Name that off-road bike company designer from my vague description.

See my previous post for  “flat bar gravel” bike with sealed drum brakes with large amounts of modulation. 

We've had Fat-Bikes on winter Cleland rides and their wide tyres can pick up copious amounts of sticky mud.  Also, pushing wide tyres through soft, deep mud can be seriously hard work.  Usually, it's better to go for thinner, large diameter tyres because they're less likely to clog-up, have a lower rolling-resistance on soft ground, and can cut right through the mud to the find the grip underneath.

@mudrider - not if you don’t go way too far in that direction. The STA is steeper, so weight bias is central seated and  when standing the longer reach promotes cantered/front weight bias rather than rear weight bias.

I get that there’s a market for the end point that Cleland reached with the geometry, but I don’t see it being a big one. Partly as that niche of riding is small, and partly as the big brands are making better looking bikes with geometry at the other end of the scale more appealing through marketing/sponsored riders etc.

@sillyoldman - I take your point that a steeper STA on a long-low-slack geometry bike could compensate for for the long front end moving the bias forward.

Though I have never been interested in downhill racing, I would imagine that you would not want the rider's weight too far forward when riding down a steep hill?

With regards to the market viability of Cleland style bicycles, my argument is that this market, no matter how small, is currently not being served.

Marketing and sponsorship will always focus on the excitement of racing in preference of the practical aspects of merely cycling through the landscape.

With regards to aesthetics, the big brands have professional engineers and designers big budget facilities and market research to ensure their products will sell.  Meanwhile, Geoff Apps is a one man band who designs bikes principally for his own use.  His philosophy is one of form-follows-function, based on experimentation and having an open-mind.  

Paradoxically, he could have made a lot of money if he had abandoned his own ideas and jumped on the US mountain bike bandwagon in the 1980's.  But that's not the nature of the man.    

His philosophy is one of form-follows-function, based on experimentation and having an open-mind.

I’m afraid I find statements like this make me reflexively dislike a concept, even if I find the ideas intriguing. “I have an open mind, everyone else just follows the herd”. Look at someone like Cotic who have just sent out an email talking about ‘that time we modified one of our bikes to be a high pivot idler’ for an example of experimentation and having an open mind, they had the same a few year back about trying out loooong bikes and they liked them. Having an open mind can even still lead to the conventional answer because, funnily, the conventional wisdom is sometimes right.

"His philosophy is one of form-follows-function, based on experimentation and having an open-mind." 

This is just a description of how he works/worked, nothing more. 

It was not intended as a criticism of how others choose to work. Nor am I saying that he is the only bicycle designer to experiment or have an open-mind.  

Though I have never been interested in downhill racing, I would imagine that you would not want the rider’s weight too far forward when riding down a steep hill?<br /><br />

quite the opposite, you do want the weight forward, as that is what allows the front wheel to grip in corners and under braking. <br /><br />having the strength to do so (imagine dropping from standing upright directly into a press-up… repeatedly, for four minutes) is a different matter. <br /><br />

Apart from on an uphill jump takeoff, I doubt a downhill rider’s hands are higher than their hips at any point on the track. 

I like the idea of anyone attempting an uphill jump takeoff on a Cleland!

I think regarding f'orm/function' and 'open mind,' it does need to be looked at in context of the time.period as well, eg 70's to early 80's.

To my knowledge, there's been no actual Cleland design changes since 1982, so there was no/very minimal herd or standard approach to rebel against then.

To my knowledge, there’s been no actual Cleland design changes since 1982,

After Cleland Cycles stopped making bicycles in mid 1984, English Cycles in Shropshire and Highpath Engineering in Guildford made improved Cleland type bikes until the early 2000's.

Highpath even developed a full suspension version with a high pivot idler back end in 2004.

Meanwhile, Geoff Apps continued to design new bikes for himself and friends.  This Cleland Cycles' evolution page only includes the bikes designed by Geoff.

http://clelandcycles.wordpress.com/evolution/

Pictures of his most recent model, the 2016 Landseer can be seen here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/38236150@N06/28697140011/in/photostream/

Since 2016, developments include, bottom-bracket gearboxes with belt drives, combined suspension / dropper seatposts, and handlebars that also give a more forward riding position for when riding on road or into headwinds.

@mudrider - a weighted front tyre is a necessary for traction rather than something to avoid.

Market viability - that’s where custom builders make sense - when volume is vanishingly low.

I admire his approach - making a bike that suits his specific riding needs (as I do Jones to an extent), but neither product are the best solution for the kinds of riding I (and many others) enjoy.

@sillyoldman

"a weighted front tyre is a necessary for traction rather than something to avoid."

I agree with that when there's plenty of grip to be had.

But I mostly ride, uneven, soft, loose and slippery natural trails where lateral grip can be minimal or non-existent. Therefore, the front end sliding out from under the bike is a real and constant hazard.

Wow. Thanks for all that mudrider - I genuinely had no idea about all that development and assumed people were riding the old bikes. Certainly didn't know that new bike was so recent.

The Landseer looks great - I can see myself pottling over a grouse moor on one of those!

The component specs on these bikes is so singular as to appear wilfully obtuse. I can sort of get the roller-brakes if ultimately ultra-low maintenance is the only criteria, but combining a Nexus hub with that mud collecting front chainring set up (see the picture a couple of posts above this) when single chain-ring set-ups exist seems individualistic just for the sake of it. As if there's a purdah on anything that mainstream bikes might have.

Each to their own I guess. 

But I mostly ride, uneven, soft, loose and slippery natural trails where lateral grip can be minimal or non-existent. Therefore, the front end sliding out from under the bike is a real and constant hazard.

Come winter time in the UK, those sorts hazards on natural tracks are what we all face though. We don't just ride in parks or dedicated trails week in week out. I genuinely can't remember that last time I was concerned that the front wheel was going to slide out from underneath me. Might loose grip occasionally, but so will these bikes. 

And some people think having a cassette that weighs the same as a small moon is less preferable to two front rings. What's the issue?

I genuinely can’t remember that last time I was concerned that the front wheel was going to slide out from underneath me. Might loose grip occasionally, but so will these bikes. 

Yes, Clelands can also lose grip.  Yesterday the front wheel the front wheel tried to slide out from underneath me twice on a narrow muddy trail between thorn bushes and a barbed-wire fence.  Not a problem, I just lifted it up and placed it back where I wanted it.

The back wheel also slid sideways in the soft loamy soil of a fast cambered downhill that runs diagonally across the scarp of the Chiltern Hills.   Again not a problem, as back wheels tend to come back online when you ride it out.  However, losing control of the front wheel, when you have a steep drop beside you, could prove very nasty.

"The component specs on these bikes is so singular as to appear wilfully obtuse. I can sort of get the roller-brakes if ultimately ultra-low maintenance is the only criteria, but combining a Nexus hub with that mud collecting front chainring set up (see the picture a couple of posts above this) when single chain-ring set-ups exist seems individualistic just for the sake of it. As if there’s a purdah on anything that mainstream bikes might have".

Geoff Apps has designed this bike for his own use. If he knows of a functional, non-mainstream, technology that could be useful, he will investigate it.  He is not constrained by the parts-bin of his local bike shop.

With regards to the "mud collecting chainring set up".  In reality it doesn't collect mud because of the guarding on the rest of the bike.  In particular, virtually nothing gets past the giant front mudflap.

This bike is the lowest maintenance Cleland yet, only the wheels, pedals and guards get muddy.

What’s the issue?

Mud. The whole point of Cleland bikes is that they keep working regardless of the conditions - hence roller-brakes and Nexus hubs. But then I look at the front chainring set-up and it just seems (in comparison to a single chain ring) like a massive mud collector 

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most mountain bikers think that the primary purpose of mudguards is to protect the rider.  In my definition, good mudguards must also protect the mechanisms of the bicycle.

So far this winter the only maintenance that has been done to my Clelands is the changing of a worn-out wheel cartridge bearing.

Like having a bath, I generally clean them once a year. But only if they need it!

The fact that those pedals are designed to be ridden while wearing a pair of wellies speaks volumes!!

The fact that those pedals are designed to be ridden while wearing a pair of wellies speaks volumes!!

I guess that supports the rally car / Land Rover hypothesis, as I haven't seen many rally drivers wearing wellies recently!

I came to MTB slightly later than the Clelands (1988 if we aren't counting a Raleigh Bomber) but remember them being an interesting feature in books / New Cyclist magazine etc.

I like them in general, but despite being able to make my own frames, I've never been sufficiently convinced to make something similar. 

I tried to read up on that aluminium framed Landseer this lunchtime but just found the website frustrating. I'd like to read and see more images about the origins of the frame and the making of the chainstay modifications, but it was just page after page after hidden linked page of words. If this information is buried in there somewhere, can you give a link to the actual page?

Similarly on the other sites we are repeatedly told about the history of special drum brake designs, but never see anything showing the workings. And the random jamming on of the limited run / proto Sturmey seems to get mentioned but glossed over..... 🙂

It seems to me, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that most mountain bikers think that the primary purpose of mudguards is to protect the rider.  In my definition, good mudguards must also protect the mechanisms of the bicycle.<br /><br />

can only speak for myself but no. My winter guard set up is quite similar to the light grey sections on that image above. <br />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)

@mick_r

"I tried to read up on that aluminium framed Landseer this lunchtime but just found the website frustrating. I’d like to read and see more images about the origins of the frame and the making of the chainstay modifications, but it was just page after page after hidden linked page of words. If this information is buried in there somewhere, can you give a link to the actual page?

Similarly on the other sites we are repeatedly told about the history of special drum brake designs, but never see anything showing the workings. And the random jamming on of the limited run / proto Sturmey seems to get mentioned but glossed over….. 🙂"

Geoff Apps designed the Landseer using Google SketchUp Computer Aided Design software. He built the entire bike and all it's components in CAD before he made it.  He then output files from which the custom components were laser-cut, before the parts were then finished by hand.  The doner frame was a Kona Cowan.

It may be an idea to try to contact Geoff via either of the Cleland Wordpress sites as he may be able to provide you with the CAD files for the Landseer or output them as orthographic drawings.

Watch this space and I will post some links relating to Lelue, Highpath and the Sturmey Archer prototype Lelue- type hub-brakes.

@mick_r

As promised, here are some links to hub-bake info:

This RetroBike thread has a detailed explanation of how Leleu-type hub-brakes work:

https://www.retrobike.co.uk/threads/hub-drum-brake-bikes.444879/

In this RetroBike thread someone puts Lelue-type floating cams onto Sturmey Archer Elite hub-brakes:

https://www.retrobike.co.uk/threads/cleland-range-rider-rr-001-english-cycles-highpath-1982.375867/page-5

I do not know why the Highpath/Sturmey Archer brakes could grab unexpectedly, but can probably find out as a friend of mine has a pair.

Here is a link about Highpath floating-cam hub-brakes:

http://www.63xc.com/dws/hubbrake.htm

The Shimano Roller-brakes are super smooth and totally silent in operation, but ultimately they are not as powerful as the Lelue-type brakes because of their self-servoing characteristic.

But then I look at the front chainring set-up and it just seems (in comparison to a single chain ring) like a massive mud collector

Wut?

Is that even a thing?

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.

Or is this another thing people convince themselves happens along with impossible to set up front mechs?

I have to improvise to get decent mudguards on mtbs.

Done properly mudguards make a huge difference to riding.  Its nice not to get covered in mud and have a clean drivetrain.forks and brakes.  Not being filthy when you go for your pub lunch.   

Thanks for all the links. I assumed the donor frame was from a small MTB, and the revised chainstays / dropout were to give the desired BB height (and brake mounts, tensioner etc). All the brake stuff should give me some lunchtime reading.....

I'd agree that roller brakes are low maintenance and efficient, but although quiet in terms of braking noise, I've always found them annoyingly rattly on bumpy surfaces unless cable adjustment was 100% perfect.

Point of order- roller brakes and drum brakes are not the same thing

He is talking about / using both types of brake TJ. Drum on the early bikes, roller more recently.

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.

Or is this another thing people convince themselves happens along with impossible to set up front mechs?<br /><br />

I can recall on my first mtb with a triple, getting so much mud on the crankset that it wouldn’t shift from middle to little ring - there was too much crap around the chainring to allow the chain to drop down onto it. <br /><br />

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?

To stop the rattling,  you can attach the cooling disk to the spokes using small cable ties and spacers.

However, you must not pull the cooling-disk towards the spokes when you do this as this can eventually cause the brakes to fail completely.  This happens because the rollers are attached to the cooling-disk and if it is not centred the rollers will no longer seat properly on the cam.  This in tern can cause the harder rollers to damage the edge of cam.  Eventually the the cam gets so damaged that the rollers can roll completely over the top leading to total brake failure.

Also, Roller-Brakes produce a small amount of drag when the brakes are not applied.  Something that you don't get with properly setup standard drum-brakes.

To be honest I bought the roller braked bike in Denmark and it was silent on their smooth roads and bike tracks. It was only back on UK surfaces it became apparent.

“I agree with that when there’s plenty of grip to be had.

But I mostly ride, uneven, soft, loose and slippery natural trails where lateral grip can be minimal or non-existent. Therefore, the front end sliding out from under the bike is a real and constant hazard.”

There doesn’t need to be plenty of grip for a weighted front tyre to be advantageous - just any grip. On the relatively rare occasions when there is next to no grip - roots covered in wet mud or frosty roots, I’d rather hop over them on a bike with sensible weight distribution, rather than ride a bike dedicated to an unusual circumstance.

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.

@walleater

“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.