New Geoff Apps prototype

Trips, adventures, bikes, equipment, etc.
mark a.
Posts: 1358
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby mark a. » 8 Nov 2014, 9:30am

I've just noticed that Geoff Apps is building a new Cleland prototype, called the Landseer:

ImageDSCF5780 by gmacleland, on Flickr

He's writing a blog about it here.

It's a fascinating project, and I'd love a go on one (or an Aventura). As the blog points out, the philosophy is very different to the usual mountain bike manufacturers. Here, the geometry is very short, very steep, very rearward-biased, high BB, high centre of gravity, hub brakes, hub gears, mudguards. Very unfashionable, but I reckon it would be brilliant for cross-country fun.

Does anyone here have a Cleland? Who'd like to build a Landseer when the plans are finalised?

mark a.
Posts: 1358
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby mark a. » 9 Nov 2014, 10:21am

Obviously not that interesting!

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4738
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby RickH » 9 Nov 2014, 3:27pm

mark a. wrote:Obviously not that interesting!

Oh yes it was! :D
(Just took a while to read through all of the blog)

Rick.

LWaB
Posts: 121
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 5:33am

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby LWaB » 9 Nov 2014, 9:15pm

Interesting but I'm not sure I'm interested enough to get a Cleland bike. Mudplugging isn't really my choice when off-roading.

mark a.
Posts: 1358
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby mark a. » 10 Nov 2014, 9:03am

LWaB wrote:Mudplugging isn't really my choice when off-roading.


Perhaps it would be if you had a Cleland! :lol:

User avatar
Erudin
Posts: 642
Joined: 17 Sep 2009, 3:39am
Location: Cornwall

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby Erudin » 10 Nov 2014, 3:31pm

Thanks for the link, I like how he writes and that he's not afraid to question the status quo.

firedfromthecircus
Posts: 264
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 7:50pm

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby firedfromthecircus » 10 Nov 2014, 7:35pm

I own an original Aventura and have ridden Geoffs Aventura TT.
There is a lot of merit to Geoffs design philosophy IMHO and a modern production Cleland would be a great bike for a lot of people. Probably not as cool as the latest 6" all mountain carbon extravaganza, but most folk past 35 should realise a dry buttock is cooler than looking cool! :lol:

Malaconotus
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30 Jul 2010, 11:31pm
Location: Chapel Allerton, Leeds

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby Malaconotus » 11 Nov 2014, 9:53am

Really enjoyed this article by an MTBer riding a Clelend with Geoff... http://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/ ... lses-view/

I'd buy a Landseer.

mark a.
Posts: 1358
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby mark a. » 11 Nov 2014, 12:47pm

firedfromthecircus wrote:I own an original Aventura and have ridden Geoffs Aventura TT.
There is a lot of merit to Geoffs design philosophy IMHO and a modern production Cleland would be a great bike for a lot of people. Probably not as cool as the latest 6" all mountain carbon extravaganza, but most folk past 35 should realise a dry [rude word removed] is cooler than looking cool! :lol:


Ace! How are the bikes?

It's funny how essentially no-one bought a Cleland since it looks weird, has unusual geometry and design choices and is unfashionable.

But then many people have bought a Jones bike. Ok, it looks weird, has unusual geometry and design choices, but it's fashionable!

If the new Landseer could be made from titanium he could sell a few of those at astronomical prices as a halo product, then sell the cheaper steel (or aluminium?) version for the rest of us.

User avatar
Swizz69
Posts: 402
Joined: 3 Aug 2008, 12:25am
Location: Hyde

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby Swizz69 » 18 Sep 2015, 4:58pm

The Landseer is on its wheels >>> https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com ... y-the-way/

Looks awesome :)

Image

mark a.
Posts: 1358
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby mark a. » 18 Sep 2015, 9:56pm

Ha! You beat me to it.

It looks... interesting. But I'd love to have a go. I think it's mostly designed to be ridden through horrible terrain at essentially 0 mph, so it's not exactly a modern downhill mountain bike.

Those chain/seatstays are amazing. Loads of weird (hyper eccentric chainrings) and wonderful (pedals) ideas throughout the whole bike.

reohn2
Posts: 37447
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby reohn2 » 21 Sep 2015, 2:33pm

I've read through the whole blog and find some of his ideas truly ground breaking and thought provoking.
His high BB(14")is 4" higher than on my MTB,I wouldn't feel confident so high up(I like to be able to dab a foot in tricky situations).
I like the idea of eccentric pedals and I'd like to try the extreme oval rings,I'm convinced by his arguments in favour of them but lack technical knowledge to know otherwise(that's not a criticism).
I'm not convinced of the short wheelbase and very upright riding position,especially when climbing on steep stuff,if I try I can make the front wheel paw the air on a 19" bottom gear on my GL with an 115cm w/base(69cm front centres) and I'm nowhere near as upright as the Cleland.
Or does the ovalness of the c/rings and pedals iron out the power surge?
There are some things that I totally agree with,mudguards,chain guards(if only partial) that will keep rider and bike far cleaner,I'd hate to be coated in mud and mucky water when out for a ride,it would go a long way to making me very uncomfortable.
I'd like to sort out the m/g stays similarly to the way the Cleland has,as I do have and occasional contact between stays and tyre,which troubles me :?
I agree with him about mechanical suspension for the type of MTBing I do,which is a lot like his ie; more akin to trials riding than adrenalin fuelled fast and furious full sus riding.
I'm currently riding 29er x 2.4inch @ 15psi front 30 rear,on most trails but have reduced the front to 10/12psi and rear to 25 on really rough ground,but I'm on very supple Conti Xking tyres but fear snakebites if I go any lower.
I have a pair of PlanetX Smorgsboards which are a lot stiffer carcass,so I may give them a try at reduced TP's.The main difference between my wheels and the his is rim width mine=30mm compared to Cleland Landseer/Adventura= 14(?)mm :shock:
He certainly upsets many an applecart does Geoff Apps :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
elPedro666
Posts: 1282
Joined: 9 Oct 2014, 7:38am
Contact:

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby elPedro666 » 24 Sep 2015, 8:48pm

He certainly upsets many an applecart does Geoff Apps :)

He does that, and all the better for it! I was lucky enough to be on a RetroBike ride with him a while back, and it only took the briefest of spins on some Scottish mountainside to convince pretty much everyone there that the ideas all work, every one of them.

Can't help but think that mark a. nailed it and it's all in the marketing. Kinda the opposite of what I - and I'm sure a good portion of CTC riders - look for. Give me an engineer without a marketing department and day of the year!

GeoffApps
Posts: 21
Joined: 11 Feb 2013, 1:45pm

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby GeoffApps » 26 Sep 2015, 11:11am

I'm impressed reohn2; few people bother to read all the posts. Many cyclists don't want to disturb their long-held beliefs about bicycle design.

At 10", your BB is much lower than normal; you'd be getting a lot of pedal-strikes, throwing you off-balance. It is much better for efficient (less tiring) riding with more fluid negotiation of hazards if you resist that temptation to take a dab. If you can, you'll discover that usually a dab is not really necessary - a high BB helps you resist that dab temptation.

Not too technical, not too simplistic, not too long-winded; that's my motto when I'm drafting the posts. Inevitably, though, the final text cannot explain everything, so I welcome comments that open-up the debate for the benefit of other readers, those that can be bothered.

You seem concerned about your front wheel lifting when climbing, and that a shorter wheelbase and front-to-centre will exacerbate that problem. Contrary to intuition, it won't. Is it a problem? Think about those remarkable people who can pull a wheelie and continue riding, or unicyclists. One deliberate feature of the Landseer is a very light front end, for a very good reason - as with every other aspect of the design.

Actually, I feel like I'm setting the cart upright again and putting all the apples back where they should be, one by one.

reohn2
Posts: 37447
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: New Geoff Apps prototype

Postby reohn2 » 26 Sep 2015, 5:52pm

GeoffApps wrote:I'm impressed reohn2; few people bother to read all the posts. Many cyclists don't want to disturb their long-held beliefs about bicycle design.

Thanks Geoff,I thought your blog deserved it.
I was right.

At 10", your BB is much lower than normal; you'd be getting a lot of pedal-strikes, throwing you off-balance. It is much better for efficient (less tiring) riding with more fluid negotiation of hazards if you resist that temptation to take a dab. If you can, you'll discover that usually a dab is not really necessary - a high BB helps you resist that dab temptation
.
Actually I've just realised it's a typo on my previous post,my BB height is 12" not 10" as I posted so a bit nearer yours.Though I do ride 175mm cranks which of course is counter to your 165's,though you have the eccentric pedal system,which is something that appeals.Are they available commercially?.
Pedal strikes aren't a problem for me generally,though I'm a bit of a careful rider,Itd be fair to say a bit of a wuss really.
I'm a rather arthritic old phart who likes playing off road,though find these days I'm not quite as confident as I once was,and as I ride mostly alone the fear of falling does concern me more than it once did,so I tend err toward caution these days.

Not too technical, not too simplistic, not too long-winded; that's my motto when I'm drafting the posts. Inevitably, though, the final text cannot explain everything, so I welcome comments that open-up the debate for the benefit of other readers, those that can be bothered.

TBH I find your approach a breath of fresh air in an at times,MTB world of adrenalin fuelled aggressive type riding,when it doesn't have to be that way at all.In fact due the Arthritis I find my hill walking days are over,but the bike gives me access to places I once walked,a sort of walking on wheels and which is very satisfying.

You seem concerned about your front wheel lifting when climbing, and that a shorter wheelbase and front-to-centre will exacerbate that problem. Contrary to intuition, it won't. Is it a problem? Think about those remarkable people who can pull a wheelie and continue riding, or unicyclists. One deliberate feature of the Landseer is a very light front end, for a very good reason - as with every other aspect of the design.

It's funny you should mention that,only yesterday as a direct result of reading your blog, I fitted a short,80mm stem,a reduction of 30mm :shock: ,as a bit of an experiment.
I found better low speed handling as a reduction of the 'tiller' effect and the light front end wasn't anywhere near as bad as I feared.I also found better control descending some quickish technical sections finding it easier to slid off the back of the saddle.
If yesterday was anything to go off,I may even reduce the reach further yet.

Actually, I feel like I'm setting the cart upright again and putting all the apples back where they should be, one by one.

You could very well be!
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.