Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 239
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,687
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Riding off trail by its very nature causes damage; more or less depending on where you do it.
    There is pristine wilderness where even on- trail riding is not allowed. There is no way you can "gently" ride though wilderness. You change it. There is good reason to disallow this kind of riding in many places.
    That's one of the advantages of a fatbike.

    My 4" tyres make much less impression on the soil than a rambler or a deer.

    I suspect the ultimate offroad bike (as opposed to mtb built trails and hardpacked dirt) would be a Cleland style with the new Surly Krampus 29er+ tyres or the 4" fat tyres.

    This type of bike is not about speed, it's about getting there and enjoying the view while doing so, otherwise you may as well go to a velodrome or some other bicycle playground/trailpark and go really fast.

    The comparisons to the 1890s and early 1900s 28" rimmed bikes aren't really valid. Those were designed for road work, albeit on dirt roads, and they are just about unrideable if you try to take them through the sort of stuff that the Cleland bikes get ridden through. Around 1900 28" rimmed bikes were being sold with 2" tyres in Australia for bush work. This would have been of some help in the bulldust areas, but the geometry was unsuited for any technical offtrail use.

    My opinion is based on having owned several early 1900s 28" wheeled bikes and a recent attempt to build a retro 29er mtb out of one. It will require considerable changes to the bike's geometry - which I'll do because it's fun. If it works I'll post it up in this forum - it will get raced - but it will probably end up more like an early Scottish path racer than 29er.
    Last edited by Velobike; 09-21-2012 at 05:17 PM.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    That's one of the advantages of a fatbike.

    My 4" tyres make much less impression on the soil than a rambler or a deer.
    You may be right, but regardless of your tire size, in most of the places I ride or have ridden, riding off trail is wrong.

  3. #53
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    That's one of the advantages of a fatbike.

    My 4" tyres make much less impression on the soil than a rambler or a deer.

    I suspect the ultimate offroad bike (as opposed to mtb built trails and hardpacked dirt) would be a Cleland style with the new Surly Krampus 29er+ tyres or the 4" fat tyres.

    This type of bike is not about speed, it's about getting there and enjoying the view while doing so, otherwise you may as well go to a velodrome or some other bicycle playground/trailpark and go really fast.
    Yet they still make an impression. "Ultimate" means irreparable destruction? It does in the cryptobiotic soils of the American southwest, where trails provide sustainable recreation.
    Your rose colored glasses and romaticized picture of "enjoying the view" don't change the facts. Some people prefer to go as fast as they can. They call it fun, and suggesting it belongs in a velodrome is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
    Just because it isn't your flavor doesn't make speed any lesser of an enjoyable ride quality Grant, er... I mean, Velobike.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,687
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Yet they still make an impression. "Ultimate" means irreparable destruction? It does in the cryptobiotic soils of the American southwest, where trails provide sustainable recreation....
    If a deer can posthole it, I will ride on it. Humans are part of the landscape too.


    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    ...Your rose colored glasses and romaticized picture of "enjoying the view" don't change the facts. Some people prefer to go as fast as they can. They call it fun, and suggesting it belongs in a velodrome is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
    Just because it isn't your flavor doesn't make speed any lesser of an enjoyable ride quality Grant, er... I mean, Velobike.
    Yep, just as absurd as not appreciating that some people are not interested in speed. And who's Grant?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  5. #55
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    If a deer can posthole it, I will ride on it. Humans are part of the landscape too.
    I'm glad you don't live around here. That's the attitude that destroys wilderness recreation areas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Yep, just as absurd as not appreciating that some people are not interested in speed. And who's Grant?
    Ah, yes... this is true of course. The thing is though, nobody who enjoys speed is here saying "enjoy the view" riders should be on handicap-access paths at old folks homes. It's a pretty typical retro-grouch, my-way-is-better attitude. Grant is Grant Petersen, the retro-grouch and Lycra/go-fast denigrating archetype. You would probably love his writings. Look up the blog on the Rivendell Bicycles website.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    730
    [QUOTE=meltingfeather;9712835]I'm glad you don't live around here. That's the attitude that destroys wilderness recreation areas. (self contradictive?)

    Come now...if man was not part of nature, nature left to itself...dies. Nothing would stay the same. Nature is a process of life unto death followed by rebirth. Nature is a part of creation, it is not GOD, to be held above man.

    Fat bike type tires provide the best means to traverse over the earth while doing the least change to the soil. This fact has been deomstrated in many photos posted by Velobike himself.

    Here in the states the 'goverment' owned lands belong to...we the people. More and more...we the people are being shut out from enjoying OUR land. A small minority uses as an excuse the abuses of a few to close them down. Truth is it is all about control...control of...we the people by those who who would restrict freedom at any level.

    But back on track...the Cleland bicycle shod with fat bike tires presents a type that should cause one to rejoice at the prospect of traversing the land with the least change.
    Is this not progress?

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Yet they still make an impression.....Some people prefer to go as fast as they can. They call it fun, and suggesting it belongs in a velodrome is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.
    Just because it isn't your flavor doesn't make speed any lesser of an enjoyable ride quality....
    Well personally, I love to ride slowly and I also love to ride as fast as I can.

    Riding fast in itself, is not inherently more destructive to the environment. Especially when using low pressure tires, there is a strong argument that the faster you go the less time the ground has to compress and so the shallower the impression left behind. Also a higher gear means that the acceleration from each pedal stroke is spread over a larger distance and more momentum is maintained in-between pedal strokes

    The problem is more to do with braking and cornering habits. Clelands use low pressure tires on narrow rims which means you can't do violent tail slides without the tires rolling off the rims. The fact that 80% of the weight is over the rear wheel means that front tires float over the terrain causing little damage We also use the best modulated brakes we can find in order to avoid unintended lock-outs, and elliptical gears as a form of traction control. However, though authorities may ban bikes because of the damage caused by inappropriately aggressive riding, the careful and considerate also have to live with the consequences.

    Low pressure tires, bike design and considerate riding can keep environmental damage to the minimum. And whilst most ecosystems will quickly heal from the damage caused by an occasional rider, large rider numbers on a single trail will inevitably lead to long term damage.


    Since this is a 29er thread.
    Here's a picture of a Geoff and a 1981 700c x 47mm Cleland Range-Rider. Taken in 1984, this picture appeared in Charlie Kelly's 1988 "mountain Bike Book"
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-4321632293_01fcfb3fa1_b.jpg  


  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    43
    At the moment, I'm running 65mm tyres, and before long will have some 75mm tyres. Still have some clearance, chainline and fender problems to resolve yet. There's no way I can squeeze anything wider into the current Aventura frame, and there's no way I can afford a new frame for the foreseeable future.

    That old 29er still exists. We're hoping someone can restore it so it can be displayed in a museum. This is how it looks today.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-dscf2760.jpg  


  9. #59
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWallace View Post
    Well personally, I love to ride slowly and I also love to ride as fast as I can.

    Riding fast in itself, is not inherently more destructive to the environment. Especially when using low pressure tires, there is a strong argument that the faster you go the less time the ground has to compress and so the shallower the impression left behind. Also a higher gear means that the acceleration from each pedal stroke is spread over a larger distance and more momentum is maintained in-between pedal strokes

    The problem is more to do with braking and cornering habits. Clelands use low pressure tires on narrow rims which means you can't do violent tail slides without the tires rolling off the rims. The fact that 80% of the weight is over the rear wheel means that front tires float over the terrain causing little damage We also use the best modulated brakes we can find in order to avoid unintended lock-outs, and elliptical gears as a form of traction control. However, though authorities may ban bikes because of the damage caused by inappropriately aggressive riding, the careful and considerate also have to live with the consequences.

    Low pressure tires, bike design and considerate riding can keep environmental damage to the minimum. And whilst most ecosystems will quickly heal from the damage caused by an occasional rider, large rider numbers on a single trail will inevitably lead to long term damage.


    Since this is a 29er thread.
    Here's a picture of a Geoff and a 1981 700c x 47mm Cleland Range-Rider. Taken in 1984, this picture appeared in Charlie Kelly's 1988 "mountain Bike Book"
    Well put, and I don't disagree.
    However, I don't think a Cleland or fat bike should be a license to do whatever you want. Sustainability is key, which sometimes means using trails.
    Rants about access are misplaced, or at least way off topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    ...Come now...if man was not part of nature, nature left to itself...dies. Nothing would stay the same. Nature is a process of life unto death followed by rebirth. Nature is a part of creation, it is not GOD, to be held above man.....
    ...the Cleland bicycle shod with fat bike tires presents a type that should cause one to rejoice at the prospect of traversing the land with the least change.
    Is this not progress?
    Well said.

    As a descendant of people who were forcibly cleared of their land to create what is now promoted as "wilderness" I am deeply suspicious of the exclusionary dictums of the urban eco-aesthetes of wealthy western countries.

    And back on track, or should I say "off track", I can't think of a better way to traverse soft country than with a fatbike. The geometry of a Cleland bike looks to me ideal for the sort of slow going that that entails. Whether it is marketable to a population to whom mountainbiking involves leaping, sliding, and thrashing round a maintained trail as fast as possible, is another story though. It's a completely different category of bike. To use a motorbike analogy, a Rokon compared to a motocross bike.
    Last edited by Velobike; 09-22-2012 at 05:04 PM.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Well put, and I don't disagree.
    However, I don't think a Cleland or fat bike should be a license to do whatever you want. Sustainability is key, which sometimes means using trails.
    Rants about access are misplaced, or at least way off topic.
    A rant? True

    Way off topic? Depends upon your perspective.

    Can you see it as a call for you to marry your passion for nature with your profession to say yes instead of no? You are a civil engineer, are you not? People with such skills are needed to strike a balance to the where, when, how much, and why.

    Velobike has gone to some amount of trouble to post pictures of evidence on a thread on the fat bike fourm, I forget the title, perhaps he will chime in with it, it could be useful to you should you choose. In any even it was maybe about a year ago last spring?

  12. #62
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    A rant? True

    Way off topic? Depends upon your perspective.
    Not that I wasn't to begin with. Topics like these tend to drift that way.
    I think Cleland's are cool bikes... and I certainly appreciate the rides/riders depicted here and what they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Can you see it as a call for you to marry your passion for nature with your profession to say yes instead of no? You are a civil engineer, are you not? People with such skills are needed to strike a balance to the where, when, how much, and why.
    Absolutely. That is why I became a civil engineer in the first place. Civil engineering is at the interface of civilization and the natural environment. As I said, sustainability is key... at least to me. I was just countering the point that a Cleland is a license to go and do whatever you want... because deer to it or the evil corporate-government complex robbing the populous of it's own lands or whatever you can come up with aren't mitigating factors in my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Velobike has gone to some amount of trouble to post pictures of evidence on a thread on the fat bike fourm, I forget the title, perhaps he will chime in with it, it could be useful to you should you choose. In any even it was maybe about a year ago last spring?
    I don't disagree that fat bikes cause relatively little damage... never even took up that topic.
    I have to admit, "exclusionary dictums of the urban eco-aesthetes of wealthy western countries" is hilarious like an internet fail video... and, once again, absurd. Good for a laugh, but not something I want to waste my time reading on a regular basis... very much like Grant Petersen's contributions to the annals of e-cycling.
    I'm not sure which narrow band of his lineage Velobike is evoking. Life forms have been expelling eachother since the dawn of time and no doubt every one of us has ancestors on both sides of an emotionally charged expulsion story. There are just so many layers of irony to enjoy in that one smug statement.
    Originally I responded to two counts: the attitude that one should be able to do whatever one pleases if mounted on a fat bike/Cleland, and the statement that people who want to go fast should be at the velodrome.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 09-22-2012 at 10:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,687
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    ...I have to admit, "exclusionary dictums of the urban eco-aesthetes of wealthy western countries" is hilarious like an internet fail video... and, once again, absurd...

    Originally I responded to two counts: the attitude that one should be able to do whatever one pleases if mounted on a fat bike/Cleland, and the statement that people who want to go fast should be at the velodrome.
    And there I was smugly thinking that that cap fitted you really well, perhaps a bit tight because you sound a bit cranky to me, what with all the personal cracks.

    But let's leave the ideological discussion to those who actually live a pure eco-life*, and concentrate on the Cleland bike.

    The trailpark/velodrome remark was because there was an implied criticism of the potential speed of the Cleland bike, so I responded with a sort of an ironic reductio ad absurdum, to illustrate that speed on mtbs is best enjoyed on hardened surfaces. My bad.

    As far as an "attitude that one should be able to do whatever one pleases if mounted on a fat bike/Cleland", I don't recall seeing that mentioned. It's not do, it's go. There's no such thing as wilderness here. Every square foot of the country has had human presence at some stage, the empty land is actually depopulated areas. Our general ethic is leave it as you found it, we're raised with that, and we teach our kids that. I spend a lot of time in the mountains in Scotland and I have seen no evidence that our open access laws for bicycles have caused any problems.

    Hence my statement that a fat tyred Cleland style bike would probably be the ultimate off track bicycle.






    *I've no idea what a pure eco-life may be, but I suspect using a car, living in a 1st world urban environment, consuming goods transported vast distances, and having the leisure time to play with bikes, is not it.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  14. #64
    Natural Born Killer
    Reputation: nemhed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    372
    All thread de-railment aside, I find the Cleland design fascinating from more of a "bicycle as practical transportation" standpoint versus a "weekend toy/exercise equipment" standpoint. Of everything I've read in this thread, one of the factoids I'm most surprised about is the 80% rearward weight bias. I'd love to get a chance to ride one in it's "natural environment" but alas in my part of "the middle" (read flyover state) we don't usually see things this interesting in the local bike shop or on the local trails. Again from a design standpoint, it's interesting to see how things evolve when not overly influenced by outside forces, or sort of a divergent evolution so to speak. Just from looking at one I would call it more of a flat land bike, although I'm sure that's not the case. There are "hills" in Great Britain. It also looks like the toe overlap with the front tire might drive me crazy. Sadly I'll probably never know for sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Skrufryder View Post
    Silly rabbit Jack Daniel drinking donkey kissing caterpiller

  15. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by nemhed View Post
    All thread de-railment aside, I find the Cleland design fascinating from more of a "bicycle as practical transportation" standpoint versus a "weekend toy/exercise equipment" standpoint.
    For me the most universally important aspect of the Cleland design is improved comfort and safety. This is because these aspects could encourage a whole new demographic to cycle off-road. Namely those who like the idea of cycling but don;t enjoy being uncomfortable whilst doing so. We do get reports from cyclists from all over the world who have made their own bikes influenced by aspects of the Cleand design. Most rewarding are the tales of everyday cyclists in third world countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by nemhed View Post
    Of everything I've read in this thread, one of the factoids I'm most surprised about is the 80% rearward weight bias.
    The rearwards weight bias is variable. Lean backwards off the saddle and it could be 95%. Stand forwards with your upper body in front of the handle bars and it could be only 20%. Even in the saddle there is a good degree of flexibility with 80% being the number you get when you sit bolt upright with no weight on your arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by nemhed View Post
    I'd love to get a chance to ride one in it's "natural environment" but alas in my part of "the middle" (read flyover state) we don't usually see things this interesting in the local bike shop or on the local trails. Again from a design standpoint, it's interesting to see how things evolve when not overly influenced by outside forces, or sort of a divergent evolution so to speak.
    We don't consider the design as our intellectual property and would cooperate with any manufacturers who wanted to make them. A UK manufacturer was intending to re-manufacturer them a couple of years ago but this never happened. Hopefully one day they will be manufactured, and people will be able to try them for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by nemhed View Post
    Just from looking at one I would call it more of a flat land bike, although I'm sure that's not the case. There are "hills" in Great Britain.
    Despite the flatland looks Clelands have the reputation of being excellent climbers.This has its own counter-intuitive explanation in physics the result of which is they can climb 44% slopes for as long as the riders legs and lungs can cope. Their very well moderated brakes also make them good at descending. If things go wrong you can just jump off the back.Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-r0012768.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by nemhed View Post
    It also looks like the toe overlap with the front tire might drive me crazy. Sadly I'll probably never know for sure.
    I've never noticed this to be a problem. Maybe I have just got used to it?

  16. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,767
    Interesting to me how even the most obvious (in my mind) truths become contentious.
    Funny this world we live in. For example, I remember when air pollution was just bad. I never imagined I'd live in a time where there was a "pro-pollution" stance.

    But back to the original off-topic topic. Is it so hard to imagine a good reason for different levels of access rules for different places with different levels of wilderness and the sensitivities that go with it?

    I had some friends in Alabama who laughed at my conservative ways (yes, it is liberals who want to conserve! Ironic eh?)
    Clear cutting the thick woods down there, cutting down hundred year oak trees because they needed firewood, I mentioned something about what a shame that was.
    "ha ha. The land is here to use! "
    or maybe they said something like
    Come now...if man was not part of nature, nature left to itself...dies. Nothing would stay the same. Nature is a process of life unto death followed by rebirth. Nature is a part of creation, it is not GOD, to be held above man.


    The funny thing about those guys, was that they live in a place that is ugly. Completely f%cked up.
    They drive 4 hours to where they can get to a piece of woods they can hunt on, and that is just a tree farm. Trees in rows. I'm not kidding.
    Maybe they don't see the irony because they have never been to a truly beautiful place in its natural state. They don't see the irony, but I hope you do.

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,767



    I picture really is worth a thousand words, isn't it?
    It looks to me like there are trails in the area, but this guy decides he wants to ride down on the hill with no trail. It sure looks like fun to do that.
    And if he was the only one to do it, it probably wouldn't be too much of a problem.
    But if lots of people see how cool that hill looks to ride down, what happens? The plant life dies under the tire tracks, the dirt is slightly depressed, forming water channels, the rain starts forming gully's, etc. After this hill becomes a popular mountain bike destination for a couple of seasons, it looks like an eroded, dead, scarred up mess. It might even become unridable, in which case it would be ok to go find another hill, and start over, right?


    Is that really a better option than having a trail down that hillside that people can enjoy while keeping the surrounding environment relatively stable and undamaged?

  18. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    171
    smilinsteve,

    You are indeed correct and as a result I would refuse to identify that location if anyone asked. Of course someone could always recognize the location from the photo and go there with the intention of riding down this slope. In fact I first discovered this slope when I saw a large group of mountain bikers trying and failing to ride down it. They either went over the handle bars of chickened out. The slope is not at all smooth and steeper than it looks in the photo. And there is no run out at the bottom so even the downhill bikes would have nowhere to go except into the trees. The dilemma is that they could ride down if they had Clelands. But is this an argument for Keeping the Cleland design a secret?

  19. #69
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    And there I was smugly thinking that that cap fitted you really well, perhaps a bit tight because you sound a bit cranky to me, what with all the personal cracks.
    lol... from the guy who brought the "personal crack." my comments were solely in relation to yours... you are the one who used the label "eco-asthetete" and implied some sort of skewed hiprocrisy.
    by all means, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    The trailpark/velodrome remark was because there was an implied criticism of the potential speed of the Cleland bike, so I responded with a sort of an ironic reductio ad absurdum, to illustrate that speed on mtbs is best enjoyed on hardened surfaces. My bad.
    this comment would have been the end of the discussion. since smilinsteve, who you were addressing, said nothing about speed, it seemed odd and as i said, absurd.
    i guess i don't "know" you well enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    As far as an "attitude that one should be able to do whatever one pleases if mounted on a fat bike/Cleland", I don't recall seeing that mentioned. It's not do, it's go. There's no such thing as wilderness here. Every square foot of the country has had human presence at some stage, the empty land is actually depopulated areas. Our general ethic is leave it as you found it, we're raised with that, and we teach our kids that. I spend a lot of time in the mountains in Scotland and I have seen no evidence that our open access laws for bicycles have caused any problems.
    That's great, and I think leave it as you found it is all either of us alluded to. Some places you can do that by riding a fat bike across hill and dale, some places you can't. I thought it might be a context thing. I was just pointing out, as smilinsteve was, that it is context dependent, which you seemed to reject. both of us qualified the need for trails as being context dependent (e.g., "some areas," etc.).

    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    Hence my statement that a fat tyred Cleland style bike would probably be the ultimate off track bicycle.
    It is... in places where such a bike does not cause irreparable harm. Your statements and those about "elevating nature to the level of God" or whatever were in no way qualified... and to me conveyed the sentiment that humans should be able to go where they please at their whim because deer and air and water do.

    i think we've beat this enough, eh? my apologies if I offended. cranky I am not.

    let's see more Cleland pics!






    *I've no idea what a pure eco-life may be, but I suspect using a car, living in a 1st world urban environment, consuming goods transported vast distances, and having the leisure time to play with bikes, is not it.[/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    43
    Smiling Steve: whilst I am vaguely sympathetic to your concerns, in this country at any rate, your concerns are unfounded:
    a) The vast majority of mountain bikers don't explore; they prefer to stay on well-ridden clear firm tracks.
    b) Property law and access rights mean that there are fences and hedges everywhere, rarely can you ride off trail for more than half a mile before having to stop and lift your bike over a fence or stile; not very appealing to the average rider.
    c) Much of the UK is intensively managed; to find these areas of interest usually requires a fair amount of research, and the vast majority can't be bothered.
    d) What Graham didn't mention is that the none of the mountain bikers in the group he was with would dare to ride down that slope; it's a lot steeper than the photo shows.
    e) You see that scar up the other side of the valley; made by sheep.
    f) When the farmer wants to check his sheep, he drives up in a 4X4.
    g) Most off-trail terrain is simply too difficult/boring for the average mountain biker.
    h) Getting trails built/made is not at all easy; to make it a worthwhle distance, it often has to cross the land of several landowners, rarely are they all that keen to allow it.
    So, although you have a case, the actual amount of damage that is likely to be caused by Cleland and Fat Bike explorers is very small indeed, and most unlikely to attract hoards of mountain bikers.

    Off topic, off trail, off piste ~ typically Cleland

  21. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    730
    Thanks Graham for addressing the questions poised by Nemhed.

    For those with concerns with toe overlap because of the short wheelbase there are things that can be helpful.

    1 A wider BB

    2 Or, you may find yourself as in my case. I ride a 89 Fisher (full rigid) with toe clips until about a month ago. While on a ride I turned my attention to the slight, but not bottersome stress at my knees.I removed them. Low and behold, my toes turned away from the centerline and my stance upon the pedals was somewhat wider. Yeah, I walk like a duck!

    3 Lower the BB somewhat, to place your toes at a point lower and further from the tire. Should this not at first seem like the direction you would choose to go, with the advent of Srams XX1 you could find yourself willing to trade increased chainwheel clearance for a loss of pedal clearance?

    @ Graham or Geoff...would you care to post more of the geo stats on your design? I have tried to quess some, but nothing beats the facts, would give me and others a starting point from which to apply your design freatures to fit ourselves. I have not found them posted on your site, did I miss?

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Sand Rat View Post
    Thanks Graham for addressing the questions poised by Nemhed.

    For those with concerns with toe overlap because of the short wheelbase there are things that can be helpful.

    1 A wider BB

    2 Or, you may find yourself as in my case. I ride a 89 Fisher (full rigid) with toe clips until about a month ago. While on a ride I turned my attention to the slight, but not bottersome stress at my knees.I removed them. Low and behold, my toes turned away from the centerline and my stance upon the pedals was somewhat wider. Yeah, I walk like a duck!

    3 Lower the BB somewhat, to place your toes at a point lower and further from the tire. Should this not at first seem like the direction you would choose to go, with the advent of Srams XX1 you could find yourself willing to trade increased chainwheel clearance for a loss of pedal clearance?

    @ Graham or Geoff...would you care to post more of the geo stats on your design? I have tried to quess some, but nothing beats the facts, would give me and others a starting point from which to apply your design freatures to fit ourselves. I have not found them posted on your site, did I miss?
    I think this refers to the AventuraTT, a profile of which appears on the home page of the Cleland website.
    Look closely; the toe does not overlap the wheel/tyre; it overlaps a very flexible mudguard extension. It is therefore not an issue.
    This overlap exits because the frame used for this prototype was bought off-the-shelf.
    A purpose-built fame design would have the bottom bracket axis further to the rear, which would eliminate this insignificant aspect.

    Do you actually mean a wider BB, or do you really mean Q factor?
    In view of my above comments, lowering the bottom bracket is neither desirable or necessary.
    Note also: swing pedals effectively lower the rotational movement of the feet to more or less the average bottom bracket height.

    So, look again at that profile, more carefully this time. If you click on it, you get a larger image, and if you click again, you get a magnifier for an even closer look.

    I do apologise for there being no concise description of the AventuraTT on the Cleland website. If I find time, soon I'll create a special page to cover a complete and detailed specification.

    As requested, and not un-connected to this reply, here are some more Cleland photos; these appeared in another MTBR thread recently. You'll notice I never clean my bike; I don't need to.
    On the subject of more Cleland photos; have you clicked on the Flickr link to the right of the homepage? There are loads of photos, several with comments and technical notes.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-dscf2767.jpg  

    Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-dscf2770.jpg  

    Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-dscf2773.jpg  

    Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-dscf2774.jpg  

    Cleland: The original big wheeled off-road bicycle?-dscf2775.jpg  


  23. #73
    Natural Born Killer
    Reputation: nemhed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    372
    GrahamWallace, thanks for addressing my post. From my personal experience with my own explorer/commuter bike I would find clipping the mud flap with my toes annoying, but that's just me. I would shorten it up a bit. Actually touching the tire would get beyond annoying. Looking at those drive train pictures makes me feel like I'm looking at some alternate universe bike with the elliptical chainrings, square water bottle, and offset pedals. But I appreciate the rational for all the the tech details. I also appreciate the "why clean it if its just going to get dirty right way" ethic!
    Quote Originally Posted by Skrufryder View Post
    Silly rabbit Jack Daniel drinking donkey kissing caterpiller

  24. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    43
    Well, in practice, your toes don't actually touch it while pedalling, except on very rare occasions.
    The point you really have to consider is that it is of optimal size and length to serve its principle function of protecting the chain from stuff thrown up by the front wheel; shorten it and it no longer functions.
    The Cleland design is full of compromises in its ethos of functionality, and this is but one; a very small annoyance pays very big dividends.
    The non-cleaning ethic is another aspect of its functionality; this bike is built to be ridden, not to be cleaned.
    I recently read a report about a mountain bike enduro where each lap was about 7 miles. Due to the mud on the course, the riders had to replace disc pads every three or so laps, and the derailleurs had to be cleaned down every lap. To my mind, that's not functionality; I suppose a Cleland would have done quite well, but not with me riding it!
    Your description of your bike as explorer/commuter is excellent; I use the Aventura for utility as well as exploration, with its mudguards, chainchoobz, bash plate as trouser guard and upright stance, you can ride it in everyday clothes. Functionality again...

  25. #75
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffApps View Post
    Smiling Steve: whilst I am vaguely sympathetic to your concerns, in this country at any rate, your concerns are unfounded:
    a) The vast majority of mountain bikers don't explore; they prefer to stay on well-ridden clear firm tracks.
    b) Property law and access rights mean that there are fences and hedges everywhere, rarely can you ride off trail for more than half a mile before having to stop and lift your bike over a fence or stile; not very appealing to the average rider.
    c) Much of the UK is intensively managed; to find these areas of interest usually requires a fair amount of research, and the vast majority can't be bothered.
    d) What Graham didn't mention is that the none of the mountain bikers in the group he was with would dare to ride down that slope; it's a lot steeper than the photo shows.
    e) You see that scar up the other side of the valley; made by sheep.
    f) When the farmer wants to check his sheep, he drives up in a 4X4.
    g) Most off-trail terrain is simply too difficult/boring for the average mountain biker.
    h) Getting trails built/made is not at all easy; to make it a worthwhle distance, it often has to cross the land of several landowners, rarely are they all that keen to allow it.
    So, although you have a case, the actual amount of damage that is likely to be caused by Cleland and Fat Bike explorers is very small indeed, and most unlikely to attract hoards of mountain bikers.

    Off topic, off trail, off piste ~ typically Cleland
    very informative, thanks. this makes a lot of sense, and it is now easy to see how context is so determinant.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •