can only speak for myself but no. My winter guard set up is quite similar to the light grey sections on that image above. The aim/protection in order of my desires and usefulness is:
dropper post stanchion (works well)
fork stanchions (works quite well)
rear shock (quite well)
bearings and generally stopping mud between moving parts (sort of works)
stops spray into my face (better than nothing)
keeps my clothes clean enough to wear a second time (no chance in current conditions)
With regards to keeping the rider clean the guards on Clelands have always been excellent. Even in the worst of conditions you only get a little mud splatter below the knee.
BITD, when I was leading rides in winter, I was always the first to go into a pub to check that it was ok for a group of off-road cyclists to come inside. The landlord expecting that the cyclists would be as muddy as me, would say fine. Then in would walk the don't like mudguards brigade, covered in the stuff from head to toe.
With regards to protecting the components of the bike the guards used on Clelands have got increasingly better over the years, though having enclosed brakes has always helped.
A surprisingly large amount of work, know-how and tinkering goes into making an off-road bike maintenance free.
"I’ve only today realised quite how oval those oval rings are… what’s the effective size in the power stroke and in the dead zone?"
From memory they are probably Egg-Rings?
https://bikebiz.com/rip-chris-bell-inventor-of-eggrings/
https://www.cornant.uk/eng/ovals.html
In all my years and in all the conditions I’ve ever ridden in I can’t think of one time the chainring got bogged down before the tyres did.
It'll take less than a couple of miles on a mild winter's day in the Chilterns, and I've got the haunted stare of a man that's ridden there to prove it.
“I’ve only today realised quite how oval those oval rings are… what’s the effective size in the power stroke and in the dead zone?”
Large Ring: Power stroke=48 tooth equivalent. Dead-spot=28 tooth equivalent.
Small Ring: Power stroke=26 tooth equivalent. Dead-spot=16 tooth equivalent.
From memory they are probably Egg-Rings?
Cleland and Highpath used Egg-Rings from 1986 to 2010. However, Chris Bell stopped making them quite a few years before he died. So ones used on the Landseer were designed by Geoff Apps using CAD, laser-cut from stainless steel and then finished by hand.
Extreme elliptical chainrings have been around for over a hundred years. Chris Bell's innovation was make them using CAD/CAM and in realising that correct crank orientation, relative to the ellipse axis, depends on the type of bicycle they are to be used on. Chris also originally developed swing-pedals, though for the different purpose of allowing people with limited knee movement to cycle.
With extremely elliptical rings, a well as changes in mechanical advantage as they rotate you also get marked changes to the speed that the pedal/foot rotates. In practice, this only means that they only work well when used at low-cadences, which is fine when you mostly ride off-trail like Geoff.
My personal preference is for a large circular ring and an extremely elliptical small ring. That way you have the circular ring for high cadences and the elliptical for low-cadence, high torque/high resistance, riding.
Huh, I stand corrected then. I wrongly assumed it would either be too viscous to get between rings or just fall through.
Geology is weird.
@sillyoldman you forget it's designed to have the handling of a BMX, should be fine for chucking about over roots.
A twitchy unstable bike is not an advantage on roots.
Don't believe the received wisdom that steeper steering tube angles will always produce a twitchy ride. The reality is that further back the rider's weight the less twitchy the bike becomes.
The twitchyness happens the because side to side movement of the front tyre contact patch has its greatest influence when the riders weight is directly over the front wheel. The further back the weight, the less the influence. You can test this for yourself by moving your body weight back and forth whilst riding a BMX bike.
The link bellow explains this under the heading of 'Center of Mass Location'. This section also explains why a bicycle is easier to balance when it is taller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics
I’m very familiar with BMX handling traits and don’t see them to be advantageous for mountain biking. There are several reasons for MTB head angles typically being ~10 deg slacker than on a BMX.
I’m guessing our approaches to MTB (which is a very broad church) are quite different - equally valid, but very different.
As far as I can see, the main reasons for modern MTB being slacker are down to the functioning of telescopic forks and that moving the front wheel further away from the rider's weight improves longitudinal stability. On a Cleland the longitudinal stability is improved by the rider moving his weight backwards. It's the same outcome but by a different means.
"I’m guessing our approaches to MTB (which is a very broad church) are quite different – equally valid, but very different."
Yes, there are sometimes different, but equally valid ways, of solving a given problem.
The main thing is to stick with what works for you for the type of riding you do. After all, if your not falling off and hurting yourself it's because your doing the things that suit you, and your style of riding.
Ultimately, it's the rider's experience and skill that keeps them safe as left to their own devices, all bicycles just fall over.
I’m very familiar with BMX handling traits and don’t see them to be advantageous for mountain biking.
Doesn't that depend on what you want from the ride? If you want to batter through everything then go LLS, if you want to ride everything then go with something with more pop. Neither is wrong, fast = fun but fun =! fast.
@mudrider - no nothing to do with suspension. My rigid bikes benefit as much from similar geometry.
LLS and pop aren’t mutually exclusive. BMX style fast handling would be a nightmarish handful in lumpy tech with very limited traction.
Looks fun.
Horrible, but fun!
BMX style fast handling would be a nightmarish handful in lumpy tech with very limited traction.
Did me well enough on the Naughty Northumbrian. FS BMX is a thing now too albeit more for bike parks.
Yes - again it’s a small thing though.
There’s some interesting custom bikes built in New England area, Beast of the East or Jones-y ideas with higher BBs and bash guards. Woods bikes. I always liked the look of them.
Have you got any links or pics?
@bruisewillies - the were a few appearing on MTBR years back. Wolfhound are in Oregon rather than the east but he makes some interesting bikes - https://www.wolfhoundcycles.com/bikes. No many pics of the kind I had in mind though.
FS BMX is a thing now too albeit more for bike parks.
Deathpack Bikes as a project has always looked to me to be just heaps of fun and pretty cool.
This was a few years ago, but putting up in case anyone hasn't seen it. Good deal of chat with Geoff Apps near the start.
Years ago I visited Geoff Apps' house for a coffee. Twenty of us - and he'd borrowed mugs from all the neighbours to enable to this.
My abiding memory is a living room filled with top-end HiFi speakers. Geoff used this setup to listen to steam train recordings. Very impressive.
There seems to be a consensus here that the Cleland is like a Land Rover, a low-maintenance all-weather off-road vehicle made for travelling reliably through the landscape. Meanwhile, a mountain bike is more like a rally car, for adrenalin fuelled excitement, thrills and spills and racing.
Interestingly with automobiles, rally cars are relatively rare whilst Land Rovers are commonplace. But the opposite case applies to off-road bicycles. Therefore, could there be an untapped market for a mountain bike equivalent of a Land Rover? Maybe a utilitarian machine those who need a more practical way to cycle through the countryside than is currently available. i.e., canal boat residents or farm workers?
a more practical way to cycle through the countryside than is currently available. i.e., canal boat residents or farm workers?
A pony rather than a race horse!
There seems to be a consensus here that the Cleland is like a Land Rover, a low-maintenance all-weather off-road vehicle made for travelling reliably through the landscape. Meanwhile, a mountain bike is more like a rally car, for adrenalin fuelled excitement, thrills and spills and racing.
Interestingly with automobiles, rally cars are relatively rare whilst Land Rovers are commonplace.
I guess the question you've got to ask is how many Land Rovers are used for their intended purpose.
You could probably ask the same about mountain bikes.
Therefore, could there be an untapped market for a mountain bike equivalent of a Land Rover?
You're aware no doubt that the last big trend in "off-road" cycling was making road bikes slightly less shit to ride on bridleways. Or from the other direction; making mountain bikes less capable on bridleways. I mean, there have been threads on here saying (with a straight face presumably) that gravel bikes can make even the dullest bridleway into something "fun".
Personally I find the Cleland has looks that only is inventor could love and for me at least, I'll admit that in order to want to ride it, a bike has to look the part, sorry if that's shallow or too subjective, but its the truth. There wasn't a massive market for them first time around, I doubt that's changed
I think a rigid mtb with decent mudguards, tubeless tyres, and a rack would fulfil the utilitarian/land rover analogy of moving through the landscape. Any wheel size would do too.
I guess the question you’ve got to ask is how many Land Rovers are used for their intended purpose.
You could probably ask the same about mountain bikes.
Though the 'Chelsea Tractor' analogy wouldn't transfer to bicycles, there are plenty of environmentally minded people who see the bicycle as part of their lifestyle.
So a well designed functional off-road bicycle could be viewed as being environmentally aspirational, even if it is never used for it's intended purpose?
"Personally I find the Cleland has looks that only is inventor could love and for me at least, I’ll admit that in order to want to ride it, a bike has to look the part, sorry if that’s shallow or too subjective, but its the truth. There wasn’t a massive market for them first time around, I doubt that’s changed."
My thinking for a Land Rover equivalent bicycle would not be a copy of an existing Cleland, though it could adapt some of the most practical aspects like enclosed brakes /gears, together with other useful components, like parallelogram suspension seat-posts. However, it must be functional, low-maintenance and all weather. Maybe a lightweight off-road version of the bikes used by cycle share schemes.
With regards to the look of such a bike, that would depend on the demographic it is aimed at. Whilst there might be some interest from current mountain bikers, a Land Rover equivalent bicycle might best suit people who are currently put off from cycling off-road.
But the opposite case applies to off-road bicycles.
I get the impression though that's the analogie isn't that great.
Cleland appears to be getting off the beaten or even ANY track.
So bobbed rangerovers and rockcrawlers are maybe a bit more analogous.
I think they look rediculous... And also like a laugh. But I reckon almost all full suss bikes look full on shithouse so I might not be the best judge.