British
Early "mountainbike" designer
Very very upright, like almost standing.
Jeremy Torr.
Geoff Apps at Cleland cycles? from memory Jeremy Torr made some of the frames for Geoff, but by all accounts was a bit slapdash with actually following the designs and and angles were a bit hit and miss
Dave Raleigh?
Cleaned was the name I was thinking of.
Kept thinking Cunningham but I think he was about the drops and the limp dick stems?
https://clelandcycles.wordpress.com/evolution/ Was there not a rumour that Brant in planet X days was going to make something like this? Hub brakes as well.
I kinda want one.
Would be a laugh I reckon.
The Geoff Apps' 1982 Cleland Aventura design was effectively a BMX bike, but fitted with large 27.5" wheels, powerful weatherproof brakes, effective mudguards and alpine gears.
Onlookers are often surprised by the off-road ability of such tall, short wheelbase bikes. But I would argue that this simply proves that 'long, low and slack' is not the only way to produce a capable off-road bicycle.
Cleland Riding Traits:
- Just like BMX bikes, they are intended to be ridden out of the saddle over undulating terrain, with the bike rotating whilst the rider's body remains relatively still.
- The short-reach frame allows the rider to move their body-weight further back than is possible on a mainstream MTB. So that even on a steep downhills or drop-offs, very little of the rider's weight is over the front wheel.
- The climbing of steep hills is done whilst leaning forward out of the saddle so the rider can find the sweet-spot between putting their weight on back wheel for maximum traction, and the front wheel to keep it from lifting.
- The in-saddle riding position is similar to that of a Brompton with 80% of the rider's weight over the back wheel. As with the the Brompton, this makes it easier for the front wheel to roll over obstacles.
Maybe, one day a manufacturer will realise that this geometry has its advantages and make similar bikes available again. In particular the more upright riding position, with no weight on the wrists would better suit riders who suffer from back, neck or wrist pain.
The original Raleigh Bomber.
“Just like BMX bikes, they are intended to be ridden out of the saddle over undulating terrain, with the bike rotating whilst the rider’s body remains relatively still.
The short-reach frame allows the rider to move their body-weight further back than is possible on a mainstream MTB. So that even on a steep downhills or drop-offs, very little of the rider’s weight is over the front wheel.
The climbing of steep hills is done whilst leaning forward out of the saddle so the rider can find the sweet-spot between putting their weight on back wheel for maximum traction, and the front wheel to keep it from lifting.
The in-saddle riding position is similar to that of a Brompton with 80% of the rider’s weight over the back wheel. As with the the Brompton, this makes it easier for the front wheel to roll over obstacles.”
None of that sounds beneficial.
None of that sounds beneficial.
Maybe not to mainstream MTB riding styles now that speed and suspension is the norm. But considering the ideas came together well before that, well I was impressed when I rode one. Went to one of the Wendover meets with Geoff Apps. I took my Jones which uses some similar ideas but is quite different in other ways for a bit of compare and contrast geekery chat. The Cleland is an excellent bike for a certain way of riding.
I can see how a Jones can be beneficial in some riding scenarios, but not the Cleland - it seems to highlight traits that I’d try to avoid whether with or without suspension and with or without gears.
If you take a car analogy most MTBs are intended to be rally cars, Clelands were landrovers. ie most mtbs are aimed at riding fast over known courses, Clelands are for exploring at lower speeds
Loved that ride report Jupiter!
I met Geoff and co on one of the Wendover rides a few years ago, an absolute gent.
Totally different approach to 'off road', where 'off road' means 'go anywhere' .riding any and everything, not just the bridleways, tracks, trails.
Rights of way domination means we're largely conditioned to follow a track of some sort or the other, on foot and on bikes. So takes a certain mind to design a bike to actually go 'every where'!
Doesn't a Jones have a similar idea?
They're interesting designs. I think TJ nails it when he calls them a different take on "off-road vehicle" and the rally car/Landover description is a good one. A different philosophy, and just a completely different way of exploring the country-side
Doesn’t a Jones have a similar idea?
In terms of being short reach and rearward weight bias yes, the BB drop and overall ride position vs the bike are very different though. The Jones has some of the agility of a Cleland to a point but more ability at speed. Neither would keep up with a longer, slacker bike in the rough. The Cleland feeling like an longer-distance trials bike is no coincidence, that's the original design intent afaia.
it seems to highlight traits that I’d try to avoid whether with or without suspension and with or without gears.
This is the thing, we ride trails to match the bikes and with bigger FS bikes so capable and common, driving to riding destinations is also common. I found myself just riding to the Cleland's strengths and having a great time. I may not have stuck to legal ROWs for long : )
It was interesting to see Geoff himself ride in an area I knew well though often on different tracks, there were places where he just rode away from us very smoothly. Food for thought. @jimfrandisco's spot on.
With regards to their speed, the Cleland bicycles with their upright riding position was never intended to be aerodynamic and were noticeably slower than mainstream early bicycles on-road. But my experience of riding my mountain-bike on Geoff Apps led rides in the 1980's, was of the pace being quite fast with the following riders usually having to struggle keep up. I guess that aerodynamics weren't so much of an issue at average off-road speeds?
Geoff Apps' use of very low-pressure tyres and bigger wheels meant that his bikes had a larger footprint than contemporary bikes, which made them more efficient on soft-ground. Also, a great deal of the trail vibration was soaked up by the flexing tyres, which I guess is much more efficient than absorbing trail shock through the bike frame and rider's body.
Another speed related issue was the absolutely brilliant Lelue type hub-brakes used on the early Clelands, as your less likely to go fast when you can't trust your brakes. Originally engineered for use on heavier French mopeds and tandems, they had enough power to throw the rider clean over the handlebars. However, when compared to modern disk brakes their feathering was amazing, with about 40mm of brake-lever movement between the brake applying and the wheel locking up. Just the job for riding on slippery terrain, where an unintended front wheel lockup can be catastrophic.
These drum brakes were also unaffected by mud and rain and have a patented mechanism that automatically adjusts for the uneven brake shoe-wear that wrecks the performance of most hub-brakes. The only maintenance required is to take up the cable slack as the shoes wear down and one set of brake-shoes will last for more than ten years of heavy all weather use.
My limited experience of riding my Cleland at modern trail centres is that an experienced rider can cope quite well, just as an good BMX rider might. Usually, so as not to hold anyone up, I make sure that I am the last rider to set off. Once I arrived at the end of the run to a round of applause from the other riders, who probably thought that I was more likely to kill myself than arrive in one piece.
I would love to ride something like that. I'm too old and scared to be riding 150mm+ long low and slack bikes to their full potential.I need a 'pootling around' type of bike that can really go off road.
I would love to ride something like that. I’m too old and scared to be riding 150mm+ long low and slack bikes to their full potential.I need a ‘pootling around’ type of bike that can really go off road.
At first, some people find the high bottom-bracket height to be disconcerting, as you can't touch the ground when your riding in the saddle, but you soon get used to this. These days I fit dropper posts that gently lower my feet to the ground whenever I stop.
Geoff Apps' use of high bottom-brackets is not just about reducing the risk of pedal-strike, but because of the weird effect this has on the lateral stability of a bike. At its most extreme it feels as if the bike is being balanced by some unseen, external force. This is something he learned from motorbike-trials riding and relates to a property of physics known as 'Inverted Pendulum Theory,' where taller objects fall over more slowly than shorter ones.
It turns out that clowns riding very tall bicycles at the circus was a con, as they're actually easier to balance than a recumbent.
None of that sounds beneficial.
Really?
I was bombing about on a Trailstar that fitted the first two points perfectly until recently (it's having a rest). It was great fun and immensely capable.
Sure longer and slacker are better at speed but you can have just as much fun picking your own lines and playing to the bikes own strengths.
I've never understood why anyone would want the fun bits to be over quicker.
Yeah I think they're quite intriguing, I'd like to at least have a go on one. Not totally convinced I'd like it beyond novelty value, but for off road winter riding in all that slop it might turn out ideal for the releatively flat south east.
“Really?”
The first point applies to any bike I can think of, and I have no idea why you’d want an unweighted front tyre.
“I’ve never understood why anyone would want the fun bits to be over quicker.”
Fast bikes are fun. Riding fast is fun.
Slow tech is a different kind of fun, but that can be done on any bike. Doesn’t need to be one that doesn’t work for other styles of riding.
You also have to remember than Apps bike's were in comparison to what now would be looked at as gravel bikes with flat bars - ie what most regular 'mountain bikers' were riding when he was designing and building these bikes. In comparison to bikes that were just about good enough for bridleway riding and little more, anything with any capacity for 'extreme' riding would look more capable.
Slow tech is a different kind of fun, but that can be done on any bike. Doesn’t need to be one that doesn’t work for other styles of riding.
Sure, but some don't do some kinds of riding much/at all so they're aiming for a bike being best at other things? BITD it was trials, XC and DH on the same bike at a race weekend. Riders were customising bikes more for one than the other then. We used to session tricky slow lines up and down hill mid XC rides when we were younger but rarely do that now. The Cleland reminded me how much fun that was.
I think we'd all agree a bike can be optimised for all sorts of things, there really isn't a bike that's equally good across the range from trialsy XC Geoff Apps style to riding DH/enduro speeds through more similarly technical trails. OK maybe that doesn't apply to Chris Akrigg.. for the rest of us how we ride most of the time biases our bike preferences?
I think Geoff Apps' bikes take an idea close to it's conclusion, it goes all the way down that particular design thinking path. Mainstream MTB is on a different path, but I'm not convinced it's the optimum path for everyone who rides off-road at the weekend. I can see a space for bikes that do more of what a Cleland does for riders who have a more 'wild XC' type of attitude. Considering how bikepacking has taken off I expect that space is bigger now than it has been since he started out with those ideas - when you're loaded up you're riding slower can't hit things as hard, manoeuvrability is more important that the ability to straight-line rough lines at speed. But it's still a small space, fashion and mainstream image playing a part in that.
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.
but I’m not convinced it’s the optimum path for everyone who rides off-road at the weekend.
Yep, @tjagain really does nail it when he describes these bikes as Landrovers compared to modern MTBs being like rally cars, both are fully off road capable vehicles but designed to do completely different tings.
My 90's Kona was the dogs doodahs. In the 90's. Now it's not better at anything than current MTB's other than being nostalgic.
I'm sure a Cleland was quite innovative at the time and served a purpose, but I very much doubt it would be much fun compared to what we've all become used to.
That mud video above doesn't prove much, it's a few puddles that any bike could ride through.
Look at gravel bikes - didn't take long for them to start evolving back into early MTB's
That mud video above doesn’t prove much, it’s a few puddles that any bike could ride through.
I've seen videos of Apps riding down a bank into and across a reasonably deep stream and up the other side, all the while with him sat down just pedalling serenely along, which TBF would be tricky (but agreed, not impossible) even on a modern bike. The video of him riding in and out of large puddles isn't really representative of what the bikes' are capable of.
For "wandering around the scenery biking" which is a lot of what I do and many others do a Cleland looks a good bet. Proper mudguards, easy to ride, less tiring to ride, Yes they would be a bit rubbish at bike parks but for long routes on rough tracks?
I modify my MTBs a bit down that road. Higher bars being the main one.
Higher bars being the main one.
Higher stack would be a good bet for most riders TBH, even those who look at the Cleland and decide that they're not for them. Slammed stems may look good, but don't help anyone off road really.
Higher stack would be a good bet for most riders TBH, even those who look at the Cleland and decide that they’re not for them. Slammed stems may look good, but don’t help anyone off road really.
Agreed on that point. Every bike I've had, has always been better (for me) when I've raised the front
Living on the edge of the Chilterns you can understand why Geoff developed the bike he did, when he did.
I think of it kind of the ultimate Chilterns quagmire off-off-road pub bike. Not fast, not thrilling, but it'll get you to The Black Horse and back, over Farmer John's woodland, in the middle of winter, quicker than walking
Yep, I rode there in the late nineties and early noughties and winters sucked my enthusiasm for MTB to the extent that for a couple of years about late October I'd pack away the mountain bike and convert to roadie almost exclusively.
“Really?”
The first point applies to any bike I can think of,
Yes, any bike can be ridden out of the saddle, but with a long reach it becomes impossible for the rider to move their weight as far behind the saddle, let alone behind the rear wheel as you can on a Cleland.
and I have no idea why you’d want an unweighted front tyre.
Surely less weight on the front wheel is one of the things that happens when you make a bike longer and slacker?
I wouldn't want to try to ride over a log or other potential wheel-trap with too much weight on the front wheel, especially on a bike with rigid forks.
Also, it is mainly the front wheel that controls balance, so if it skids sideways on mud, wet chalk or ice, your likely to lose control. The physics says that the further back the the rider's weight, the the further you need to turn the front wheel to correct for a given loss of balance. So conversely, the further the front wheel can move sideways before it unbalances the bike.
I often wheelie over a particularly treacherous obstacles, like a short muddy camber or a diagonal tree roots, on the basis that the front wheel can't skid when it isn't touching the ground.
TJ’s car analogy is perfect.
Cleland bikes were designed to go anywhere - ideal for exploring the countryside and woods at slow speeds. I would have loved to have ridden one for that type of riding. Exploring the woods and trails has always been part of the appeal of riding off-road to me. Yes, I raced and enjoyed drop-offs, step downs and steep chutes - but that was only part of it - besides, I was shit at racing!
I can see the 'Landrover' analogy but in that YouTube clip posted on page1 you can see that grip alone doesn't get you uphill as there isn't a big enough tyre contact patch. The mega short geometry then looks super sketchy when trying to get 'bit of a run up'.
I can't help think that an off the shelf fat bike with modern 1x gearing is more towards the 'ride everywhere' design philosophy.
short geometry isn't intrinsicly sketchy, otherwise all short riders and kids would be falling off everywhere (ok lets exclude kids from that statement) and tall riders on bigger, longer wheelbase bikes would always be fine. that vid looks sketchy as there just isn't enough grip on the front tyre imo - something that'd affect all bikes.
Agree with RNP, seems a modern rigid fatbike acheives much the same. Although they probably depart from the visual norms far more than a Cleland, it's just we are more used to the sight of them.
I'm intrigued by sealed drum brakes with large amounts of modulation. Combined with a IGH (and maybe even a belt drive) on a "flat bar gravel" bike...
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.
!["FmechOpt"](http://live.staticflickr.com/8684/28697140011_2ab7cb1cb2_c.jpg")
@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.
"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.
!["Jan2015OS"/](http://live.staticflickr.com/1489/26742742416_7f6d0c4c59_c.jpg")
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)
"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.
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:
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.