood it on first impression. I remember a time when that bike was an icon of what ‘ATB’ meant – go anywhere wilderness bikes, I wanted one. I still buy into that and there’s lessons in the bike that I totally agree with – possibly as I ride in the same area and take a few bush-whacking diversions on the local trails )