# A different approach to mtb...



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

One of the things that puts many people of mountainbiking is its being regarded as a sport. You know, training, exertion, sweating, pain, compulsion to be "fast" etc

I've never regarded cycling as a sport, more as an activity in which it is possible to occasionally indulge in sport, and I'm quite happy to pootle around all day. Although I do the odd race or two, I think development for racing has done a lot to push bicycle evolution into far too narrow a niche.

So when I see something like this I reckon more folk should know about it. Well worth a read if you're an offroad cyclist rather than a racer.

https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/free-range-riding/

And follow the links. Well worth a half hour or so of your time to see some different thinking on the subject.


----------



## likeaboss (Jan 1, 2012)

Full Circle. This is what mountain biking was when I first started 30 years ago. And we yearned for tight flowy mountain bike specific trails to be built! There are lots of purists out there who will not ride bike parks and only ride back country remote trails.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Not my cup of tea, if I'm traveling at walking speed I'd much rather walk. I do enjoy natural trails (not bike parks) but speed is an essential part of mountain biking for me. Different strokes though, I'd never tell anyone else how they should be having fun.

The guy does have some pretty weird ideas on bike design, this for example-



> _"All bicycles are unstable. If designers and manufacturers cannot, or will not recognise this fact, they'll never be able to produce a bicycle intended for off-road riding that is relatively easy to control."_


Bikes _are_ unstable @ 2mph, not 10mph though. At least mine isn't. And 5-6 psi on 2.5 tires? I _might_ make it 1/4 mile or so before flatting at those pressures.

Interesting read though, thanks for posting!


----------



## hamsterspam (Sep 28, 2014)

we do quite a bit of off road/off trail cross country riding here in the desert,with plenty of hike-a-bike and outright carrying the bikes and some reasonably awful bushwhacks...trail riding is fun and all,but frankly once you master a trail theres only going faster to spice things up..or riding them on a cross bike...
but theres really nothing like scouting out a route on google earth then going out and riding it,to see just what sort of ridiculous situation you find yourself in...just something about being one of the first people to be dumb enough to ride a bike to some crazy spot...


----------



## GeoffApps (Sep 9, 2012)

_"I do enjoy natural trails (not bike parks) but speed is an essential part of mountain biking for me."_

Thanks for your response. However, I'm perplexed; what gives you the impression that you can't ride fast on the Landseer?

_"Bikes are unstable @ 2mph, not 10mph though. At least mine isn't."_

If you agree that a bicycle is unstable at 2mph, what makes it stable at 10mph?

_"And 5-6 psi on 2.5 tires? I might make it 1/4 mile or so before flatting at those pressures."_

Well, I haven't had a puncture (flat) for seven years, and that's my experience riding all kinds of terrain both fast and slow. Is there some experience/expertise you can bring to this discussion?

_"Interesting read though, thanks for posting!"_

Cheers, glad you enjoyed it; did you read all twenty-five posts?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GeoffApps said:


> _
> If you agree that a bicycle is unstable at 2mph, what makes it stable at 10mph?_


_

I'll take "The Laws of Physics" for $200 Alex._


----------



## GeoffApps (Sep 9, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'll take "The Laws of Physics" for $200 Alex.


What does this mean? Am I missing something?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

GeoffApps said:


> Am I missing something?


Yes you are. The gyroscopic effect of a spinning wheel is a large part of what makes bicycles more stable at speed. Demonstrate it yourself by attempting to ride without hands at 2 mph. Then attempt it at 10 mph, 20 mph etc. It will become clear how physics play a part in stability at greater than walking speeds.


----------



## GeoffApps (Sep 9, 2012)

tiretracks said:


> Yes you are. The gyroscopic effect of a spinning wheel is a large part of what makes bicycles more stable at speed. Demonstrate it yourself by attempting to ride without hands at 2 mph. Then attempt it at 10 mph, 20 mph etc. It will become clear how physics play a part in stability at greater than walking speeds.


Oh, that old one.

Moving bikes stay upright-but not for the reasons we thought | Ars Technica


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Folks, before you argue with Geoff about bicycles, I suggest you check his background.

He may just know more about what makes them tick than anyone else here...

Dont get caught in the "That may work in practice, but it doesn't fit my theory" trap.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GeoffApps said:


> Oh, that old one.
> 
> Moving bikes stay upright-but not for the reasons we thought | Ars Technica


This article backs up the fact speed contributes to stability, particularly on any bike that resembles a bike and not a weird experimental rig.

"...would still be stable as long as it was moving faster than 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) per second..."

Take any bike and ghost ride it. Faster it goes, better and longer it stays upright. Slower it goes, more it wobbles and sooner if falls. Ipso facto and all that.


----------



## GeoffApps (Sep 9, 2012)

... and gyroscopic effect?

Is that out of the discussion now?


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

Velobike said:


> ...Well worth a half hour or so of your time to see some different thinking on the subject.


I like riding, not thinking. If others like riding, cool. If they're not interested, cool too. I'm sure they're interested in things I'm not.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GeoffApps said:


> Thanks for your response. However, I'm perplexed; what gives you the impression that you can't ride fast on the Landseer?


I'm not saying you can't but it seemed like you were more focused on design that is conducive to slow, technical, and trail-less terrain, which is something I'm not very interested in.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GeoffApps said:


> If you agree that a bicycle is unstable at 2mph, what makes it stable at 10mph?


I'm not sure but it's only academic to me anyway, by year 6 I figured out that the faster I rode the easier it was to ride no- handed, and that bikes never remained upright unless they were moving.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GeoffApps said:


> Well, I haven't had a puncture (flat) for seven years, and that's my experience riding all kinds of terrain both fast and slow. Is there some experience/expertise you can bring to this discussion?


Everyone's different, I could only ride super-low pressures like that if I rode very carefully and slow. I'm successful @ mid-20's (29x2.3 tires) but if I go lower I start smacking my rim on sharp edge rocks, which isn't too nice on my rims even if I don't flat.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GeoffApps said:


> Cheers, glad you enjoyed it; did you read all twenty-five posts?


Not quite but I'll catch up, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Flamingtaco (Mar 12, 2012)

I agree the faster you go the more stable a ROAD bike is, but with slack HT angles, fork flex, frame flex intended to absorb impacts, large volume tires, etc... don't go testing that theory at 20+ mph on a mountain bike.

ANY bike can develop a steering wobble at speed, but mountain bikes are more prone due to the large amount of flex built in. Always test for issues before sitting upright and dropping your arms by your side.

Even surface condition has an impact. Seen a handful of road riders get tossed by steering wobble created just by a transition in surface (tarmac/concrete/new/old/etc).

As stiffness in frame and suspension increases, the frequency of wobble increases, but amplitude decreases, so our off-road rigs get the short end of the stick.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GeoffApps said:


> ... and gyroscopic effect?
> 
> Is that out of the discussion now?


Ummm...I dunno. Is it supposed to be?

I'm confused by your question.


----------



## Flugelbinder (Sep 18, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> ...Bikes _are_ unstable @ 2mph, not 10mph though. At least mine isn't. And 5-6 psi on 2.5 tires?...


Try a fatty...


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> Yes you are. The gyroscopic effect of a spinning wheel is a large part of what makes bicycles more stable at speed. Demonstrate it yourself by attempting to ride without hands at 2 mph. Then attempt it at 10 mph, 20 mph etc. It will become clear how physics play a part in stability at greater than walking speeds.


gyroscoptic effect is way overrated when it comes to bicycle stability.

why do most people when they get on a skinny tend to wobble more as compared to flat ground at the same speed???


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

jeffscott said:


> gyroscoptic effect is way overrated when it comes to bicycle stability...


Yes, ask anyone who does trackstands.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> gyroscoptic effect is way overrated when it comes to bicycle stability.
> 
> why do most people when they get on a skinny tend to wobble more as compared to flat ground at the same speed???


Operator error.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> Yes, ask anyone who does trackstands.


I can trackstand pretty much as long as I want (and can do some basic trials moves etc) and I can tell you with 100% certainty that there's no way a bike is as stable at a dead stop as it is rolling along.

You guys aren't really saying you think forward motion has nothing to do with bike stability at all, are you? I think we can all agree that's a ridiculous notion. It's not just gyroscopic forces alone (as touched upon in the article Geoff linked) but it's clear to see that forward motion also plays a part in how other stabilizing forces come into play.

It seems to me that somebody just wants to be like the guy who proved on paper that bumblebees can't fly.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Are you producing the Cleland for the masses, or is it a custom-build affair? I was looking on the website at the photostream. It's certainly a unique bike and has me wondering how it rides, etc.


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

It's a beautifully designed bike and I can see it's appeal for certain types of riding. My 6" travel full-squish MTB is also beautifully designed and it appeals to me even more for the type of riding I do. The great thing is that there is enough room out there for all kinds. Thanks for sharing, it was an interesting read.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...It seems to me that somebody just wants to be like the guy who proved on paper that bumblebees can't fly.


It's actually the other way round, Geoff's bumblebees have been built and do fly despite the theories beloved of the advertorial technical writers.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GeoffApps said:


> Oh, that old one.
> 
> Moving bikes stay upright-but not for the reasons we thought | Ars Technica


Interesting but I was hoping for a little more, they seemed to conclude that they weren't sure why bikes are stable.

One simple test is to grab a wheel by each end of the axle and tip it from side to side, which of course is super easy. When you spin the wheel and try the same thing it's much harder, and the faster you spin the wheel the harder it is to move it. If you spin a wheel really fast you can hold the axle on one side with one finger and it will remain stable, try _that_ with a stationary wheel.

So to me it seems logical that "gyroscopic effect" or whatever you want to call it has at least something to do with bicycle stability.


----------



## rlouder (Jun 26, 2007)

Velobike said:


> One of the things that puts many people of mountainbiking is its being regarded as a sport. You know, training, exertion, sweating, pain, compulsion to be "fast" etc
> .


An old adage around here that holds true to me.... it doesn't get easier, you just get faster

Never raced anyone but myself. I am a bit faster than when I started riding. Starting to have more days where just enjoying a relaxed ride is enough.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Interesting, amazing how much diversity we are seeing in bicycling as the numbers grow. I'm a fan of handmade bicycles of any purpose!


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Operator error.


yup but the next to steps in this line of reasoning are very instructive.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> You guys aren't really saying you think forward motion has nothing to do with bike stability at all, are you? I think we can all agree that's a ridiculous notion. It's not just gyroscopic forces alone (as touched upon in the article Geoff linked) but it's clear to see that forward motion also plays a part in how other stabilizing forces come into play.


Yes forward motion or rearward motion makes balance easier than standing still.

But it is not the gyroscopic effect.

Watch a circus performer on a fixed gear bike or a unicyclist, they never cease moving even if just a little bit back and forth....next to zero gyroscopic effect. But easily balancing


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Interesting but I was hoping for a little more, they seemed to conclude that they weren't sure why bikes are stable.
> 
> One simple test is to grab a wheel by each end of the axle and tip it from side to side, which of course is super easy. When you spin the wheel and try the same thing it's much harder, and the faster you spin the wheel the harder it is to move it. If you spin a wheel really fast you can hold the axle on one side with one finger and it will remain stable, try _that_ with a stationary wheel.
> 
> So to me it seems logical that "gyroscopic effect" or whatever you want to call it has at least something to do with bicycle stability.


Vvery little compare that effect, to hitting a rock on the side, or bouncing down a big rut....

You are still in control and well balanced yet the upsetting forces far exceed the gyroscopic forces.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> Yes forward motion or rearward motion makes balance easier than standing still.
> 
> But it is not the gyroscopic effect.


Ummm...I never said it was (at least not solely; of course it has something to do with it). 
Geoff tried to go down the same road for some reason. Strawman attempt, or maybe confused between posters?

Unicycles are not inherently stable at all (try and ghost ride one) nor are they easy to balance on. Don't know of you have any, but I do and can tell you they don't handle even remotely like a bicycle.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> Watch a circus performer on a fixed gear bike or a unicyclist, they never cease moving even if just a little bit back and forth....next to zero gyroscopic effect. But easily balancing


Circus performers can also ride a bicycle on tightropes high above the ground, does that mean bikes are inherently stable on rope?

It might be junk science but since I haven't heard any concrete theories I'm sticking with mine, that "gyroscopic effect" (or whatever) is partially responsible for bicycle stability.

More junk science- a rolled wheel wobbles exponentially more as it slow down. No bicycle will balance on its own while stationary.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Unicycles are not inherently stable at all (try and ghost ride one) nor are they easy to balance on. Don't know of you have any, but I do and can tell you they don't handle even remotely like a bicycle.


Some consider the fixed gear circus performer not the one on a tight rope the one track standing and juggling... why does he move back and forth constantly.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> It might be junk science but since I haven't heard any concrete theories I'm sticking with mine, that "gyroscopic effect" (or whatever) is partially responsible for bicycle stability.


You are not using the word stability correctly...

The lowest potential energy for an intact bike is lying down on its side...lowest CG.

What you are looking for is the control systems that make a bicycle easy to balance on even though it is a very unstable system....

A bicycle is very unstable because there is no pseudo stable position which requires energy to overcome to proceed to its most stable place...

Think training wheels...

Also continue thinking about the "or whatever" part of your above statement.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> Some consider the fixed gear circus performer not the one on a tight rope the one track standing and juggling... why does he move back and forth constantly.


I have no idea WTH you are talking about or how it's relevant.
Do you have a point, or are you trying to administer some sort of arcane quiz?

Experience and observation tells me that a moving bicycle is more stable than a stationary one and that a slowly moving bicycle is less stable than a faster moving one (the article linked above also supports these observations).

If you're saying you don't believe this to be true, then I'm curious whether you have anything besides cryptic non-sequiturs that explain how you reached this conclusion? Maybe some relevant examples or possibly some insight into the physics?


----------



## GeoffApps (Sep 9, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Interesting but I was hoping for a little more, they seemed to conclude that they weren't sure why bikes are stable.
> 
> One simple test is to grab a wheel by each end of the axle and tip it from side to side, which of course is super easy. When you spin the wheel and try the same thing it's much harder, and the faster you spin the wheel the harder it is to move it. If you spin a wheel really fast you can hold the axle on one side with one finger and it will remain stable, try _that_ with a stationary wheel.
> 
> So to me it seems logical that "gyroscopic effect" or whatever you want to call it has at least something to do with bicycle stability.


You are quite right about being able to balance a spinning wheel on a single finger at one end of its axle.

However, it's not entirely stable in that whatever you try to do, you cannot stop it from processing.

It is a very reasonable assumption to make that this apparently very powerful phenomenon is a major contributory factor to a bicycle's stability.

If you're really interested in working this one out, you'll just have to stop using the concept of stability; it has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about.

Instead, use the concept of control.

If something is, or becomes, easier to control than something else, it can give the impression of gaining 'stability'.

A bicycle moving at 2mph is less easy to control than a bicycle moving at 10mph, but it is not less stable; as the speed increases it just becomes easier for you to control its inherent instability.

Have a wee think about this, and I'll try and take you on to the next stage of analysing bicycle steering dynamics if you post your thoughts.

You were hoping for a little more; there's a lot more to come if you're interested enough to open your mind.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GeoffApps said:


> If you agree that a bicycle is unstable at 2mph, what makes it stable at 10mph?





GeoffApps said:


> ... you'll just have to stop using the concept of stability; it has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about.


Ummmm....okay....

:skep:

I do find this stuff interesting, but the whole Yoda act is more than I can handle.


----------



## GeoffApps (Sep 9, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> Ummmm....okay....
> 
> :skep:
> 
> I do find this stuff interesting, but the whole Yoda act is more than I can handle.


It's not an act.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> You are not using the word stability correctly...





GeoffApps said:


> If you're really interested in working this one out, you'll just have to stop using the concept of stability; it has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about.


To me "easier to control" and "more stable" equate to pretty much the same thing but if it helps for the sake of discussion to say "control" instead I will abide. I have to agree with smhmf about the Yoda thing, I am interested in this subject and for anyone who has anything to contribute I'm all ears, however it would be fine with me if we could skip straight to the meat of the matter.

@jeffscott- I say "or whatever" because I'm not a scientist and I doubt I'm using the term "gyroscopic effect" correctly but I do know there are forces in play there, again I'm all ears if anyone can set me straight.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> I have no idea
> Experience and observation tells me that a moving bicycle is more stable than a stationary one and that a slowly moving bicycle is less stable than a faster moving one (the article linked above also supports these observations).
> 
> If you're saying you don't believe this to be true
> ...


Yes a faster bike is easier to control than a slower bike

No the gyroscopic effect is not a large force when balancing a bike

The physical effect that is is clearly demonstrated by a fixed gear bike rocking back and forth when track standing....

Think about it for just a few seconds and then think about a skinny and why people have a much harder time riding a skinny than when riding straight down a yellow line 4 inches wide.

The answer is obvious.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> To me "easier to control" and "more stable" equate to pretty much the same thing but if it helps for the sake of discussion to say "control" instead I will abide. I have to agree with smhmf about the Yoda thing, I am interested in this subject and for anyone who has anything to contribute I'm all ears, however it would be fine with me if we could skip straight to the meat of the matter.
> 
> @jeffscott- I say "or whatever" because I'm not a scientist and I doubt I'm using the term "gyroscopic effect" correctly but I do know there are forces in play there, again I'm all ears if anyone can set me straight.


 Okay what causes a bicycle to turn?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> No the gyroscopic effect is not a large force when balancing a bike
> 
> The physical effect that is is clearly demonstrated by a fixed gear bike rocking back and forth when track standing....


^a difficult move that most people can manage for no more than a few seconds.



jeffscott said:


> Okay what causes a bicycle to turn?


Weight shift?


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> ^a difficult move that most people can manage for no more than a few seconds.
> 
> Weight shift?


Of course weight shift starts the turn and to recover from the out of balance we steer into the turn (well after the counter steer to imitate the turn).

So that our centre of gravity is again on the balance point.

The slower you go the longer and more pronounced the recover phase is...hence less control.

The fixed gear circus performer goes back and forth cause this provides a small amount of turn that he uses to correct the out of balance situation.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> The slower you go the longer and more pronounced the recover phase is...hence less control.


^makes sense but I'm curious about the repeated circus performer analogy. I see what you're driving at but trained performers demonstrating difficult moves doesn't disprove that "gyroscopic effect" has nothing to do with bicycle "control". Without a doubt speed has something to do with it.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> ^makes sense but I'm curious about the repeated circus performer analogy. I see what you're driving at but trained performers demonstrating difficult moves doesn't disprove that "gyroscopic effect" has nothing to do with bicycle "control". Without a doubt speed has something to do with it.


Sorry had to go curling

The fixed gear circus performer puts the front wheel at an angle to the bike...

He goes a bit backwards it corrects one way he goes forward it corrects the other way...

Same applies to free hubs except you need a little bit of a hill to rock back and forth...

I do it everyday on my commute...been doing it for 15 years now.

Same applies to unicycles except of course it is far more complicated....but once you get it it is like riding a bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GeoffApps said:


> It's not an act.


You think, actually a 2' tall green jedi, you are, hmm?

Well, of things at least that finally explains a number. Yeesssssss.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> Yes a faster bike is easier to control than a slower bike


Exactly. Which of dispute was the original point.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> You think, actually a 2' tall green jedi, you are, hmm?
> 
> Well, of things at least that finally explains a number. Yeesssssss.


Why the insults?

Geoff has built and designed a bike that works for the purpose for which it was designed - to go where normally bikes cannot be ridden.

Why don't you you read the whole of his blog to see how his bike works before insulting him?

Or is this just because you don't want a bike that can do what Geoff's does?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> The fixed gear circus performer puts the front wheel at an angle to the bike...
> 
> He goes a bit backwards it corrects one way he goes forward it corrects the other way...
> 
> ...


I know what a track stand is, I can do one but not very well and it takes a lot of concentration. I've been riding bikes regularly for 50 years. Also most people I know who ride a lot suck at them despite plenty of practice.

Conversely I could easily ride a bike no handed by the time i was 6 years old, it takes so little skill or concentration that if I knew how to juggle I could do that simultaneously.

So I'm still waiting for an answer as to why stunts performed at a circus prove that "gyroscopic effect" has nothing to do with bike control. Is there one?


----------



## Ozcruiser3000 (Oct 12, 2016)

Bike stays up because of physics. Gyroscopic effect plus the rider balancing and steering keep the bike up. Wheels must rotate and rider must balance and steer the bike for a normal bike to ride.
A number of forces keep the bike upright the most important are rider balance and gyroscopic effect IMO. As we all know riding very slow with minimal gyroscopic effect is harder and requires more steering input to maintain balance.
Bouncing and rocking I believe use momentum to make it easier for the rider to balance the bike. my 2c.



> As with unicycles, bikes lack lateral stability when stationary, and under most circumstances can only remain upright when moving forward. Experimentation and mathematical analysis have shown that a bike stays upright when it is steered to keep its center of mass over its wheels. This steering is usually supplied by a rider, or in certain circumstances, by the bike itself. Several factors, including geometry, mass distribution, and gyroscopic effect all contribute in varying degrees to this self-stability, but long-standing hypotheses and claims that any single effect, such as gyroscopic or trail, is solely responsible for the stabilizing force have been discredited.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics

How do bikes balance when we ride them? » Scienceline


----------



## Blueblazeme (Jul 27, 2016)

hamsterspam said:


> we do quite a bit of off road/off trail cross country riding here in the desert,with plenty of hike-a-bike and outright carrying the bikes and some reasonably awful bushwhacks...trail riding is fun and all,but frankly once you master a trail theres only going faster to spice things up..or riding them on a cross bike...
> but theres really nothing like scouting out a route on google earth then going out and riding it,to see just what sort of ridiculous situation you find yourself in...just something about being one of the first people to be dumb enough to ride a bike to some crazy spot...


I like the way you think! This type of adventure gets my adrenaline flowing!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

This guy's comments on the Scienceline link sound good to me. I was thinking the same thing he stated as his second point, I'm no physicist but it seems to me you'd have to have a gyro spinning perpendicular to the first to demonstrate that the gyroscopic effect did not play a role in bike balance. Opposite direction would still be along the same line, I could see it would counter momentum but not balance.

The gyroscopic forces may cancel out the effect of precession on the balance, but you have additional forces at play.

First – there is a center of gravity to the object, and since bicycles are generally bilaterally similar you can hypothetically balance one even at a standstill.

Second – Adding a counter spinning gyro doesn’t really cancel out the centripetal energy of the first. It may negate the stabilizing effect with respect to the axis of rotation, but the force is still being extended outward from the point of origin. While there is a direction to the gyro’s spin, the centripetal force extends outward, and outward only.

Third – Wheels work well because they make it easier to overcome the frictional coefficient of the surface they travel over in a linear direction. That’s one of the reasons why bicyclists don’t replace them square blocks of rubber, or try to ride by sliding the wheel sideways. As long as there is sufficient force (momentum) that causes it to be more efficient for the wheel to fall in it’s linear direction the bicycle stays upright.

Once the frictional coefficient is greater, the fall will become perpendicular to the surface (“down”), at which point variations in the bicycles distribution of mass with respect to its center of gravity will cause it to topple over. Hypothetically a bicycle could on its own – roll to a stop and stand upright if it happened to be equally balanced about its center-line, and other forces such as wind did not shift this.

Forrest Pugh, December 23, 2015 at 12:14 am

Anyway, I read awhile ago that science cannot fully explain how a bike works, which makes bikes even cooler in my book!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> Why the insults?
> 
> Geoff has built and designed a bike that works for the purpose for which it was designed - to go where normally bikes cannot be ridden.
> 
> ...


The guy claims he's Yoda.

And the only bike that can ride anywhere besides a highly groomed track is the one he built? And anyone riding anything but is mainly just interested in being "fashionable"? (See - I did manage to read a good bit of the blog) And for some reason finds it impossible to just respond to a question or present a theory clearly and concisely, but rather assumes some sort of master-student relationship in which he of course is some sort of self-appointed Mr Miyagi?

I'm sure the bike is fine, it's got a lot of cool touches that really do make sense for the way he chooses to use it, but to imply that no other bikes can be ridden on crappy terrain, or that anyone that doesn't choose to use their bike the exact same way is just a pretender? Meh.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I feel the gyroscopic effect of the wheels as resistance to steering, and a big 29er wheel at speed has a lot more of it than a smaller 26 wheel. I can move all over the bike with the bigger wheels but not so much with the smaller wheels because the weight shift affects it more. I have always assumed this was because of the gyro effect of the spinning wheels, it feels pretty obvious.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> You are not using the word stability correctly...





GeoffApps said:


> If you're really interested in working this one out, you'll just have to stop using the concept of stability; it has nothing to do with the subject we are talking about.
> 
> A bicycle moving at 2mph is less easy to control than a bicycle moving at 10mph, but it is not less stable; as the speed increases it just becomes easier for you to control its inherent instability.


I've been some reading about this interesting subject and pretty much every scientific study I've seen seems to disagree with your opinion on bicycle stability, or lack thereof. This particular article, as well as many others references the word "stability" numerous times in the same context that I was. The bicycle problem that nearly broke mathematics : Nature News & Comment

e.g.-

_"Schwab and a student spent a year building a self-stable bike with a very small negative trail. Looking like the offspring of a razor scooter and a see-saw, it had a weight angled out in front of the front wheel and a counter-turning wheel to cancel out gyroscopic effects. In a video of it coasting, you can see it lean and veer to the right, but then recover on its own2. The experiment proved that Papadopoulos had been right about the complex interplay of factors that make a bicycle stable or unstable._"

_"Give a riderless bike a shove and it may wend and wobble, but it will usually recover its forward trajectory. In 1899, English mathematician Francis Whipple derived one of the earliest and most enduring mathematical models of a bicycle, which could be used to explore this self-stability"
_

And as for gyroscopic effect it seems most studies agree that it is a factor but it has been proved hard to quantify. I agree with chazpat, it's fascinating that no one has been successful in fully nailing this one down yet.

_"No single variable, it seemed, could account for self-stability."_

_-Jim Papadopoulos_


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> This particular article, as well as many others references the word "stability" numerous times in the same context that I was. The bicycle problem that nearly broke mathematics : Nature News & Comment
> 
> e.g.-
> 
> ...


Geez think those examples through

All the bikes end up on their side....when they stop moving...unless they have training wheels...

Second even a gyroscope ends up on its side (read lowest potential energy) when it stops moving...

The major forces controlling a bike is the weight shift and steering recovery...

So want an experiment

Lock your handlebars....go for a ride...

Let me know how that works out for you.

Circus performer uses weight shift and steering to correct for out of balance, a moving rider uses weight shift and steering to correct for out of balance, no hands rider uses weight shift and steering to correct of out of balance....

Gyroscopic forces (precession) are overwhelmed by weight shift.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> Geez think those examples through.............


This being the internet and all I don't really take the condescending attitude personally but honestly I could do without it.

An airborne jet plane will drop like a stone if stationary (0mph air speed) and no amount of control will correct that. Conversely very little control is required to keep it afloat when traveling it's intended operating speed @500mph so one could say that it becomes much more stable as speed increases, in a similar fashion bicycles increase in stability as speed increases.

I never meant to imply that gyroscopic forces were the dominant factor in bicycle stability, only that it is part of it and multiple scientific studies seem to verify that, though as mentioned I have yet to see a definite conclusion.

Bicycles and jet planes are designed to move forward.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> Circus performer uses weight shift and steering to correct for out of balance, a moving rider uses weight shift and steering to correct for out of balance, no hands rider uses weight shift and steering to correct of out of balance....


What does a rider-less (ghost ridden) bike use to correct for out of balance?


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> This being the internet and all I don't really take the condescending attitude personally but honestly I could do without it.
> 
> A jet plane will drop like a stone if stationary and no amount of control will correct that. Conversely very little control is required to keep it afloat when traveling it's intended operating speed @500mph so one could say that it becomes much more stable as speed increases, in a similar fashion bicycles increase in stability as speed increases.
> 
> ...


Geez airplanes do not float Blimps and Dirigibles float???

Airplanes that stop (Stall) recover nicely if there is correct control input and sufficient altitude beneath them.

Geez gyroscopes precess????

So we agree weight shift and steer dominant the control of a bicycle???? and that the control movements decrease with increasing speed. Not stability??Not gyroscopic precession...

It never fails to amaze me how people who can't figure out how something work are quoted time and again to prove something....

All that shows is that that avenue of research is unlikely the correct one.

Language matters, use it properly and science becomes possible.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> Geez airplanes do not float Blimps and Dirigibles float???
> 
> Airplanes that stop (Stall) recover nicely if there is correct control input and sufficient altitude beneath them.
> 
> Geez gyroscopes precess????


I'm aware that planes don't "float" I was making a simple analogy that I thought would be fairly self-evident but it seems you're too wrapped up in your own ego to figure it out.

My point: Can jet planes stall and remain stationary indefinitely? Can an upright bicycle remain stationary indefinitely? Geez!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> So we agree weight shift and steer dominant the control of a bicycle???? and that the control movements decrease with increasing speed. Not stability??Not gyroscopic precession...


"We" don't agree on anything but I will continue to delve into it. You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow but since I have no idea who you are or what you're credentials are I'm not prepared to accept your information as fact.


----------



## Flugelbinder (Sep 18, 2016)

jeffscott said:


> Yes forward motion or rearward motion makes balance easier than standing still.
> 
> But it is not the gyroscopic effect.
> 
> Watch a circus performer on a fixed gear bike or a unicyclist, they never cease moving even if just a little bit back and forth....next to zero gyroscopic effect. But easily balancing


Yes. 
The gyroscope's function is to stay horizontal/flat?!? to a fixed plane, in our case, the Earth...


----------



## Flugelbinder (Sep 18, 2016)

Ozcruiser3000 said:


> Bike stays up because of physics. Gyroscopic effect plus the rider balancing and steering keep the bike up. Wheels must rotate and rider must balance and steer the bike for a normal bike to ride.
> A number of forces keep the bike upright the most important are rider balance and gyroscopic effect IMO. As we all know riding very slow with minimal gyroscopic effect is harder and requires more steering input to maintain balance.
> Bouncing and rocking I believe use momentum to make it easier for the rider to balance the bike. my 2c.
> 
> ...


Cornering at high speeds when riding motorcycles teaches us many things about this subject.
When braking, if one's already leaning (and the more one's leaning the more one can feel it), the bike "wants" to get straight - considering the front tire is pointing in the correct direction, which should be the outside of the curve - with more force applied to the front brake (now talk about how important it is to have a good feel on that front lever/suspension/tire combination)... not gyroscopic nonsense whatsoever, simple centripetal/centrifugal forces in balance due to speed...
A gyroscope is used in airplanes (and so on) to maintain level. That's all.


----------



## Flugelbinder (Sep 18, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Circus performers can also ride a bicycle on tightropes high above the ground, does that mean bikes are inherently stable on rope?
> 
> It might be junk science but since I haven't heard any concrete theories I'm sticking with mine, that "gyroscopic effect" (or whatever) is partially responsible for bicycle stability.
> 
> More junk science- a rolled wheel wobbles exponentially more as it slow down. No bicycle will balance on its own while stationary.


For something to stand by it's own while stationary, three support points are necessary... it's not exactly science either, is it?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Flugelbinder said:


> Yes.
> The gyroscope's function is to stay horizontal/flat?!? to a fixed plane, in our case, the Earth...


A gyroscope and gyroscopic effect, or precession are not the same thing.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I think we all can pretty much agree that the rider is making very small shifts in balance and steering to assist in keeping the bike upright. However, most of us cyclist cannot do a trackstand. This leads me to believe that there are some major factors keeping a moving bike upright beyond the shifts in balance and steering, otherwise we should all be able to use the same skills we've learned riding a bike to trackstand. A trackstand requires a lot more input from the rider.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> I think we all can pretty much agree that the rider is making very small shifts in balance and steering to assist in keeping the bike upright. However, most of us cyclist cannot do a trackstand. This leads me to believe that there are some major factors keeping a moving bike upright beyond the shifts in balance and steering, otherwise we should all be able to use the same skills we've learned riding a bike to trackstand. A trackstand requires a lot more input from the rider.


Definitely. As does riding a unicycle, or riding a bicycle very slowly. Geometry of course also plays a large part in determining a bike's 'happy place' as far as how it handles rider input at low or high speeds. A good rider who's familiar with a certain bike can overcome a lot of geometry 'shortcomings' through technique.


----------



## OlMarin (Oct 22, 2016)

Ozcruiser3000 said:


> Bike stays up because of physics. Gyroscopic effect plus the rider balancing and steering keep the bike up. Wheels must rotate and rider must balance and steer the bike for a normal bike to ride.
> A number of forces keep the bike upright the most important are rider balance and gyroscopic effect IMO. As we all know riding very slow with minimal gyroscopic effect is harder and requires more steering input to maintain balance.
> Bouncing and rocking I believe use momentum to make it easier for the rider to balance the bike. my 2c.
> 
> ...


In other words, bikes are harder to control when you're going slow.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

OlMarin said:


> In other words, bikes are harder to control when you're going slow.


Which takes us back to Geoff's design and build. Easier to control when going slow.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Velobike said:


> Which takes us back to Geoff's design and build. Easier to control when going slow.


Which would be great if it didn't sacrifice higher speed performance (I can't imagine that it wouldn't) or if going slow was the main focus.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

So I read most of Geoff's blog this morning and here are a few of my thoughts-

"Free range" riding in my region would be impossible in most areas and extremely bad form in the few places where it could physically be done (fragile desert vs. lush vegetation) Also there are no "smooth trail centers" only multi-use (Horses, hikers and cyclists) trails that can be anywhere from smooth to very rugged.

Some of the things that Geoff loves would be terrible for me, including thick heavy duty tubes, roller drum brakes, Nexus internal hubs, mega toe overlap, and a very upright riding posture.

Overall worth the read for me and some interesting ideas but Geoff is a very opinionated person who seems to disregard the fact that modern mountain bikes are very good at what they do, and that they are very capable of traversing rugged terrain and not just smooth paths. He also dismisses other "so called experts" opinions as wrong without substantiation and without backing up his own claims with solid evidence. 

I really don't mean to criticize, I appreciate Geoff's research and contributions and I welcome innovation, I'm just saying that if we switched bikes I'd likely find at least as many complaints with his as he would with mine, and neither one of us would be wrong.

PS. I'd like to try those wacky offset pedals!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> What does a rider-less (ghost ridden) bike use to correct for out of balance?


Still waiting for an answer to this^


----------



## OlMarin (Oct 22, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Which would be great if it didn't sacrifice higher speed performance (I can't imagine that it wouldn't) or if going slow was the main focus.


Yup, everything's a compromise when building anything, especially a bicycle.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Which would be great if it didn't sacrifice higher speed performance (I can't imagine that it wouldn't) or if going slow was the main focus.


Even then, it's not like a riding slowly on a regular mtb is some sort of impossible task. Most of my rides average around 5mph, and involve plenty of slow, technical picking as well as numerous climbs that are typically navigated at just above crawling speed. Stalls and trackstands come into play regularly. This time of year, when the leaves are deep and slippery, every ride involves miles of unseen greasy granite and riding by intuition because all trails have disappeared. I've ridden standard bikes for miles at a time through axle deep water, and even had my bike so deep a few times that my handlebars were under. I've ridden through a score of winters without a fadbike, on just a standard MTB.

Tons of people ride sloppy trails every day on regular bikes, and have been since forever. To imply that riding in messy conditions is only possible on one certain bike is simply out of touch with reality.

'Free range' riding isn't something that you'd want to do in the New England region of the US where I live (assuming it's another term for bushwacking); woods are too thick, and the terrain is too rough for in many places. And of course, riding willy-nilly through most wetlands is ignorant for the most part. If someone wanted to just wander endlessly on old abandoned lanes, doubletracks or logging roads though, we've got thousands and thousands of miles of that stuff. Hell, the state of Maine alone is bigger than the Scotland, with only 1/5th the population. No shortage of untamed riding around here.


----------



## OlMarin (Oct 22, 2016)

slap is correct. My 89 year old father tells stories of his old balloon tire bikes. Coaster brake, single speed, did the same things we do. Bikes made specially for one purpose are great. FOR THAT PURPOSE. I ended up on 'fatter' tires (26X1.5) just because my Nashbar road bike was worn out and I had a night commute. I built something suitable for my needs. Guess what, works for other things too.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Flugelbinder said:


> Yes.
> The gyroscope's function is to stay horizontal/flat?!? to a fixed plane, in our case, the Earth...


No it precesses when acted upon by and outside force


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

I love free range riding

Around here we have large Alpine slopes that often are quite ridable, usually a pretty steep climb to get there. But once on top fantastic.

Ride what you brung


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> _"What does a rider-less (ghost ridden) bike use to correct for out of balance?"
> _Still waiting for an answer to this^


Dunno, but maybe it really is something to do with ghost riders....

Definitely more skilful (and homocidal) than me.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

More ghosts...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Velobike said:


> Dunno, but maybe it really is something to do with ghost riders....


I was thinking it might involve gyroscopic precession but you could be on to something.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> Ride what you brung


What it all comes down to right there.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I was thinking it might involve gyroscopic precession but you could be on to something.


Yup precession works like a drunken sailor at what 50 to 60 kph.

Huge impact on a set of light bike tires going 10 to 20 kph.

Weight transfer controls bikes, motorbikes, skiis, surf boards, skateboards, walking, snow boards....what else???

Ever wonder why the skill is so easily transferred between the sports???


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

jeffscott said:


> Ever wonder why the skill is so easily transferred between the sports???


Is it the same reason circus performers can ride a bicycle across a tightrope while juggling?


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

So this guy invented a free range circus ghost bike with zero gyroscope effect that makes jet planes fall out of the sky?
Man, there is some heavy material on mtbr...not that I can comprehend any of it.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

*Compare and Contrast*

I bought my first mountain bike in 1984, a Ritchey copy onto which I attached drop handlebars on to make it a bit more aerodynamic. In 1985 I also bought a second hand Geoff Apps designed Cleland Aventura.

These two bikes represent two very different ideas of what an off-road bike should be. The first could be ridden head down, weight directly over the pedals with the body weight roughly evenly split between the front and rear wheels and great for riding around as fast as I could go.
Meanwhile, the Cleland was like a BMX bike but fitted with 2" wide 650b tires low gears and powerful brakes. Both were wonderful bikes and great fun to ride, though in very different ways with each best suited to different types of terrain. However whist the Ritchey style bikes became ubiquitous, no equivalent of the Cleland bike ever saw commercial success. From the riding enjoyment point of view this doesn't make sense to me as both designs were equally enjoyable.

One preconception that probably held back Geoff Apps designs is that they are slow and only suitable for leisurely rides. Certainly BITD, I used to ride mine as fast as I could, mainly out of the saddle throwing my weight around left, right, back and forth as required to negotiate the terrain as fast as possible in as style not dissimilar to that of a BMX racer. Though it is also true that the Clelands are very comfortable to ride if you want to sit back, take it easy and simply enjoy the countryside for hours on end.

Today I often a fairly modern full suspension mountain bike and still regularly ride my old Cleland which I occasionally take along on local mountain bike runs. It's a slow and heavy bike by modern standards though I can just about manage to keep up.

Riding with Geoff Apps on his Landseer is interesting. Geoff is now 66 and 11 years older than me and given straightforward trail conditions I can outpace him. However when the conditions worsen I invariably get left behind. At worst I have to get off and walk or carry my bike as Geoff rides on, and by the time I can manage to ride again he has usually disappeared far in to the distance.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

WHALENARD said:


> So this guy invented a free range circus ghost bike with zero gyroscope effect that makes jet planes fall out of the sky?
> Man, there is some heavy material on mtbr...not that I can comprehend any of it.


No, he "invented" a bike that rides through stuff other bikes are difficult to control on.

As I said in the title of this thread, "A different approach to mtb..."

I'm astonished about the antagonism. It's a bit like complaining that a Jeep doesn't compare favourably to your sedan.

And you may not like his theories, but he has built a bike applying them, and it works as he says it does.

I'd be interested to hear about the bikes his critics have built and designed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> Meanwhile, the Cleland was like a BMX bike but fitted with 2" wide 650b tires low gears and powerful brakes.


All gyroscopic BS aside, that sounds like a good time to me; I'd love to take a spin on one. Kinda reminds me of the old 20" Burro bikes, but with actual wheels.

Compared to the old bikes, a lot of more recent stuff has also seemed to have headed in that general direction; a lot less people are riding stretched out over their front wheel these days anyway.

Also a lot less people who seem to appreciate, or at least partake in, the adventure and exploration aspects of mountain biking. I think I got a lot of that vibe from Geoff's blog, and I agree it seems that most riders aren't all that apt to go ride just to see where they end up. I do miss having the time to do that a lot.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...Kinda reminds me of the old 20" Burro bikes, but with actual wheels.
> 
> ...Also a lot less people who seem to appreciate, or at least partake in, the adventure and exploration aspects of mountain biking...


Burro - that's a blast from the past. I always thought it would have been an ideal folding mtb. Just stick it in the back of the car for use whenever. (I used to carry a Dahon for that. It went up more mountains than many an mtb  )

I think a lot modern mtbs are getting too specialised for the _adventure and exploration aspects of mountain biking_, at least in my part of the world. A derailleur is asking to be ripped off if you ride along a deer track on a heather covered mountain - that's if a rock doesn't get it first. Yet it wouldn't take much design work to tuck a derailleur away. The emphasis on speed and racing has resulted in some brilliant thoroughbred mtbs that are optimised for downhill speed, and really only at their best on hardened and groomed trails.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Velobike said:


> I'm astonished about the antagonism.


I'm not. Lots of pontificating gong on in this thread, some of it from me I suppose.

It's obvious that Geoff, or jeff (Yoda?) has spent a lot of time and effort working this out so I presume he knows a fair amount more about the subject of what keeps a bicycle afloat (har, har) than I do. Not every genius can teach though, however if Yoda is willing I'm ready to attempt the ascent to the next level.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> Burro - that's a blast from the past. I always thought it would have been an ideal folding mtb. Just stick it in the back of the car for use whenever. (I used to carry a Dahon for that. It went up more mountains than many an mtb  )
> 
> I think a lot modern mtbs are getting too specialised for the _adventure and exploration aspects of mountain biking_, at least in my part of the world. A derailleur is asking to be ripped off if you ride along a deer track on a heather covered mountain - that's if a rock doesn't get it first. Yet it wouldn't take much design work to tuck a derailleur away. The emphasis on speed and racing has resulted in some brilliant thoroughbred mtbs that are optimised for downhill speed, and really only at their best on hardened and groomed trails.


Burros were another bike that you could move a lot faster on that you'd think. Fun little rigs.

As far as groomed and hardened tracks and downhilling, there is a lot more of that style trail these days and it's very popular, but that's just due to certain rider preferences; the bikes themselves are far more capable than the old ones, and we used to ride and race those down all sorts of nasty crap. If you take a look at what DHers are racing on today...well "groomed" doesn't exactly come to mind. You might want to go take a couple runs down a DH race course and get some first hand perspective and put yourself in touch with what is actually going on in that world before thinking it's all fluffy kittens and rainbows. Nothing like trying to stay on the bike down a pro-level course to cut through the ******** and serve up a big pile of humble pie. :thumbsup:


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> ...Not every genius can teach though,...


I believe that Geoff Apps has two advantages over most other off-road bicycle designers.

1/ He started from a blank sheet before mountain bikes existed with were no other serious off-road bicycles to imitate. As a result any idea was seen as worthy of investigation.

2/ He is a habitual tinkerer who intuitively knows when a modification feels right and is worth of further investigation. If anything it is this ability combined with decades of commitment and perseverance that has led to his achievement.

Lesson 1:
The fundamental difference between Geoff Apps' bikes and most mountain bikes is the weight distribution of the rider between the wheels. With Geoff's bikes about 75% of the riders weight is positioned over the rear wheel. This means that the front wheel is less inclined to sink into soft ground and also makes makes the front wheel easy to lift over obstacles and easier to control on slippy surfaces. Meanwhile the extra weight on the rear wheel combined with the low pressure tyres dramatically improves rear wheel traction.

Moving the riders weight backwards towards the rear of the bike also means that dramatic movements of the steering have less of an effect on the riders balance than on bikes were the weight is forward.

The riding position also means that the riders weight can be moved around more. From forward, with the rider is leaning forward with their waist resting on top of the handlebars to rearward where the riders waist is behind the above the rear wheel.

All of this is nothing really radical but is quintessentially more akin to BMX than mountain biking.
*
Does any of this matter for the average mountain biker?*
Well there is is the matter of improved safety as the front wheel is more likely to ride over obstacles and less likely to stall and throw you off.

The most extreme example of the result of this rearward weight distribution was when out riding with the local mountain bikers. When they came to a long section where they had to get off and walk as they could not control their steering in the soft dry sand. I was surprised to find out that I was the only rider of a group of about twenty who was able to ride the section.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Velobike said:


> Burro - that's a blast from the past. I always thought it would have been an ideal folding mtb. Just stick it in the back of the car for use whenever. (I used to carry a Dahon for that. It went up more mountains than many an mtb  )
> 
> I think a lot modern mtbs are getting too specialised for the _adventure and exploration aspects of mountain biking_, at least in my part of the world. A derailleur is asking to be ripped off if you ride along a deer track on a heather covered mountain - that's if a rock doesn't get it first. Yet it wouldn't take much design work to tuck a derailleur away. The emphasis on speed and racing has resulted in some brilliant thoroughbred mtbs that are optimised for downhill speed, and really only at their best on hardened and groomed trails.


 Some are up to the task they are designed for. Down hill, xc racing, etc. But look at say my Karate Monkey hardtail 29er. Took it bikepacking through central and southern NH this summer. 35 mm rims with 2.3 sort of slick tires can handle just about anything except mud. Paired with 80 mm front suspension, a rear rack with a few bags all over, I would say it was the perfect all around exploring bike. Handled road, dirt, and singletrack with ease. The fat bikes, plus bikes and others are leading the way for multi use all day, all week exploring. Check out some from the likes of Surly for do all type rides.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Is it the same reason circus performers can ride a bicycle across a tightrope while juggling?


keep working on it you will get it.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> keep working on it you will get it.


Umm....cuz they have wheelz?

ut:


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...If you take a look at what DHers are racing on today...well "groomed" doesn't exactly come to mind. You might want to go take a couple runs down a DH race course and get some first hand perspective and put yourself in touch with what is actually going on in that world before thinking it's all fluffy kittens and rainbows....


I think of DH as a separate specialised activity compared to general mtbing - a bit like track riding or time trailing are specialised activities - and I have friends who race DH professionally at WC level, so I have some idea of what one of those courses look like. However they are all designed and built to be capable of being ridden otherwise DH races would end in wheelchairs. (BTW I have ridden DH courses, including a couple of world championship courses. I'm not very good at it  )

I was thinking more about the general trend of XC bikes towards prioritising downhill competence.

But this thread isn't about a bike for racing, or even general trail riding, it's about a bike that goes beyond that. In some parts of the world, eg where I live, that's a useful bike because our land use is not restrictive.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> I think of DH as a separate specialised activity compared to general mtbing - a bit like track riding or time trailing are specialised activities - and I have friends who race DH professionally at WC level, so I have some idea of what one of those courses look like. However they are all designed and built to be capable of being ridden otherwise DH races would end in wheelchairs. (BTW I have ridden DH courses, including a couple of world championship courses. I'm not very good at it  )
> 
> I was thinking more about the general trend of XC bikes towards prioritising downhill competence.
> 
> But this thread isn't about a bike for racing, or even general trail riding, it's about a bike that goes beyond that. In some parts of the world, eg where I live, that's a useful bike because our land use is not restrictive.


Not for nothing, but even with so-called 'restrictive' land use, there is almost infinitely more (and more varied) space to wander in the US than many places. As I mentioned, just the state of Maine alone is larger than Scotland, has 1/5th the population, and is absolutely littered with logging roads and old farm lanes, not to mention all the developed trails. And that's just one of the smaller states, tucked away in a corner. Hell, we've got PARKS near half the size of your country. Covering just the little corner of the country I live in could easily keep you busy for a lifetime.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Geoff Apps' bikes competing with US style mountain bikes back in 1986:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> Geoff Apps' bikes competing with US style mountain bikes back in 1986:


Cool video. US bikes sure have come a long way since then.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...just the state of Maine alone is larger than Scotland, has 1/5th the population, and is absolutely littered with logging roads and old farm lanes, not to mention all the developed trails...


That doesn't really need a special bike though, does it? For farm lanes and logging roads, I'm just as likely to use a road bike because it means I don't have to use a car to get to the start.

This thread is about when you venture off those trails into the no-trails.

Most countries are bigger than Scotland, but even a small part of Scotland is enough to keep me busy.


----------



## SADDLE TRAMP (Aug 26, 2010)

GrahamWallace said:


> I believe that Geoff Apps has two advantages over most other off-road bicycle designers.
> 
> 1/ He started from a blank sheet before mountain bikes existed with were no other serious off-road bicycles to imitate. As a result any idea was seen as worthy of investigation.
> 
> ...


Thanks Graham for posting this; it helps jell some of this in my mind.

Awhile back; maybe a year or two, Mikesee posted a passing remark with the suggestion of running a fatter tire on the rear of fat bikes. And just recently, made the statement that fat bikes 'fail' (ie sink) because of too much weight over the rear, and threw out the idea of a 50-50 weight balance, in passing. Hope I am not putting words in his mouth.

With the introduction of 2XL tires, I wounder if those riders of a certain weight class, just might be able to find that elusive sweet spot. BTW; wasn't there a mention of something like a 3XL tire, at one point?

Something else that I have been wondering about; for a given measured tire contact patch; a given area, longer is better than wider; generally? Something like a long skinny bridge vs a short wide one, being better able to bridge the gap?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> That doesn't really need a special bike though, does it? For farm lanes and logging roads, I'm just as likely to use a road bike because it means I don't have to use a car to get to the start.
> 
> This thread is about when you venture off those trails into the no-trails.


We are definitely picturing different things;you wouldn't likely enjoy a road bike as much. 

A lot of these old...paths, lanes, roads or whatever...don't see much traffic and have been sitting around for a good bit. They can be challenging technically, as we're littered with granite, and mud and water isn't uncommon. There are thousands of miles of them laying around, and you can string them together to connect to practically unlimited singletrack as a bonus. Some of the pictures from Geoff's site actually reminded me quite a bit of the type of 'roads' I'm thinking of.

Most of the woodland here is second or third (or....) growth, there's no shortage of undergrowth and deadfall. And granite. Pure bushwacking can be pretty challenging on foot, let alone trying to drag a bike along with you. Mainly an exercise in frustration, and lots of scratches. Our old roads seem to fit in pretty well with the Cleland's design intent, at least as I understood it.



















Right now, most of them look like this :thumbsup:


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> We are definitely picturing different things;you wouldn't likely enjoy a road bike as much.  ...


Yes, I think we have a problem with talking at cross purposes with what I'm saying meaning something different to you and vice versa.

A couple of pics from Sunday's ride where we went for a road ride but found a few miles of interesting track (we hadn't intended to be getting dirty, both of us were on lightweight lugged steel vintage bikes). It was all perfectly rideable apart from that steep sided creek crossing.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Nice! Maybe you would be happy on the road bike for the most part then!


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Sand Rat said:


> Something else that I have been wondering about; for a given measured tire contact patch; a given area, longer is better than wider; generally?


The main question in my mind with contact patch size is how do you get the best traction and lowest rolling resistance for a given surface?

There is no easy answer as different surfaces interact with the tire in different ways. Generally speaking the less distance the tire sinks into the surface the lower the rolling resistance. Though in fresh powder snow or sloppy mud it can be more efficient to run thin tires that efficiently cut through the soft surface and find grip below.

The main problem with a long contact patch is that the longer the patch the closer the ground surface will be to the rim and so the greater the risk of it bottoming out. This is of course less of a problem with large diameter, high air volume tires.

Other issues are the rigidity of the tire sidewall, the shape of the cross section of the tire, and the width of the rim beading. These can effect the rate at which the air pressure rises with load and also the lateral stability/instability of the tire.

However a laterally stable tire is not always desirable as it can allow the surface regularities to transfer through the the rim where they can cause a rider to lose control. Getting the right balance between lateral tire stability and instability is an important part of the Cleland design.

The angle between the edge of the tire tread and the ground can also be important because a tire can grip on this edge as well as its surface.
In fact when the tire tread is clogged with mud the edge of the tire may be the largest contributor to lateral grip.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Here is a video of Geoff Apps riding mostly off-trail in the area where he developed his bikes in the 1970s/80s. Though the area can be much wetter and muddier than the video shows.





These days Geoff lives in Scotland where they have an 'freedom to roam' policy to land access. One of his favorite routes for cycling is to ride along streams and the shallow sections of rivers were there are fewer trees and less undergrowth.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> The main problem with a long contact patch is that the longer the patch the closer the ground surface will be to the rim and so the greater the risk of it bottoming out. This is of course less of a problem with large larger the high air volume tires.


This is not a requirement indeed it is a design parameter that can be adjusted.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

GrahamWallace said:


> Here is a video of Geoff Apps riding mostly off-trail in the area where he developed his bikes in the 1970s/80s. Though the area can be much wetter and muddier than the video shows.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two observations:

That terrain is pretty tame. At the end of the video he is having to put in a lot of steering/body input at the still relatively slow singletrack speed, it looks like it won't lean over.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> Here is a video of Geoff Apps riding mostly off-trail in the area where he developed his bikes in the 1970s/80s. Though the area can be much wetter and muddier than the video shows.


Thanks for sharing. Interesting riding style and terrain, I can see why a different type of bike would be better for that because it's a specialized type of riding, for me and my area anyway. Kind of a trials hybrid, at least for the first 2 minutes.

There's usually more bedrock than dirt here and so lot's of sharp ledgy rocks, and me being the knucklehead that I am I prefer to traverse them at the highest possible speed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I occasionally end up riding off-trail like that on Wed nights during our local booze-cruise social ride. Usually not until I'm 5 beers deep and missing turns though.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

bsieb said:


> Two observations:
> 
> That terrain is pretty tame. At the end of the video he is having to put in a lot of steering/body input at the still relatively slow singletrack speed, it looks like it won't lean over.


That type of terrain when it's dry can be ridden by a reasonably competent rider on a standard mountain bike. In the winter when the ground beneath the branches turns to quagmire its a different story but I don't have any video taken in those conditions.

The bike in that video was a prototype without a front derailleur fitted which meant that it couldn't change up onto the larger front ring required for the bike to go faster on the downhill. I think that much of the 'steering/body input' is to do with a mixture of avoiding low branches and avoiding the large flint nodules that lie among the leaf litter at the bottom of the ditch.

I do know of a head-cam video of Geoff riding up a stream in Scotland that may be of interest:





This type of stream riding can only be maintained for a short distance on an old Cleland bike despite the tungsten carbide studs embedded in the tires, and I find it impossible to ride successfully in such streams on my modern full suspension mountain bike. Once the front wheel is deflected off a slippy rock or gets stuck in a wheel trap under the water the game is over.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

bsieb said:


> Two observations:
> 
> That terrain is pretty tame. At the end of the video he is having to put in a lot of steering/body input at the still relatively slow singletrack speed, it looks like it won't lean over.


It looks it, but cameras tend to flatten out the trail. The downhill bit looks flat to me, but they're getting up a decent pace so obviously it isn't flat, and if you look there's quite a rut in places. If it's anything like my area, it will also be quite soft underfoot.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

GrahamWallace said:


> That type of terrain when it's dry can be ridden by a reasonably competent rider on a standard mountain bike. In the winter when the ground beneath the branches turns to quagmire its a different story but I don't have any video taken in those conditions.
> 
> The bike in that video was a prototype without a front derailleur fitted which meant that it couldn't change up onto the larger front ring required for the bike to go faster on the downhill. I think that much of the 'steering/body input' is to do with a mixture of avoiding low branches and avoiding the large flint nodules that lie among the leaf litter at the bottom of the ditch.
> 
> ...


We discourage riding in such places and conditions where I live. The mud here is clay gumbo which will kill any bike, but also ruts the soil, which can erode into a arroyo or ditch real quick. It is against the law to disturb riparian areas, ride down streambeds, etc. This type of riding is from an earlier simpler time. Maybe for farm use I could see it. Anyhow, just observations, I certainly would give the bike a test ride if given the opportunity.


----------



## OlMarin (Oct 22, 2016)

I admit to having taken some time off the bicycle due to a strong desire for C6/H12/O6.
During my not so afflicted times, I still rode a motorcycle. The steering mantra taught in
beginner motorcycle riding courses? Push right, lean right, go right. I worked on that while riding an old Seca 750. Much of this I was already doing and not aware of it. When I pulled 'Ol' Yeller' out again, I thought about this. Counter steering is very much a part of how we ride bicycles as well. (8-5 odds you'll all be watching yourselves now).
How does this counter steer principle work with a bike going in different geometric directions from the 'norm' as is being discussed? I'm presuming any time you're doing the bike thang, all the physical laws already come into play and 'push left, lean left, go left' will still apply.
As far as what makes a bike work, motorized or not, I've seen much here saying,
"Oh it's this."
"You're full of feces, it's that!"
"You're both idiots, it's the other thang"
It's all of the above working together. 
How do I make a sig around this joint? 
I want it to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Also this video of riding down a flooded trackway. The bike shown in this video is a Cleland TT (Twenty Ten) the predecessor to the Landseer.
https://vimeo.com/user1112280


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

bsieb said:


> Maybe for farm use I could see it.


Geoff Apps designs would make great farm bikes. In fact I remember an English farm worker who used one for his work in the 1980s.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Thanks for sharing. Interesting riding style and terrain, I can see why a different type of bike would be better for that because it's a specialized type of riding, for me and my area anyway. Kind of a trials hybrid, at least for the first 2 minutes.
> 
> There's usually more bedrock than dirt here and so lot's of sharp ledgy rocks, and me being the knucklehead that I am I prefer to traverse them at the highest possible speed.


In the right gearing, things are quite manageable.

I'm not seeing the purpose of the bike other than it's a different geometry, etc. I wonder who the target audience is?


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Crankout said:


> ...I'm not seeing the purpose of the bike other than it's a different geometry, etc. I wonder who the target audience is?


They probably aren't on here.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Crankout said:


> I'm not seeing the purpose of the bike other than it's a different geometry, etc. I wonder who the target audience is?


Geoff Apps designs bikes for himself with the emphasis on improving the designs to meet the requirements of his own riding style and the conditions in the areas that he rides. These days he as little or no interest in spending time manufacturing or marketing his designs when he could be out riding and exploring instead. I doubt that the question of 'which target market would be interested in his designs', has troubled him much.

Personally I would put his bike into the same category that I would place comfortable and reliable walking boots. Therefore I see his bikes as as as just a reliable comfortable means of transport for people who want to explore the landscape whilst traveling further than they could on foot. Cyclists who try out his bikes always comment on how comfortable and relaxed the riding position is. When we go riding off-road, my wife and children have a choice of bikes from which to chose, but invariably chose a bike based on Geoff's ergonomic design principles.

So if there is sizable demographic that would chose Geoff's designs it is probably to be found among those who do not currently 'mountain bike' but enjoy walking in the countryside. Maybe with those who have tried tradition mountain bikes and found them unreliable, high maintenance, uncomfortable or very messy when ridden in wet or muddy conditions.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> They probably aren't on here.


Actually, I think the majority of them have probably posted in this thread.

There aren't gonna be a many who feel that riding a hybrid through ankle deep mud while trying to avoid losing an eye every couple feet is a good time.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> Geoff Apps designs would make great farm bikes. In fact I remember an English farm worker who used one for his work in the 1980s.
> View attachment 1101894


Not gonna work so good in the mud


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> I believe that Geoff Apps has two advantages over most other off-road bicycle designers.
> 
> 1/ He started from a blank sheet before mountain bikes existed with were no other serious off-road bicycles to imitate. As a result any idea was seen as worthy of investigation.
> 
> ...


Well He has seen a lot of previous bikes to base his design on...

Second most bikes are 55 to 60% on the rear....move your just your butt back or your seat back a couple of inches and bingo...you got 75% on the rear.

Skill supersedes design mostly.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Actually,
> There aren't gonna be a many who feel that riding a hybrid through ankle deep mud while trying to avoid losing an eye every couple feet is a good time.


People buy bikes that are ridden by successful sports people not because they expect to win world championships etc but because the racing success implies that this is a good bike for its chosen discipline.

The reality, at least in Britain, is that when you head out exploring new areas you can not easily predict what difficulties the trail & weather will bring. Having a bike that has been designed and tested for riding in difficult conditions means that you're more likely to get to the end of the trail without having to give up or have to push or carry your bike for long distances. It's exactly the same as with 4x4 jeeps, you may not ever use the vehicles capability but its assuring to know that its there.

With regard to riding through ankle deep mud.

When riding a bike not designed for such conditions I agree that its an absolute pain that will probably wreck the bike.

However, on a bike designed specifically for such conditions, where the wheels won't spray you with mud and water, the frame & forks will not clog up and the mechanisms of the bike are unaffected, this type of riding takes on a wholly different character.
Yes their are times on sheer hard slog as you plow through the mud. Though usually followed by a sense of achievement when you make it through. However riding through forest mud, coping with ruts left by vehicles, negotiating logs and tree roots and riding into deep mud as fast as you can with the front wheel lifted off the ground so the it will not dig in, can be great fun.

It's the equivalent of driving a car on a skidpan. Mud riding for fun has a long tradition over here be that in 'motorbike scrambling' or cylclocross.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> Yes their are times on sheer hard slog as you plow through the mud.


[email protected] mudslogs. Sounds like it might be a laugh if friends and drinking were involved but not exactly my idea of a mtb ride. For me unless it's significantly faster than walking it's trials.

I would be interested to hear a little more about some of the the Landseer details though, for one what are the specifications? (SA, HA, wheelbase, etc.)

Why not tubeless?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Riding in deep wheel-sucking mud for the most part flat-out sucks IMO. As does spending lots of time riding in ATV or Jeep ruts. There are other types of terrain I have far, far, FAR better times riding. I can't imagine seeking out stuff like that while ignoring and bypassing all sorts of incredible hand-built singletrack along the way.

I have never bought a bike because some 'famous' cyclist rode one. 
Never ever heard this come up as part of the conversation when helping someone choose a bike either, even on the internet. I imagine there's some kids and geeks somewhere who shop this way, but I don't think it's much of a consideration for most people.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> I can't imagine seeking out stuff like that while ignoring and bypassing all sorts of incredible hand-built singletrack along the way.


Around here there are miles of forested hills and if you want to ride through them the mud is inevitable even in summer. The mud is very slippy as it is a mixture of clay and chalk and is created by the wheels of farm vehicles and the hooves of the numerous local horse riders. Interestingly I do my best to avoid it when riding my mountain bike as do most of the local riders. Seeking it out is something I only do when riding a Cleland.

Over the years, more and more muddy paths have been flattened and graveled. This makes riding them very boring.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> Around here there are miles of forested hills and if you want to ride through them the mud is inevitable even in summer. The mud is very slippy as it is a mixture of clay and chalk and is created by the wheels of farm vehicles and the hooves of the numerous local horse riders. Interestingly I do my best to avoid it when riding my mountain bike as do most of the local riders. Seeking it out is something I only do when riding a Cleland.
> 
> Over the years, more and more muddy paths have been flattened and graveled. This makes riding them very boring.


So 'freedom to roam' doesn't extend to 'freedom to build' huh? Bummer.
That's one thing we've got a whole lot of - talented and dedicated builders and places that support the creation of kick-ass bike trails. Slogging through mud and chewing up wetlands and streambanks is something mtbing thankfully grew out of a long time ago.


----------



## burtronix (Jun 5, 2006)

OlMarin said:


> The steering mantra taught in
> beginner motorcycle riding courses? Push right, lean right, go right. I worked on that while riding an old Seca 750. Much of this I was already doing and not aware of it. When I pulled 'Ol' Yeller' out again, I thought about this. Counter steering is very much a part of how we ride bicycles as well. (8-5 odds you'll all be watching yourselves now).
> How does this counter steer principle work with a bike going in different geometric directions from the 'norm' as is being discussed? I'm presuming any time you're doing the bike thang, all the physical laws already come into play and 'push left, lean left, go left' will still apply.


Finally, somebody mentions counter-steer. Counter-steer is what you do to overcome gyroscopic force in order to initiate a lean so that you can turn. At lower speeds, you do not counter-steer to turn, but actually start to lean in the direction you want to turn & then turn the handlebars in that direction to maintain balance.

For every bike, motorized or not, there is a break-over speed at which you switch between counter steer & direct steer. That speed is very dependent on size & weight of the wheels, as well as steering geometry, center of gravity, size & weight of the bike & rider, slope of the riding surface, type of terrain, etc..

Most of us do this intuitively without a thought. People who are aware of this & think about it as they ride aren't necessarily better riders. As a matter of fact, you might be a better rider if you are purely intuitive & unaware of the counter-steer direct-steer dynamic. At least that's my excuse & I'm sticking with it. 

Now that I've poisoned your minds, go out & ride.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

burtronix said:


> Now that I've poisoned your minds, go out & ride.


Going for a ride now, if I wreck while trying to work this^ out I'm blaming you!


----------



## OlMarin (Oct 22, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Going for a ride now, if I wreck while trying to work this^ out I'm blaming you!


I blame the beer I had with lunch


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> [email protected] mudslogs. Sounds like it might be a laugh if friends and drinking were involved but not exactly my idea of a mtb ride. For me unless it's significantly faster than walking it's trials.


I would hate to walk along the worst of the muddy trails around here and yes it's much quicker to ride them than walk them. Often the easiest way through is to ride through the the numerous pools of water or the flooded wheel ruts, least that way if you loose your balance you fall out of the water and not into it.



J.B. Weld said:


> I would be interested to hear a little more about some of the the Landseer details though, for one what are the specifications? (SA, HA, wheelbase, etc.)
> 
> Why not tubeless?


There is a lot of information regarding some of these issues on Geoff Apps' blog:https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/f-y-s-c-a-m-s/ 
So, if you don't mind I will only cover issues that he does not mention there.

*Tire Technology:* 
Off-road bicycle development has been highly dependent on the availability of suitable tires. In fact MTB Pioneer Charlie Kelly has said that the only usable tire that they had in the 'Clunker' days was the 2.125" Uniroyal Knobby and so without that tire mountain bikes would probably not have developed.

In Britain off-road bikes developed from the 1940s using knobbly tires originally developed for the sport of cycle-speedway and Geoff Apps used these tires on his bikes in the 1960s.

He then became interested in motorbike trial riding where they used heavy wide low pressure knobbly tires that are able to float sideways on their narrow rims. So when he designed a new off-road bicycle in 1977 he drew it with 'Trials Motorbike' style fat tires though of a larger diameter.

However no such tires existed in Britain at that time. Then he discovered that in Finland there were fat snow tires used on military and utility bikes that exactly fitted the bill. These Nokia Hakkapeliitta tires then became essential to his subsequent designs.

They were heavy tires by modern standards with thick sidewalls and heavy duty inner-tubes that were as just as fat un-inflated as the tires.

Back in the 1980s I remember deciding to try an ride up a large heap of building rubble consisting mostly of old bricks and tiles. To my surprise it was much easier to ride than I expected. I then found that I could ride up, turn round 360 degrees at the top and then ride down again. Because I couldn't understand why the tires were not bouncing off the edges of the bricks and disrupting the steering I looked down and was surprised to see that the tires were warping or 'snaking' around the bricks. Even when I stopped I could still rock the handlebars from side to side as the front rim had a small amount of side to side movement relative to the twisted tire. From then on I understood that some lateral movement of the tire relative to the rim could be a useful trait when riding rocky terrain.

Today the Landseer uses the same principle but on even larger diameter and fatter tires fitted to even narrower rims. Getting the balance right is crucial as to much lateral instability in a tire can cause it to roll off the rim. As a general guide you want the tire to be stable enough for the bike to ride on a 45 degree camber without collapsing.

With low pressure tires it is important that the inner-tube has the same un-inflated cross section as the tire, as a smaller inner-tube will use up
pressure inflating long before it starts supporting the sidewall of the tire. In other words by using a big inner tube you will get the lower tire pressure that are normally associated with tube-less tires.

As for why Geoff doesn't use tubeless tires?

1/He says that it virtually eliminates punctures.

2/He also says that using the heavy moped inner-tubes feels better.

What may be happening is that the inner-tube increases the sidewall rigidity and makes the tire more laterally stable and so less likely to bottom out on rocks etc. The exact tire pressure does of course need to be adjusted for the type of terrain being covered.

Interestingly Geoff does say that he finds fat-bike tires to be too bouncy. Maybe the combined thickness of tire and tube that Geoff using on the Landseer is helping to damp the tire.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> Second most bikes are 55 to 60% on the rear....move your just your butt back or your seat back a couple of inches and bingo...you got 75% on the rear.


Likewise move your weight back a couple of inches on a Cleland and you've got 90% on the rear.

With that weight bias it is very easy to lift the front wheel of the ground which is useful for getting the front wheel over logs etc or for avoiding wheel traps. Also that amount of weight over the rear wheel gives an impressive amount of traction and is very useful for drop-offs because the front wheel lands with very little weight on it.


----------



## OlMarin (Oct 22, 2016)

jeffscott said:


> Well He has seen a lot of previous bikes to base his design on...
> 
> Second most bikes are 55 to 60% on the rear....move your just your butt back or your seat back a couple of inches and bingo...you got 75% on the rear.
> 
> Skill supersedes design mostly.


With internal gears, less of a problem. But start dishing a wheel, I'm not sure I want 75% on the rear. Not with my fat butt over it too!


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> Not gonna work so good in the mud


Not quite a Landseer but state of the art for its day:

1981:

*700 c rims (shown), or 650b rims
*700x47c (shown) or 650x54b tungsten carbon studded Hakapeliitta tires
*Fully enclosed hub brakes at the center of the wheel
*Large wheel frame clearances (90mm wide bottom bracket shell)
*19" bottom gear
*Lugless Frame fillet brazed from Reynolds 531st 
*Chain-case between rear tire and chain
*short wheelbase and high bottom bracket


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> So 'freedom to roam' doesn't extend to 'freedom to build' huh? Bummer.
> That's one thing we've got a whole lot of - talented and dedicated builders and places that support the creation of kick-ass bike trails. Slogging through mud and chewing up wetlands and streambanks is something mtbing thankfully grew out of a long time ago.


We don't need freedom to build when we have an entire country we can explore without restriction on or off a track.

We're definitely at cross purposes here. I'm not in the slightest interested in riding on kick-ass bike trails. It's cross country riding that I like, not riding for thrills and excitement.

There may or may not be a track, often it is just a couple of inches wide trace on the ground left by deer, or the remains of a foot path used for traversing mountain passes. The number of days in the year when we have absolutely dry ground can be counted on your body appendages.

A couple of examples:

Here I'm circumnavigating a mountain. There's no track at all. I'm heading along the left side of that loch just ahead and over the pass and then on to some easy forest tracks. That bit took approx 2 hours to cover 3 miles.



Or here, I'm using the bike to go over a mountain covered in peat bogs.



Naturally this involves quite a bit of hike-a-bike, so a bike that allows more of that stuff to be ridden would be an advantage.

I'm not unusual in this, people have been doing that sort of riding in this country for well over 120 years with no ill effect on the land.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Velobike said:


> Dunno, but maybe it really is something to do with ghost riders....
> 
> Definitely more skilful (and homocidal) than me.


Bike named "Christine"?

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> 2/He also says that using the heavy moped inner-tubes feels better.


Maybe it's because of his unique "trials" style riding. In my experience switching from a heavy thick tube to light ones is a huge improvement, and tubeless is even better because it's slightly lighter and nearly flat-proof.

I read some more of Geoff's blog and though I do find his ideas interesting I think the credibility of many of his arguments are somewhat diminished by the constant belittling of other mountain bikes and and their designers.



> _"I know that experts in any field often have an agenda."_


Sometimes that agenda is to make the best riding mountain bike possible, kind of like what Geoff did.

Personally I think modern mountain bikes are fantastic and are a great match for the terrain and riders who use them, and not simply a fashion statement useful only to young affluent athletic single men as Geoff claims. Geoff may have built a great bike for his style of riding but I'm not convinced it's ideal for the average mountain biker and the conditions they encounter, which are by no means tame as Geoff implies.



> _"Most conventional bicycles are designed on the presumption of a usual speed something between 12 and 25 mph."_


Not mountain bikes, IME the most riders average closer to 8-10mph off-road and spend plenty of time in the 5mph range. It is important that they also handle well @ 25mph though.

What about that steering damper thing?


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe it's because of his unique "trials" style riding...
> 
> Geoff may have built a great bike for his style of riding but I'm not convinced it's ideal for the average mountain biker and the conditions they encounter, which are by no means tame as Geoff implies...


I agree, but I doubt the average mtber is interested in riding the sort of stuff Geoff's bike is built for, but as I mentioned in this country there's a long tradition of riding the sort of conditions he's built the bike for. The RSF was started in 1955 Home Page of The RSF, off road cycle, mountain biking and touring club and is a good resource of routes.

I have never ridden his bike, but I know people who have, and they all are full of praise for the high level of control in difficult going.

His ideas for longevity and protection of vulnerable components are something I'd like to see picked up by mainstream companies. As for the design of the bike, I suspect that part of its capability may come from his high level of skill.

I'm not sure the bike would suit me. On really difficult going where the conditions are unknown I shoulder my bike rather than try to stay feet-up at all costs. However I can see the applicability of much of it to my riding because control at ultra slow speeds is important to me.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> I read some more of Geoff's blog and though I do find his ideas interesting I think the credibility of many of his arguments are somewhat diminished by the constant belittling of other mountain bikes and and their designers.
> 
> ?


I thought Graham was Geoff?? Is Graham the local rep?


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

IMBA is going to go carazeeey!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Velobike said:


> I agree, but I doubt the average mtber is interested in riding the sort of stuff Geoff's bike is built for, but as I mentioned in this country there's a long tradition of riding the sort of conditions he's built the bike for. The RSF was started in 1955 Home Page of The RSF, off road cycle, mountain biking and touring club and is a good resource of routes.


Hmmm...the RSF Code of Practice says:

"Ride only bridleways, byways, designated cycleways and some forestry tracks, or towpaths where permissible. There is no legal right to ride on public footpaths."

and

"Follow the Country Code. Avoid fierce braking and skidding to minimise erosion and damage to tracks. If possible try and walk over very soft ground to avoid cutting it up."

Seems they've also evolved.

Very little I see on their site looks any different than 'regular' mountain biking to me, except there are quite a bit more dirt roads and older riders represented than what's "typical" IME.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Hmmm...the RSF Code of Practice says:
> 
> "Ride only bridleways, byways, designated cycleways and some forestry tracks, or towpaths where permissible. There is no legal right to ride on public footpaths."


clubs and associations often copy what others have already done....and often do not represent the actual laws and regulation with respect to crown land access.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffscott said:


> clubs and associations often copy what others have already done....and often do not represent the actual laws and regulation with respect to crown land access.


Not saying I have any ideas about the laws are, but the club doesn't sound like it's advocating that folks do a bunch off trail mud riding.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Hmmm...the RSF Code of Practice says:
> 
> "Ride only bridleways, byways, designated cycleways and some forestry tracks, or towpaths where permissible. There is no legal right to ride on public footpaths."
> 
> ...


You're right - it does seem to have "evolved". The web site looks very different from its historical roots and what I (as a long term member) understand it to be all about. It looks more like a veteran bike club with mountainbikes. However the admin is in England which is not over endowed with mountains and they have tightly restricted access, so it's understandable. We Scots should probably pop some articles in to balance it out. 

I'm never been keen on the name "Rough Stuff", it has somewhat negative connotations now and suggests another activity. I prefer the original description of "pass-storming" which is a better indication of what it is about - a certain amount of challenge in crossing difficult country.

BTW Don't pay too much attention to their rules and restrictions. Those are for England where the poor folk do not have the freedom of access we do in our country. All you need in Scotland is good manners and consideration for other users.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Crankout said:


> I thought Graham was Geoff?? Is Graham the local rep?


As I explained in my opening contribution I am somebody who bought my first US style mountain bike in early 1984 and later on I also bought a Geoff Apps designed Cleland Aventura. Over the years I have continued to ride both of these lineages of off-road bike and admire the merits of the both approaches. I am also used to riding mountain bikes alongside Clelands and vice versa. Over the years I have followed the developments of both traditions with interest.

I live and ride mostly in southern England whilst Geoff Apps lives about 330 miles away on the English/Scottish border. Geoff and I occasionally meet up exchange ideas on bike design. I have ridden most of his bike designs including the Landseer.

The opinions I have expressed here are my own. Geoff may not necessarily agree with them.

My reason for posting here is that I appreciate the original thinking that has gone in to the design of his bikes and my first hand knowledge of them means that I am in a good position to explain his designs to others.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Hmmm...the RSF Code of Practice says:
> 
> "Ride only bridleways, byways, designated cycleways and some forestry tracks, or towpaths where permissible. There is no legal right to ride on public footpaths."
> 
> ...


Whilst the RSF have never shied away from tackling difficult terrain, unlike Geoff Apps they are more than happy to get off and walk. Because of this tradition, of walking with or carrying the bike over demanding terrain, roughstuff riding did not, and still does not require the use of a specialist off-road bike.

I have ridden with them on several occasions and I have a lot of respect for them. I have been amazed by what they can achieve on ordinary road bikes.

One major difference is that they will always wait for slower riders to catch up. Also they seem more prepared to ride in bad weather than most mountain bike riders I know and they tend to progress more slowly than mountain-bikers (Geoff Apps included). They do some pretty long day rides. The longest that have ridden being for 60 very rainy winter miles.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Velo, 
Google up some of your Scottish locations, eg: St Bathans - New Zealand, Ben Nevis- NZ, etc. Many Scots migrated to NZ and named similar land forms with Scottish names. Most of these are in much warmer and dryer conditions than you have. 

I find the whole article interesting and can follow the reasoning. We don't enjoy the same freedom to roam as you do, but I can see the development that is being presented.

For me, I am very interested in the Short crank/Drop pedal concept. I already have Osymetric Chainwheel experience and can confirm the improved low speed power input it gives in contributing to low speed balance. It's just that where I live, mud has no appeal on cycleways. I like speed more. That's just my 'space'. In other circumstances, I would likely be tinkering in much the same way as Geoff Apps.

Thanks for an interesting read.

Eric


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Eric Malcolm said:


> For me, I am very interested in the Short crank/Drop pedal concept. I already have Osymetric Chainwheel experience and can confirm the improved low speed power input it gives in contributing to low speed balance. Eric


Hi Eric,

Geoff Apps arrived at his optimum 30mm drop as a result of what he found to be best from the various drop distances he tried. Meanwhile, the 'optimal crank position' design used on the Landseer comes from the work of British non-round chainring pioneer Chris Bell.
Chris Bell - Oval EGGrings

The effectivenes of both of these ideas has since been endorsed by an academic bio-mechanical research study that predicts that the arrangement that Geoff Apps uses on the Landseer should produce a "crank power efficiency gain: +5.1 % compared to a circular chainring"

_"Combining the Vista pedal with e.g. the Osymetric non-circular chainring, with the crank oriented in the optimal position (see "Biomechanical Study"), gives:- knee peak power: -3.2 % compared to a circular chainring (criterion 1) - crank power efficiency gain: +5.1 % compared to a circular chainring"_
http://www.noncircularchainring.be/pdf/Biomechanical study - Project 002 Vista Pedal.pdf


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

GrahamWallace said:


> Geoff Apps designs bikes for himself with the emphasis on improving the designs to meet the requirements of his own riding style and the conditions in the areas that he rides. These days he as little or no interest in spending time manufacturing or marketing his designs when he could be out riding and exploring instead. I doubt that the question of 'which target market would be interested in his designs', has troubled him much.
> 
> Personally I would put his bike into the same category that I would place comfortable and reliable walking boots. Therefore I see his bikes as as as just a reliable comfortable means of transport for people who want to explore the landscape whilst traveling further than they could on foot. Cyclists who try out his bikes always comment on how comfortable and relaxed the riding position is. When we go riding off-road, my wife and children have a choice of bikes from which to chose, but invariably chose a bike based on Geoff's ergonomic design principles.
> 
> So if there is sizable demographic that would chose Geoff's designs it is probably to be found among those who do not currently 'mountain bike' but enjoy walking in the countryside. Maybe with those who have tried tradition mountain bikes and found them unreliable, high maintenance, uncomfortable or very messy when ridden in wet or muddy conditions.


Thank you for the reply.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Having read most of the Landseer website and the posts of the advocates of this design the question I have is what's the point today? He says he won't make anymore and doesn't think many people would be interested anyway. A shame it didn't get produced, if it's as good as claimed there has to be a market. With all of the weird and wacky recumbents being made and bought one has to think this bike could be a moderate success in it's niche. I suspect one of the commenters on his website nailed it, GA never _really_ wanted it produced, the development was always the thing (paraphrased).


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

azjeff said:


> A shame it didn't get produced, if it's as good as claimed there has to be a market. With all of the weird and wacky recumbents being made and bought one has to think this bike could be a moderate success in it's niche. I suspect one of the commenters on his website nailed it, GA never _really_ wanted it produced, the development was always the thing (paraphrased).


In 1982 Geoff Apps started Cleland Cycles Ltd, the first specialist off road bicycle manufacturer in Europe, in order to manufacture his Aventura design. In 1984 the company's largest parts supplier deliberately withheld vital parts, withdrew the existing credit facilities and demanded repayment of all the monies owed. As a result production stopped and Geoff Apps lost the savings he had used to set up the company.

Nobody ever found out why his supplier deliberately sabotaged the company, but it meant that Apps would never again risk his own money on producing his designs.

Geoff however still carried on developing his ideas and was happy to let other bicycle company's make his designs free of charge, namely two small UK frame-building companies English Cycles, and Highpath Engineering. Around 2010 a large UK cycle producer proposed the building of of an initial run of 1,000 bikes based on the Cleland TT design, though they later dropped the plan citing 'quality control issues' at the company in China that they were intending to use.

Today there are two plans that I know of, to get Geoff Apps designs made. The first is to reproduce the original 1980s design and is from a specialist UK engineering company. The other is from a small group of people who would like a Landseer and so are considering pooling their resources and then approaching a manufacturer of bespoke bikes.

Whilst Apps is still keen on bicycle development, at his age he neither has the resources, know how or enthusiasm required to start producing bicycles again.

From what I see on his website, it appears that the intention is to give away his ideas on the basis that it's better that they are used in some form, than forgotten.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Thanks for the back-story. Somewhere on his website someone offered to front some money to get some bikes built, GA explained how the costs of the appropriate parts and the custom frames would be prohibitive and who would want them? His comments seemed like "my way or no way" thinking. Yes the drum brake and internal rear hub meet the intent but mechanical discs are probably 90% as weatherproof and much lower cost. I keep thinking this should somehow be built with + tires.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

As with many solo designers they tend not to progress with technology...


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> As with many solo designers they tend not to progress with technology...


For someone approaching their 67th birthday Geoff is well up to speed when it comes to using 3D computer aided design and manufacture techniques like laser cutting as a means of making his customized components like the swing pedals. He also uses CAD/CAM to design and cut his own elliptical chain-rings, and uses some pretty innovative thermoplastic molding processes to make some of the Landseer components.

I strongly suspect that he would make much more use of composite materials and processes if he had the money, as this technology would allow for a further weight reduction of the bike.

He is not part of a company and so does not have access to a great deal in the way of company resources and know how. All in all, I think that all in all Geoff does pretty well, especially when you consider that he is not a qualified technologist or engineer.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

azjeff said:


> Somewhere on his website someone offered to front some money to get some bikes built, GA explained how the costs of the appropriate parts and the custom frames would be prohibitive and who would want them? His comments seemed like "my way or no way" thinking. Yes the drum brake and internal rear hub meet the intent but mechanical discs are probably 90% as weatherproof and much lower cost. I keep thinking this should somehow be built with + tires.


The high cost of building a small batch of Landseer bikes is down to the cost of building the many customized parts without having the economy of scale that would come from a larger production run. The standard components Geoff uses, like the brakes and gears, are not expensive as they are commonly used on utility bikes in Europe.

The argument for using disk brakes instead is not because disk brakes are better or more reliable, but because they are much lighter.

In terms of function the Shimano Roller-Brakes are better than any disks I have tried. They are absolutely silent without any vibration or squealing even under the heaviest braking and more importantly are extremely progressive and so most unlikely to lock up unexpectedly. They even do one front brake model with an inbuilt anti-lock mechanism. Also the 'pads' do not wear out or the brakes require adjustment, and the only maintenance required is to squirt grease into them once in a while. Unlike most other forms of hub brake they do not suffer from contamination issues, brake shoe dust build up and uneven brake shoe wear problems.

The steel friction surfaces of the brakes are covered in high temperature grease and the braking power is more down to the high forces the surfaces are being subjected to rather than their high coefficient of friction. However, because of the high internal forces these brakes are very solidly built and also heavy. What I would love to see is a lighter version of the brakes produced, maybe titanium and ceramic instead of steel.

I personally think that there is a good weight reduction argument for a disk braked Landseer especially for those who ride in dryer conditions.
I also agree with the +tires idea. Maybe not for mud where extra width can mean higher rolling-resistance, but to increase flotation in rocky or sandy conditions.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

I knew I'd seen the concept of a high bottom bracket before, so I went trawling through my old magazine collection.

This is an 1894 model Rover (pic from Cycling Oct 1893)



The concept would have been more acceptable then because there were still a few generations who had been raised on the high wheeled Ordinaries (penny farthings) and who were used to a high perch.

I've used a roller brake for much the same purpose, ie reliability, usable in extremely poor conditions, etc, but I now use drum brakes from Sturmey-Archer. Much lighter and still good modulation. However the reliability of disks has improved enormously over the last 10 years, especially pad life, so they should be considered now IMO.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Well done Velobike, that's a wonderful find and from the inventor of the safety bicycle himself John Kemp Starley.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kemp_Starley.

*That 1894 Rover has many similarities with Geoff Apps designs:
**High bottom bracket with the riders weight high and towards the rear.
*An upright riding position where the handlebars can be held without leaning forward.
*Short chainstays so that more weight is over the rear wheel for better traction.

Starley even mentions mud and that it is "every bit as fast and steady as the ordinary model. Whilst modern inverted pendulum theory predicts that a higher bicycle should be easier to balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pendulum

All that the Rover needs is zero offset steering, hub brakes, wide ratio gears and fatter tires in order to make it more like a modern Apps' design.

*It's interesting that Starley, the inventor of the modern bicycle, working at a time where there were few good roads came up with a design solution that is similar to that more recently chosen by Apps.*

There is an unwritten rule in bicycle design that a rider must be able to touch the floor with his foot whilst siting in the saddle. Whilst this has some validity for bicycles where the rider leans a long way forward it is not always true for an upright position and especially on bikes with a low top tube. I have been riding high bottom bracket bikes for so long that I hardly notice. Even when things go badly wrong on challenging terrain I just throw a leg over the crossbar and step or jump clear.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

azjeff said:


> His comments seemed like "my way or no way" thinking. Yes the drum brake and internal rear hub meet the intent but mechanical discs are probably 90% as weatherproof and much lower cost. I keep thinking this should somehow be built with + tires.


I agree but respect the fact that Geoff doesn't seem to care much what other people think and pursues his own goals.

Wouldn't hydraulic brakes be even more weatherproof? IME the cable is the most susceptible part.



GrahamWallace said:


> In terms of function the Shimano Roller-Brakes are better than any disks I have tried.


You lost me there, I have a fair amount of experience with Shimano roller drum brakes and I could not imagine using them for the kind of riding I do. I don't normally ride in really mucky terrain so I can't comment about that but in the relatively dry environment where I'm at I find discs far superior.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

Hi J.B. You must be using better disk brakes than I have on my bikes.









Here is a photo of a Cleland NRS fitted with Roller Brakes riding down a hill I use as a benchmark for testing brakes.
I wouldn't ride this roughly 45% hill with no run out at the bottom on any of my disk brake bikes. A few years ago I watched a group of young MTB riders attempting this hill and they either gave up as it got steeper and a few went clear over the handlebars.

All of the braking is done by the front roller brake as that is where all the weight and grip is. The Roller brakes are absolutely silent during the decent though you can clearly hear the tire gripping the ground. I only ride this hill in order to test bikes when the conditions are dry.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> ...I have a fair amount of experience with Shimano roller drum brakes and I could not imagine using them for the kind of riding I do. I don't normally ride in really mucky terrain so I can't comment about that but in the relatively dry environment where I'm at I find discs far superior.


I'm sure most types of brakes could be optimised for foul conditions if we wanted them.

I found that rollers are really sensitive to the cabling. Using a compressionless outer makes a huge difference. I think because they're usually fitted to commuter type bikes the cables aren't always what they could be and that gives a false impression.

For many of the same reasons that Geoff specs them, I fitted one to a bike I was going to use for a long overland trip in Oz. I wanted to have at least one brake I could be sure would still be working 1,000 miles later after dragging it through deep bulldust and potentially mud.

My only objection is the weight, and if you're going to be going through deep mud or abrasive sand a lot, there's nothing better.

It's a balance between stopping power and fine modulation on greasy surfaces.

I would like to see a comparison test between the various brakes. I'm pretty sure modern disks measure up for modulation (no question of their stopping power), but their longevity in foul conditions has been a problem in the past, but there's no reason they couldn't be shrouded to protect them.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

Velobike said:


> Why the insults?
> 
> Geoff has built and designed a bike that works for the purpose for which it was designed - to go where normally bikes cannot be ridden.
> 
> ...


No he hasn't.....not really. I ride down the same leafy chalky lanes in the UK Geoff does, on my generic hardtail. His bike may have some things that make it easier for HIM to ride sections, but he's not riding things that no man has ever ridden. He's riding back lanes in rural England.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> I then found that I could ride up, turn round 360 degrees at the top and then ride down again.


Now that's a clever trick.... because surely if you turn 360 degrees you're still facing the same way !


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> I wouldn't ride this roughly 45% hill with no run out at the bottom on any of my disk brake bikes.


Why is that? Surely not for lack of stopping power.

For me running a hill like that is not so much about the brakes as it is frame design, seat height and tires. I'd have no qualms using v-brakes there on the right bike. I'm using Shimano hydros now and the main complaint you hear is (lack of) modulation but after a few rides I adjusted and found them very controllable.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> I wouldn't ride this roughly 45% hill with no run out at the bottom on any of my disk brake bikes..


You must have some seriously sub-par/ancient/malfunctioning disc brakes. 
Do you have any idea of the terrain people use disc brakes to ride on a daily basis these days?


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

weeksy950 said:


> ...His bike may have some things that make it easier for HIM to ride sections, but he's not riding things that no man has ever ridden...


Isn't that the point though? - makes it easier?

Most bikes can be ridden anywhere with a bit of effort and skill, eg the sort of stuff I ride on my fatbike used to be ridden by me on skinny bikes. It's just much easier with the fat tyres which are a great skill compensator for someone like me who'd sooner be looking at the scenery than the trail immediately in front.

Or are you saying his bike works because he has a high level of skill? (You've been riding a while, I suspect you're in that category too  )


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> For someone approaching their 67th birthday Geoff is well up to speed when it comes to using 3D computer aided design and manufacture techniques like laser cutting as a means of making his customized components like the swing pedals. He also uses CAD/CAM to design and cut his own elliptical chain-rings, and uses some pretty innovative thermoplastic molding processes to make some of the Landseer components.
> 
> I strongly suspect that he would make much more use of composite materials and processes if he had the money, as this technology would allow for a further weight reduction of the bike.
> 
> He is not part of a company and so does not have access to a great deal in the way of company resources and know how. All in all, I think that all in all Geoff does pretty well, especially when you consider that he is not a qualified technologist or engineer.


People that work alone are not the most prolific at developing new concepts...

His designs do not include other advances in bike designs....nor do the lead to bikes that can go where no other bike can go.

Suspecting something is not the same has having and end product.

Saying that someone does pretty well because he does not avail himself of the work of other people and organization.....pretty much makes my point.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Just did a ride last night...

Went off trail through a wind blow down into an open gully system. The grass as grown enough to provide about 1 foot deep holes surrounded by upright grass. Slope was about 30 degrees....with mud and ice....

Great fun riding down.....

I rode what I brung.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

jeffscott said:


> ....His designs do not include other advances in bike designs.....


What advances do you think he should incorporate to improve the bike's capability?


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Velobike said:


> What advances do you think he should incorporate to improve the bike's capability?


Design is not made up of adding separate ideas, but the integration of new concepts..

including materials.....

Simply start with a blank sheet....


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why is that? Surely not for lack of stopping power.
> 
> For me running a hill like that is not so much about the brakes as it is frame design, seat height and tires.


Hydraulic disk brakes have much more stopping power than roller brakes but there lies the problem as the main issue is to avoid locking the wheels.

On that hill, if the front wheel locks either the rear wheel will instantly lift off the ground or the front wheel will slide uncontrollably, ripping the turf as it does so.

Inside the Shimano Roller-Brake is a wavy edged circular cam that pushes on rollers that then push the friction surfaces together. The shape of the waves on the cam means that the brake lever power is not applied in the same way as with hydraulic systems, where the force in the brake lever piston is directly proportional to the force applied at the disk brake caliper. With Roller-Brakes the relationship between brake lever force and the force applied at the hub is nonlinear with the exact nature of that non-linearity dependent on the shape of the cam.

In reality this simply means there is more brake lever movement between the powerful braking lever position and the wheel lockout position than with hydraulic systems, hence more control.

*You are of course correct in saying that "..running a hill like that is not so much about the brakes as it is frame design, seat height and tires":*
The Cleland NRS has knobbly tires, suspension, high handlebars in line with the steering tube, and a short seat tube fitted with a dropper seat-post. All of which allows the wheels to keep in contact with the ground over the bumps, and the riders weight far enough back that the rear wheel does not lift off the ground.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> You must have some seriously sub-par/ancient/malfunctioning disc brakes.
> Do you have any idea of the terrain people use disc brakes to ride on a daily basis these days?


Whilst my disk brakes are not malfunctioning they are all between 11 and 7 years old. I would be surprised if disk brake engineering had not improved in that time.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Modulation is real thing. :thumbsup:


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Modulation is real thing. :thumbsup:


Beat me to it.

This thread is like watching Fred and Barney argue the merits of which stone builds a better wheel.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> People that work alone are not the most prolific at developing new concepts...
> 
> His designs do not include other advances in bike designs....nor do the lead to bikes that can go where no other bike can go.
> 
> ...


Just because Geoff is not part of a larger organization does not mean that he does not collaborate with others, just that the collaboration is voluntary. Over the years he has collaborated with many engineers and as a result several of the ideas incorporated into the Landseer actually originate with them. The idea of running the chain through thermoplastic tubes was originally developed by me.

Today he works with local engineers and CAD-CAM companies and also enthusiasts of his designs contribute their own ideas via his website.

The fact that he is freed from commercial considerations means that he is free to experiment as he wishes and do as he pleases.

The most surprising thing to me is that despite the thousands of mountain bike designs on the market and after all the years, you still can't go out and buy an off-road bike that is anything like the ones that he has designed.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Modulation is real thing. :thumbsup:


Does anyone know how modern disk brakes achieve their modulation as modulation requires a mechanism that stops braking power from being applied too abruptly?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

GrahamWallace said:


> Does anyone know how modern disk brakes achieve their modulation as modulation requires a mechanism that stops braking power from being applied too abruptly?


I do it by hand.

Modulate the brakes that is.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

On my old hydraulic disk brakes there is very little brake lever movement between starting to brake and locking the wheel which makes it difficult to hold the brake at a point just before lockout. 

A well modulated brake like a Roller-Brake have lots of lever movement with the wheels only locking just before the end of the lever touches the handlebar grip. How do modern hydraulic disk brakes compare?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Velobike said:


> What advances do you think he should incorporate to improve the bike's capability?


As mentioned this bike seem a natural fit for plus size tires, why not?

I'm still interested in the steering damper thing, and maybe a little more info on the wacky offset pedals.



GrahamWallace said:


> A well modulated brake like a Roller-Brake have lots of lever movement with the wheels only locking just before the end of the lever touches the handlebar grip. How do modern hydraulic disk brakes compare?


Roller brakes feel mushy and unresponsive compared to discs IME. Despite their short throw and light action I find discs easy to precisely modulate, it's just a matter of re-tuning your brain which took me less than 1 ride.

I would think hydraulic cables would be a plus for weather resistance.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> As mentioned this bike seem a natural fit for plus size tires, why not?...
> 
> ...Roller brakes feel mushy and unresponsive compared to discs IME...


I reckon the plus size tyres would be an advantage, plus the extra grip would make the braking less critical in that it wouldn't lock up so readily.

The problem I've had with disks in foul conditions is pads wearing out extremely quickly. However they seem to have improved since I had that problem, or maybe it's that we haven't had a suitably foul winter since.

I suspect roller brakes are a blind alley in this case, but nothing comes near the submersibility of a roller brake and the ability to function as if nothing has happened..


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

I'd sure like to ride one of these bikes. I find the Cleland website cumbersome to navigate but persevered and ground through all of the proprietary features and have to agree the bike in entirety would be expensive to build. Does anyone know what it weighs?

The frame geometry is the most radical thing about this bike compared to anything else and is it's signature. The only component that would have to be custom made is the 0 reach stem, the rest could be executed with existing parts and probably end up at 90% or more of the functionality of the full original. If the thinking is it has to be all or nothing then it's probably a brilliant design that will never be built, there's too much departure from the accepted norm in one package. Kind of shame it's been around for so long and still unknown.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

Velobike said:


> Isn't that the point though? - makes it easier?
> 
> Most bikes can be ridden anywhere with a bit of effort and skill, eg the sort of stuff I ride on my fatbike used to be ridden by me on skinny bikes. It's just much easier with the fat tyres which are a great skill compensator for someone like me who'd sooner be looking at the scenery than the trail immediately in front.
> 
> Or are you saying his bike works because he has a high level of skill? (You've been riding a while, I suspect you're in that category too  )


Well, it seems it is for him... But what i'm saying is, that he's not riding anything that others can't ride. Sure, he may techincally take the odd bit of stream that my bike couldn't.... possibly.... but that doesn't mean i want/need to ride down that stream anyway.

All i can see is a bloke who's riding a strange contraption down sections of trail that are not really trails, at a slow speed, telling us he's better than everyone else...

I just can't comprehend it....

He may be skilled, i don't really know... However he may just be a completely crazy fella..... i know where my money is currently...


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

Velobike said:


> I reckon the plus size tyres would be an advantage, plus the extra grip would make the braking less critical in that it wouldn't lock up so readily.
> 
> The problem I've had with disks in foul conditions is pads wearing out extremely quickly. However they seem to have improved since I had that problem, or maybe it's that we haven't had a suitably foul winter since.
> 
> I suspect roller brakes are a blind alley in this case, but nothing comes near the submersibility of a roller brake and the ability to function as if nothing has happened..


What brakes and pads have you actually tried ? The brakes these days are just exceptional, even things like Shimano Zee with a standard set of sintered are just astounding. The pads wearing out, yeah we've had that with resin pads, we've all had that with OEM pads, but these days you can get Kevlar, Race, Sintered, all with different characteristics, power, modulation and performance, including wear rates.

Would it not make sense to try some before ruling them out ? Move into the modern times, maybe you'd find that it removes some / lots of weight, without any actual downside.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

weeksy950 said:


> Well, it seems it is for him... But what i'm saying is, that he's not riding anything that others can't ride. Sure, he may techincally take the odd bit of stream that my bike couldn't.... possibly.... but that doesn't mean i want/need to ride down that stream anyway.


But surely that is the point. If you do want to ride down that stream etc, what's the best bike? I think it's like the choice between an old style trials bike and a motocross bike - it depends where you want to ride and how. I sometimes ride stream beds - it's often the only solid ground where I go. It's just that I'm not very good at it, and usually end up with my front wheel being turned at right angles by a rock, and then usually some immersion. Thus I'm interested in any bike that might compensate for my skill deficit.

I'd certainly like a ride on the Cleland. I understand the inverted pendulum analogy, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable being perched so high. I also like a lot of his detail work, eg the pedals, the tucked away chainline, and the weather protection.



weeksy950 said:


> What brakes and pads have you actually tried ?..
> 
> Would it not make sense to try some before ruling them out ? Move into the modern times, maybe you'd find that it removes some / lots of weight, without any actual downside.


Don't worry, I'm not a total luddite. As I said a bit further up it doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, and I have fitted modern disks to my newer bikes.

However for mudplugging I'll stick to the drums until I wear them out. I've over 5 years on them and negligible wear on the linings - and that's after five 24 hour StrathPuffers which is a notable chewer up of brake pads. (I switched to drums after wearing out all my spare pads in the 'Puffer several years ago and I was left with no brakes - the motivation was that changing brake pads at stupid o'clock in sleet with fingers like sausages costs lots of lap time and is very much negative fun)


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

I have a massive desire to do the Puffer, great respect to you for having done so... 5 times is even more respect for that 

It's a horrificially complex logistic problem though from the south, partly expense and partly getting the 'crew' you really need along with all the kit. Persuading 5 others or so to come and be my pit/entertainment would be next to impossible.

However, i REALLY do want.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

weeksy950 said:


> I have a massive desire to do the Puffer, great respect to you for having done so... 5 times is even more respect for that
> 
> It's a horrificially complex logistic problem though from the south, partly expense and partly getting the 'crew' you really need along with all the kit. Persuading 5 others or so to come and be my pit/entertainment would be next to impossible.
> 
> However, i REALLY do want.


I've done all 11 'Puffers now - all solo, all singlespeed. AFAIK I'm the only person who has. 

I'm lucky, I live nearby, but that's no advantage because there's no way of getting out easily once you're in.

I self support and no longer take any shelter or comforts. That way you aren't tempted to stop for any longer than needed to refuel. The idea being to make keeping going the more comfortable option.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

LOL you're a crazy fella that's for sure. Obviously i am aware of a few of the celebrity riders who you'll clearly know, i'm an avid motorbiker so Guy MArtin and Jason are clearly people i'm aware off, Jason being the SS rider too i'm sure you've battled out there with.

Maybe we should start a Puffer thread somewhere else though as it's something i need to do at some stage.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> Just because Geoff is not part of a larger organization does not mean that he does not collaborate with others, just that the collaboration is voluntary. Over the years he has collaborated with many engineers and as a result several of the ideas incorporated into the Landseer actually originate with them. The idea of running the chain through thermoplastic tubes was originally developed by me.
> 
> Today he works with local engineers and CAD-CAM companies and also enthusiasts of his designs contribute their own ideas via his website.
> 
> ...


He does not operate with people on a daily basis....at least from what you describe.

Chain in a tube....hmm there is an idea that solves nothing.

Just cause you work in an organization does not mean you don't have a free hand.....

If the design is out there I guarantee those in the business have looked at it.....after all these years no copies....hmmmm.

Again my point, a solution with no problem.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

GrahamWallace said:


> Does anyone know how modern disk brakes achieve their modulation as modulation requires a mechanism that stops braking power from being applied too abruptly?


 One finger or two? Very easy. You get feedback as the brakes are applied, you know, slowing down.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

GrahamWallace said:


> Whilst my disk brakes are not malfunctioning they are all between 11 and 7 years old. I would be surprised if disk brake engineering had not improved in that time.


 Improved? I'll talk in your language. By leaps and bounds. Compare a 60's mg to a new porsche boxster. Like engine, steering, braking horsepower. Dramatic leaps and bounds. Me, 100 kilo going 20 mph, down a loose rocky hill. 1 finger on each brake, way fast stopping. Easy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> A well modulated brake like a Roller-Brake have lots of lever movement with the wheels only locking just before the end of the lever touches the handlebar grip.


This is exactly how I like to set up my brakes. 
You can absolutely run discs this way.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> Chain in a tube....hmm there is an idea that solves nothing....
> ....Again my point, a solution with no problem.


The problem: The chain runs next to the rear tire and if the tire is covered with mud then the chain will scrape off the mud and then deposit it on the freewheel, eventual the mud will stop the chain from engaging with the cogs.

Even in dry conditions a chain will pick up dust and grit coming off the tire.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> The problem: The chain runs next to the rear tire and if the tire is covered with mud then the chain will scrape off the mud and then deposit it on the freewheel, eventual the mud will stop the chain from engaging with the cogs.
> 
> Even in dry conditions a chain will pick up dust and grit coming off the tire.


Yes, to an extent. However on 99% of occasions in the UK your rear wheel, chainstay, forks and front wheel clog up WAY before that. the clay ridden ground is notorious for being very sticky.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> The problem: The chain runs next to the rear tire and if the tire is covered with mud then the chain will scrape off the mud and then deposit it on the freewheel, eventual the mud will stop the chain from engaging with the cogs.
> 
> Even in dry conditions a chain will pick up dust and grit coming off the tire.


Never ever had that problem....

Had the front wheel load up with mud til it wont rotate through the forks...

Had the rear tire load up with mud til it wont rotate through the chainstays....

Never even happened in snow and ice...

I would think that the chain tube would also load up with mud and especially snow and ice as well....

Secondly the more guards and crap you have the harder it is to clean the mud out of the nooks and crannys and get going again.

BMW has a wheel scraper set up that might actually work for their motos....


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

weeksy950 said:


> But what i'm saying is, that he's not riding anything that others can't ride. Sure, he may techincally take the odd bit of stream that my bike couldn't.... possibly.... but that doesn't mean i want/need to ride down that stream anyway.


This thread is called "A different approach to mtb..." and that is exactly what Geoff Apps bikes are.

I for one am not saying that his bikes are better than mainstream MTB's, just that they're different.

Geoff Apps has spent a lot of time refining his designs to make them more suitable for his style of riding and local conditions. But if you don't ride in such conditions then his design solutions, though possibly interesting, will be of little use to you. Even then some MTB riders may the very comfortable riding position of use as this has proven useful to riders who suffer from back pain etc.

From riding alongside Geoff in challenging terrain and struggling to keep up, even sometimes ride at all I can confirm that he has succeeded in extending the range of terrains can be successfully ridden. However these features mainly offer only marginal gains were you could simply ride around the obstacle or jump off the bike or lift it over using very little extra time in the process.

Even Geoff, who deliberately seeks out difficult terrain, only usually uses the extra technical terrain capability of the Landseer for a small percentage of his total riding time.

What is really useful, especially in muddy UK winter conditions, is the low maintenance aspect of his design. UK riders who have to remove the mud after every ride so that the components don't get trashed, will know what I'm talking about.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

GrahamWallace said:


> This thread is called "A different approach to mtb..." and that is exactly what Geoff Apps bikes are.


Granted, however, as it's a discussion forum and clearly the thread was created to provoke further discussion, you're going to have to accept that things may not necessarily go how you planned 

The good thing is, it's an interesting thread either way


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> Never ever had that problem....
> 
> Had the front wheel load up with mud til it wont rotate through the forks...
> 
> ...


That is interesting. Clelands from the very beginning have used extra wide bottom bracket shells that means that the rear tire seldom 'loads up' with enough mud that it won't rotate through the stays. What may be happening with narrow stays is that it is the stay that is stopping the mud from touching the chain. In widening the stays Geoff may have also created a new problem that he initially solved with a chain guard and more recently with tubes.



jeffscott said:


> I would think that the chain tube would also load up with mud and especially snow and ice as well....


 The tube is flexible and only a little wider than the chain itself. It won't carry much mud though it does act as a scraper that removes the mud from the tire.



jeffscott said:


> Secondly the more guards and crap you have the harder it is to clean the mud out of the nooks and crannys and get going again.


Yes, though the guards on the Clelands help to keep the components clean they can get coated with mud. This will eventually make the bike heavy and so will need to be removed. The easiest way to do the is is by riding through water.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

weeksy950 said:


> Granted, however, as it's a discussion forum and clearly the thread was created to provoke further discussion, you're going to have to accept that things may not necessarily go how you planned
> 
> The good thing is, it's an interesting thread either way


I ride a wide range of off road bikes including Clelands and find that Geoff Apps designs function well. I don't have a plan apart from explaining what I like about them.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> That is interesting. Clelands from the very beginning have used extra wide bottom bracket shells that means that the rear tire seldom 'loads up' with enough mud that it won't rotate through the stays. What may be happening with narrow stays is that it is the stay that is stopping the mud from touching the chain. In widening the stays Geoff may have also created a new problem that he initially solved with a chain guard and more recently with tubes.
> 
> The tube is flexible and only a little wider than the chain itself. It won't carry much mud though it does act as a scraper that removes the mud from the tire.


When tires are close to the chainstay size, the problem is worse.....ever wonder why mud tires are usually spec a little smaller diameter than other tires???

wider bottom bracket isn't the design criteria you make it to be.

Still don't need the tube

Yeah so when you have another 10 km of mud puddles and you are loading up....cause there is more mud than clear water.....your still done.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

GrahamWallace said:


> Geoff Apps has spent a lot of time refining his designs to make them more suitable for his style of riding and local conditions. But if you don't ride in such conditions then his design solutions, though possibly interesting, will be of little use to you.


Everyone contributing to this thread read this. Twice. A talented guy has spent years designing and executing the perfect off road bike...FOR HIM.

Mr. Wallace has ridden these bikes and can give his hands-on impressions on how they work. We don't know his skill level compared to ours so all we can do is speculate and argue. He comes off as a disciple but it may be difficult to appear otherwise, he's ridden the bike and nobody else has.

The level of refinement of the bike pictured on the website is astounding for a personal DIY project.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

jeffscott said:


> Still don't need the tube


Does this mean that you don't need the tube? 
I don't need the tube? Or that nobody needs the tube?









jeffscott said:


> Yeah so when you have another 10 km of mud puddles and you are loading up....cause there is more mud than clear water.....your still done.


In cases of heavy clay where the wheels grow and grow yes. Though the conditions when the clay is wet enough to stick but not that wet that it falls off again are quite rare in the UK. As are the conditions where the mud builds up by freezing onto the tire.








My 1988 Cleland made by a company called Highpath Engineering has a 100 mm wide bottom bracket shell and so, large frame clearances even when using 2"+ wide tires. It has always been my main winter bike and all the years of riding it I can count the number of times that it has clogged up with mud to the extent that the wheels will not rotate on one hand.

Unfortunately I can not say the same for my narrow bottom bracket shell bikes which require narrow tires to be fitted in order to cope at all.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

azjeff said:


> Mr. Wallace has ridden these bikes and can give his hands-on impressions on how they work. We don't know his skill level compared to ours so all we can do is speculate and argue. He comes off as a disciple but it may be difficult to appear otherwise, he's ridden the bike and nobody else has.


I have been riding Geoff's bikes for almost as long as I have been riding Mtbs.
I could be described as a disciple for both styles of bike, though telling you what is good about Mtbs would be pointless as you know about those already.

I am not of the opinion that the Cleland is necessarily better for general riding than an Mtb, it is just a different solution to the problems encountered when riding off road. Also, I am not the only 'disciple' of Geoff's designs and there are many quotes from such people on his blog and elsewhere.

There are other radical yet workable engineering solutions for ridding off road on bicycles that I also take an interest in. I just find that unusual and original bicycle designs of to be of interest, no matter who designs them.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

All we've read is what a visionary GA is and how wonderful his bikes are. Of course people are skeptical. Interested to hear what you don't like about them. I asked a while ago what they weigh, any idea?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Seems like an interesting bike for unique and specific conditions. Here in the US, most do not ride off trail or ride when it is very muddy, poor trail manners damage the trails. I'm guessing that is not a universal thing? Plenty of trail systems close for at least some part of winter and/ or mud season. Is that not the case for the UK? Here in New England almost everybody uses front suspension or dual suspension. The fatbikes and plus bikes are very popular, and are capable of any kind of exploring one desires. Cheers.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

leeboh said:


> ...Here in the US, most do not ride off trail or ride when it is very muddy, poor trail manners damage the trails. I'm guessing that is not a universal thing?...


If we waited for dry conditions, we'd never ride.

As for the UK, I can't speak for England (it's a different country and we have different legal systems), but in Scotland we have a traditional "right to roam" which is now codified in law.

Basically it means we can go on any land or waters so long as we're human powered. We don't have to stick to trails. We also have the right to wild camp. The legal constraints are basically good manners. You don't go too close to someone's house, trample crops, frighten animals etc.

Thus our trails can never get closed. It also means that they tend to be natural foot paths, usually not maintained*, and often unrideable for most bikes for lengthy sections, and usually not suitable for speed work (unless thoroughly reconnoitred previously).

Also many countries in Scandinavia have a similar approach. When you're used to having the right to roam, going to places that don't have it feels strangely oppressive.

Hence the interest in a bike that can ridden in foul conditions. It doesn't need to be "fast" or good at jumps, or even pretty. It just needs to be capable of being easily ridden when slowly picking a way through the BB deep morass. However most of us avoid that unless it's necessary to get somewhere or simply shoulder the bike.

*The tradition here was you fix the track as you go. If you saw a patch that could do with a few rocks dropped on it, you stopped and did it, or kicked out a channel to drain it. This is the way it worked for thousands of years, but I think now it's just we older pre-mtb generation who do that.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

Who owns all this land you have unlimited access to? The situation is similar in the western US where a high percentage is federal land but in the eastern US where most land is privately owned it forces many tires on limited trails.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I live in the eastern US and we have an absolute TON of uncrowded trails. We also have a whole lot of generous landowners that allow riding on their land. 

Personally, I wouldn't want to live somewhere where anyone can wander into my yard at any time and set up camp without even bothering to consult me about it. That's screwy.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

azjeff said:


> Who owns all this land you have unlimited access to? The situation is similar in the western US where a high percentage is federal land but in the eastern US where most land is privately owned it forces many tires on limited trails.


Doesn't matter, private or govt. Freedom to roam applies.



slapheadmofo said:


> ...Personally, I wouldn't want to live somewhere where anyone can wander into my yard at any time and set up camp without even bothering to consult me about it. That's screwy.


Remember the bit about good manners? We don't go close to your house. It works, amicably, and this being Scotland, if you did go near the house, you're likely to be offered a cup of tea and hospitality.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

leeboh said:


> Seems like an interesting bike for unique and specific conditions. Here in the US, most do not ride off trail or ride when it is very muddy, poor trail manners damage the trails. I'm guessing that is not a universal thing? Plenty of trail systems close for at least some part of winter and/ or mud season. Is that not the case for the UK?


In England and Wales there is a 'rights of way' system that gives people the legal right to travel along paths marked as such on maps. These 'rights of way' are also signposted where they cross a road.

Unfortunately about 80% of these 'rights of way' are footpaths where there is no right to ride a bicycle. About 18% of the remaining tracks where bicycles are allowed are bridleways and are shared with horse riders an also walkers. The remaining tracks are shared with 4x4s and farm vehicles, off-road motorbikes etc.

In practice this means that most of the tracks were you are allowed to ride a bicycle are already churned up by the hooves of horses, farm animals or the wheels of motor vehicles. In many places this process of hooves followed by rain erosion has been going on for thousands of years. We call these sunken tracks because the centuries of erosion have caused the track to sink deep into the landscape. The downhill section of the video I posted earlier takes place on such a sunken track.

The bicycles do not create the mud it is already there and the bicycles just have cope with it or not ride. The bridleways can be even rougher to ride when dry because the hoof prints remain there solidified in the now hardened soil. In the height of summer grass will grow over the top making what looks like a nice grass track remarkably bumpy to ride.

Most of England's wild forested natural landscape was destroyed by the neolithic people about 8,000 years ago. Since then the landscape has been shaped by man as a result of farming, industrial uses etc.
Even in high in the mountains the landscape has been formed by the centuries of sheep and cattle farming.

It rains a frequently in western and northern England but generally gets drier to the south and east. Some areas are muddy all year round.

As a result of the poor condition of the legal trails many UK off-road cyclists prefer the smoother and less corrugated, maintained surfaces found at trail centers, on canal towpaths or on free access land.

Although many also chose to illegally ride on footpaths. Which although it is against the civil law, is not normally against the criminal law, and so seldom results in prosecution as it only allows for compensation for proven damage done to the footpath etc.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^^ Interesting, seems some tough pedaling conditions. Tried the 3 -5" tires on a plus or fat bike?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I live in the eastern US and we have an absolute TON of uncrowded trails. We also have a whole lot of generous landowners that allow riding on their land.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't want to live somewhere where anyone can wander into my yard at any time and set up camp without even bothering to consult me about it. That's screwy.


 Think way remote, of lots of land and very few people, for the most part.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

azjeff said:


> All we've read is what a visionary GA is and how wonderful his bikes are. Of course people are skeptical. Interested to hear what you don't like about them.


My number one dislike is the high air resistance brought about by the high upright riding position, the fat 29er tires and the fenders that can act as wind scoops. Clelands are certainly not my recommended bikes for riding into strong headwinds. As a result some Clelands including the Landseer have adjustable handle bar stems that also allow for a more 'mountain bike' riding position.

The high rolling resistance on road of the low pressure tires used to be a problem and I used to struggle to keep up with Mtbs on long road sections. However, some modern tires roll well on flat hard surfaces even when their pressure is low though they won't survive for long unless they have reinforced sidewalls.

If you're used to quick release disk brake wheels then the Shimano Inter-8 hubs are difficult to remove and replace. Other brands of internal hub gear are much easier.

*Hill Climbing:*
Hill climbing on a Cleland is not to every ones taste as the front wheel can lift unexpectedly if you don't lean forward enough to weigh it down. On a short climb this is not a problem but on an extended climb, having to ride lent forward with your arms bent is not as comfortable as riding a mountain bike. Most Clelands are surprisingly very good steep climbers though this is done out of the saddle with the upper body bent forward of the handlebars though this has more to do with the short chain-stays than anything else.



azjeff said:


> I asked a while ago what they weigh, any idea?


An original 1982-84 Cleland Aventura with 650x54b Hakkapeliitta tires weighed 36lbs however the total weight of the tires and tubes was 6 lbs.

*I have weighed the Landseer, can't find my notes so I will have to tell you what I remember:* The total weight was about 35lbs which was disappointing considering the lightweight frame. However I then went on to discover that the use of Shimano Roller brakes, internal 8 speed hub gearing and heavy 700c downhill tires and heavy inner-tubes was where the problem was. Using disk brakes and lighter tires and tubes would mean a significant reduction in weight. For example, I do have a disk brake/derailleur Cleland NRS that weighs 25lbs including its suspension system.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Think way remote, of lots of land and very few people, for the most part.


Well, 'way remote' and 'lots' of land is pretty subjective now, isn't it?

In the US, we have national forests a number of times the size of the entirety of Wales, parks ~half the size, and BLM lands that add up to almost 50 times the size! And that doesn't even begin to take into account the many other types of public and private lands we can openly travel and recreate on; the scale is just wildly different than what some are used to dealing with. What may be considered 'way remote' over there is more likely though of as 'a little off the beaten path' here.


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

leeboh said:


> ^^^^ Interesting, seems some tough pedaling conditions. Tried the 3 -5" tires on a plus or fat bike?


I was out riding recently and it struck me that having to pedal hard just to continue moving even when riding downhill is unusual in cycling. Though the combined high rolling resistance of soft yet bumpy ground ,for miles on end, makes for tired legs.

Large diameter low pressure tires with enough flotation to absorb the bumps is definitely the way to go in these conditions. The only problem is the deep soft mud where a fatter tire just cuts an unnecessary wide trench through the quagmire. In these conditions I find that a thinner tire can be more efficient at slicing through the mud. Maybe a +size fat tire on the back and a thinner one on the front, tractor style?

I haven't yet tried a +size bike yet though it makes sense around here for bikes without suspension. I am currently riding a Cleland fitted with 2.35" tires which I prefer to the more usuall 2.25"


----------



## GrahamWallace (Oct 30, 2008)

azjeff said:


> Interested to hear what you don't like about them...


One other thing to mention regarding the very elliptical gears used on the Landseer is that they are optimized for low cadence riding and cannot be spun at high cadences.

The reason for this is that, unlike with round gears, the foot does not rotate at a constant speed but slows down during the power stroke and speeds up inbetween. Because of this I have been using a large round outer chainring and a very elliptical 23tooth inner ring on two of my own bikes.

On idea I am considering trying is to have a round and equivalent diameter elliptical front chaining connected to a 14speed Rolhoff hub gear at the rear. That way I would have 14 low cadence gears and 14 high cadence gears as sometimes the best approach is to spin the pedals, whilst at other times a slower more subtle approach is needed.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Well, 'way remote' and 'lots' of land is pretty subjective now, isn't it?...


I've cycled offered in places like Australia which has plenty of remote, and Africa where you never seem to be remote, and yet felt remote in Scotland, a place where you're actually never more than 20 miles from a road (there may be the odd intervening mountain though  ).

To me remote is when your chances of survival are affected if your equipment (bike) breaks and no one is likely to be along to find you. Then the weather comes along and kills you. This can be as little as a few miles from town in winter in a cold climate, or a few hours walk in summer in Australia from sun (e.g. car breakdown). Nowhere is really remote if you are properly prepared.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

BTW, thanks for starting this thread. Never knew these bikes existed, pretty amazing ingenuity.


----------

