[Closed] Going for a ride with Geoff Apps and....

Chris Porter would love that.

Interesting, many years ago I played a small part in the manufacture of the prototype.

Me too.
Really interesting bloke.
Wanted a go on one of these for ages, since reading about GA in the old Richard's MTB book.

Just found the [url= http://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com/ ]blog [/url]for the new bike.
🙂

He was taeamng up with brant at one point I thought, but nothing seemed to come out of it.

Was a great article about him in Privateer.

Interesting read.

Way back in the mid eighties I had a go on a HighPath. It was the only bike capable of climbing the steep gravel path up Mount Keen from Glen Tannar. Very stable at low speeds with comedy low gearing.

I read somewhere on Retro Bike a while back that someone had found one locked up and forgotten about in a stairwell in Edinburgh. I wondered if it was the same bike.

You have to admire those who follow there own path

Very much like a trials bike for mtb riding. Makes an awful lot of sense.

Chris Porter would love that.

Weirdly, even though their riding ethos is probably poles apart, I think they'd probably have a lot to discuss. They are both riders/designers who have taken an idea and gone with it to the Nth degree. Both have designed biked that fit their world view. It'd be fun to get the to ride each other's bikes and see what they said!

Geoff enjoyed having a ride on my Krampus whilst I rode his bike. There were things he liked, and things he didn't, but importantly he had an open mind on the subject. I think his greatest fear is that he's going (cycling?) up a blind alley.

Very much like a trials bike for mtb riding. Makes an awful lot of sense.

Well, Geoff comes from a motorbike observed trials background. He loves sessioning muddy, rooty, slidy sections to see who can get through without a dab.

The pedals are awesome.

Yes, i didn't even mention them! Offset bearing, swing pedals, that cradle your foot 😉
With 160 mm cranks you get an effective crank length of 190 mm in the power part of your stroke.

I can't remember the model but I rode one of his a very long time ago, it was ridiculously good at going slowly and ridiculously bad at going fast. But I remember riding it around the bit of wasteland near my school and it'd just go anywhere, it was like having stabilisers. I'd love a go on a modern one.

I would love to ride a set of those pedals. With shorter crank arms.
Impossible to slip off them I guess.

If Geoffs bike is one extreme and Chris's bike the other, does that mean that many regular bikes are ideal for moderate riding?

The pedals!!

If Geoffs bike is one extreme and Chris's bike the other, does that mean that many regular bikes are ideal for moderate riding?

I use to think like that

Then it turns out that the Lib Dems were Tories after all

But your right of course

I bet Chris's bike is brilliant for throwing down rubble shoots with no fear

But thats not me so no point in having a bike that pretends I can do what i can't

If Geoffs bike is one extreme and Chris's bike the other, does that mean that many regular bikes are ideal for moderate riding?

Sounds about right to me.

Reading CP's article, its fair enough having a strong opinion on what works for yourself, but dismissing everything else just makes him come across as a bit of a tool.
My bike is closer to GA's than CP's, but it's helped by having the biggest, fattest fat tyres available to give more gyro stability at speed to make up for the very short wheelbase and high BB 🙂

I have ridden one of Geoffs bikes and I can tell you it goes uphill like nothing else, it's just weird how much grip and stability there is, it's awesome. I thought it was a bit weird downhill and so I didn't rate it for that...........until Geoff passed me, 35 years my senior, on a rocky rooty slippery muddy downhill like I was standing still. And I'm pretty good downhill too.

I think we would all agree that the world would be diminished without the likes of Geoff Apps in it.

brant - Member

"I would love to ride a set of those pedals. With shorter crank arms.
Impossible to slip off them I guess."

There's a lot more to those pedals than their stable platform. Biomechanical research carried out on similar pedals concluded that they gave a predicted efficiency improvement of 3.2%, resulting in an extra 3.6w @90Rpm.
www.noncircularchainring.be/pdf/Biomechanical%20study%20-%20Project%20002%20Vista%20Pedal.pdf

Interestingly they came up with an optimal drop of 30mm,the same as that that Apps has arrived at through experimentation.

The biomechanics seem unsure as to the exact reason for the increased output, but noticed that the path taken by the foot was no longer circular. This can only be explained by ankling during the rotation. Interestingly moving the heel down at the top of the power stroke moves the pedal in front of the 'dead-spot', making the start of the down-stroke easier and quicker. Also ankling the foot at the bottom of the power stroke can help to lengthen the stroke through that 'dead-spot' and so smooth the power delivery to the rear wheel.

Nope, I'm going to bite. This is a troll, right? That's ridiculous.

I like the pedal experiment though. I always imagined pedals like that could help people with limb-length-discrepancies, but I didn't realise they actually existed.

That's one hell of a chainring!

That's one hell of a chainring!

That's not a chainring.

[img] [/img]

THAT'S a chainring.

Superficial - Member

"Nope, I'm going to bite. This is a troll, right? That's ridiculous."

In terms of the reduced 'dead-spot', I have ridden Geoff's bike and experimented with exaggerated ankling through the 'dead-spots'.

What I can say for sure is that climbing steep hills using ordinary pedals, you either have enough momentum to get the pedal over the top, so that you can start the next power stroke or you don't. Applying all the pedaling force you can muster will not help, as that force is only compressing the crank, but not rotating it. With Geoff's pedals, all you have to do is to drop your heel at this point. This moves the pedal forward enough so that some of your pedaling effort can help to keep the crank rotating.

In this way the Geoff's pedal system feels smoother, less hard work, and so just may be more efficient.

It feels like that is like one of these:

[img] [/img]

whilst modern enduro mountain bikes are more like one of these:

[img] [/img]

That bike looks like a roack crawler to me, I bet it would be awesome at that.

That's not a chainring.

Not the size, look at how elliptical it is!

Great to see Geoff Apps is still doing hist stuff!!

I don't understand the linked document though.

]There's a lot more to those pedals than their stable platform. Biomechanical research carried out on similar pedals concluded that they gave a predicted efficiency improvement of 3.2%, resulting in an extra 3.6w @90Rpm.
http://www.noncircularchainring.be/pdf/Biomechanical%20study%20-%20Project%20002%20Vista%20Pedal.pdf

There's a graph showing more power with the offset pedal set-up, but cranks don't generate power, the human sat on top of them does, and there doesn't seem to be any information about them.

the mud shield behind chain ring is always something I though would be most useful riding in the sticky stuff as most of the crud picked up by the chain comes from the tyres at that point. The trouble comes when the muds so sticky it completely clogs that area and you're stuck fast.

That chainring is extraordinary. What's the strut from the seat clamp to the mudguard?

What's the strut from the seat clamp to the mudguard?

It's a strut from the clamp to the mudguard, to give it support, without conventional stays to the rear dropout. I guess. Clever!

Was lucky enough to meet Geoff and ride his bike (previous incarnation) a while back. A couple of us fat bikers took him to the local beach and rocks, and we also rode over some large tree felling brashings. The day was mostly Geoff wanting to find more and more extreme obstacles to attempt 🙂

Once used to the different rider position (essentially you're standing upright over the cranks), it was truly eye opening how capable it is over technical terrain. The high, relaxed position also giving you a better view of what's ahead.

You just seemed to stay neutral in the 'cockpit' with no need to consciously shift weight around - it just happened. Riding dry rocks felt easier than it sometimes does on my fat bike, especially drops where your weight is already back. Hard to say how much the super-low pressures played a role there though. The tyre squirm and constant thumping of rim on edge was a distraction. Indeed, a few spokes were popped out out hub flange during the day - but Geoff even has a solution for that.

I concur with an earlier post that it felt odd at speed. Geoff proved that's just a case of getting used to it though. But there's no hiding the fact it's not great into headwinds!

Great chap, with a refreshing reminder of why many of us starting riding mountain bikes decades ago 🙂

I think the bike would suit me really well. I emailed Geoff about it a while back, to ask if he was still making them (at the time his website indicated he was working on a production model), but didn't receive a reply. Is this Geoff's personal bike, and a one-off?

The blog is a fascinating, and inspiring, read. I love the idea of long cross country rides taking in trialsy obstacles along the way.

I love the idea of long cross country rides taking in trialsy obstacles along the way.

Me too, that's what I try and work into my rides. I just don't see how this bike is any good for that - It's appears to be far too upright and too short. Dedicated trials bikes evolved into long/low/relatively slack geometry at least 10 years ago - so don't be fooled into thinking this is some sort of XC / trials hybrid. This is more BMX geometry than anything else.

I'd love to meet this guy and ride that thing, because I think he's obviously an interesting character. I just don't understand the geometry at all.

Great to see different thinking at play than the mass market provides. Would love to have a go on one of his machines.

IanMunro - Member

Great to see Geoff Apps is still doing hist stuff!!

I don't understand the linked document though.

]There's a lot more to those pedals than their stable platform. Biomechanical research carried out on similar pedals concluded that they gave a predicted efficiency improvement of 3.2%, resulting in an extra 3.6w @90Rpm.

NONCIRCULARCHAINRING.BE "http://www.noncircularchainring.be/pdf/Biomechanical+study+-+Project+002+Vista+Pedal.pdf"

There's a graph showing more power with the offset pedal set-up, but cranks don't generate power, the human sat on top of them does, and there doesn't seem to be any information about them.

My understanding is that the Biomechanical scientists have created a computer model of the human leg that accurately recreates the bones, joints and muscles. Note that they often give details of the forces measured as they travel through the various leg joints. They have then used this model to test the efficiency with which various non-round chainrings,swing-pedals etc, convert power from the legs.

It is worth remembering here that the human leg has evolved for walking and running where the path taken by the foot is more semi-circular than round. It is therefore highly unlikely that a circular foot motion is the most efficient way to transfer power from the leg, to a bicycle drive chain.

mudrider - Member
...It is worth remembering here that the human leg has evolved for walking and running where the path taken by the foot is more semi-circular than round. It is therefore highly unlikely that a circular foot motion is the most efficient way to transfer power from the leg, to a bicycle drive chain.

Indeed 🙂

[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8489/8173325328_162920b728_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8489/8173325328_162920b728_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

deejayen - Member
"Is this Geoff's personal bike, and a one-off?"

It's a one-off bike that Geoff has been refining for the past four or five years. Geoff is not interested in producing bikes as he prefers to go riding. He would be happy if someone else wanted to produce his designs. However the cycle industry has never taken any interest in his ideas.

[b]Surprising when you think that Geoff:[/b]
*was building prototype 650b off-road bikes from 1979
*built his first 700c prototype in 1981/82
*founded the first specialist off-road bicycle company in Europe, Cleland Cycles, in 1982.
*exported the 570b and 700c Finnish snow tyres he used to Marin county frame-builders. (In 1984, Gary Fisher stopped these imports but some builders had copies made and carried on producing bikes. Later, the same Marin based 700c enthusiasts were instrumental in the development of the first 29er tyre, the WTB NanoRaptor).
*developed his own twist grip changer in 1985

Not to mention all the new ideas included in his current bike.

Superficial - Member
Me too, that's what I try and work into my rides. I just don't see how this bike is any good for that - It's appears to be far too upright and too short. Dedicated trials bikes evolved into long/low/relatively slack geometry at least 10 years ago - so don't be fooled into thinking this is some sort of XC / trials hybrid. This is more BMX geometry than anything else.

Geoff now lives in Scotland and likes to ride up streams.

Superficial - Member
I'd love to meet this guy and ride that thing, because I think he's obviously an interesting character. I just don't understand the geometry at all.

Well, I'm not usually one for looking at a side-on photo of a bike and making assumptions about geometry, but anyone can see it's fairly extreme. It's not so much that I want to know what the geometry is, just how he thinks it improves the ride and in which situations it's better. Does it require more/less rider input? If his main goal is riding technical stuff at slow speed, how does it help that?

OK,I think that I will split my answer into two.

First, some underlying physics.
It is counter-intuitive but tall objects fall over more slowly than short ones. This is why a pencil is more difficult to balance on an upturned hand than a broomstick. And the more top heavy an objects is the longer it takes to unbalance. This is a branch of physics called "Inverted Pendulum Theory". A bicycle is a form of 'inverted pendulum' and so taller top heavy bicycles topple over more slowly than shorter ones with a lower Center of Gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pendulum

The next bit of physics is related to the fact that on Cleland bikes, most of the weight is over the rear wheel but is balanced by the side to side movements of the front wheel. Basically, on a bicycle with the rider weight over the front wheel you only need small adjustments of the steering to balance the bike. With the weight at the back you need far bigger movements. i.e.front wheel side to side motion is less likely to unbalance the bike.

Combine these two factors and you have a bike that falls over more slowly and front wheel that can wonder about without upsetting the balance of the bike.

Another benefit of having most of the weight on the back wheel is improved rear wheel traction and a front wheel that rolls over obstacles more easily.

Secondly because I'm feeling lazy, I will cut & paste an owners description of Riding a 1983 Cleland, that was recently posted on RetroBike.

"I find when seated that the upright position is fantastic for being able to look around you. It is much more 'sightsee-ey' than the more normal stretched out mtb position. But that short wheelbase and upright position make it very easy to lift or unweight the front wheel. Handy on rough terrain. But the setup makes the most sense when stood on the pedals. You stand almost bolt upright in a very relaxed and natural position. The similaritys to a trials motorcycle riding position are deliberate. It is difficult to explain how this allows the bike to move around underneath you, but it feels very natural. Geoff also believes that this is a good position for spinal health."

If I had the wherewithal to put a frame together, I'd love to build one of these.

I've got five MTBs and I thought they were all different. Now I feel like they're all the same.

Cheezpleez - Member
If I had the wherewithal to put a frame together, I'd love to build one of these.

You get a close approximation of that geometry by modifying an old suspension bike frame.

Just replace the suspension unit with a solid rod of an appropriate length, and you can dial in your head angle.

The fork then becomes the next hurdle, but again by modifying an old suspension fork into a rigid and locking in the right position you can get close. You can reverse the crown to fiddle with the offset.

The article on Geoff in Privateer was the highlight of the whole publication imo.
Really fascinating.

I thought the whole point of the pedals was to allow a high BB while retaining low CoG, didn't know there were other benefits - interesting.

It feels like that is like one of these:

whilst modern enduro mountain bikes are more like one of these:

Au contraire! The Lancia was how mid-90s bikes rode. Modern trail bikes are like this:

[img] [/img]

epicyclo - Member

Cheezpleez - Member
If I had the wherewithal to put a frame together, I'd love to build one of these.

You get a close approximation of that geometry by modifying an old suspension bike frame.

Just replace the suspension unit with a solid rod of an appropriate length, and you can dial in your head angle.

The fork then becomes the next hurdle, but again by modifying an old suspension fork into a rigid and locking in the right position you can get close. You can reverse the crown to fiddle with the offset.

So I bought an NRS, fitted a longer seat-pin and a long tall stem and a variety of other bits that Geoff was using at the time. Since then I have also built two others.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38236150@N06/6936555047/in/photostream/

The only problem with this is that you have to use 26" wheels and in winter time, fit 1.9" wide tyres, because the mud clearances on the NRS or other mountain bikes are nowhere as good as those on the best Clelands.

I know of quite a few riders who have built their own Cleland style bikes. Probably because, despite the design being around for over 30 years, they can't go out and buy anything remotely like them.

...and back to the thread I started. Not been logged on for a few days, and it's good to see a discussion going on!

I'm hoping to braze up a Cleland style frame over the winter, just need to source an appropriate tube set, and work out if I'm going to bother making a jig, or just bodging it 😉 I also need to find a cheap donor bike with either Nexus or Alfine gears on it.

I found this on eBay:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/carrera-subway8-20-in-frame-alloy-8-speed-needs-work-nice-project-/231374733556?pt=UK_Bikes_GL&hash=item35df0240f4

Sometimes people who specify 'collection only' may be happy to pop the bike into an old unwanted bike box from their LBS, and for the buyer arrange a courier to collect from them.

Also, Giant and Ridgeback made similar Shimano/Nexus inter8/Roller-Brake bikes a few years back.

I love the project. It's the sort of thing that Pashley should try to make (to keep it British), but in reality it's sort of a Jones already. Make it out of titanium, change to fancier forks and sell it for $$$.

Geoff Apps' reasons for choosing big wheels, very low tyre pressures and motorbike inner tubes seem to be the same reasons why people now like fat bikes. So I wonder if Geoff will rethink and rebuild the Landseer to take the massive tyres.

Nice work mudrider!

mark a. - Member
Geoff Apps' reasons for choosing big wheels, very low tyre pressures and motorbike inner tubes seem to be the same reasons why people now like fat bikes. So I wonder if Geoff will rethink and rebuild the Landseer to take the massive tyres.

However,the last time I rode with Geoff in July, he said that he thought that fat-bike tyres where too bouncy and did not have the handling characteristics he was looking for. I would say that his current thinking is more 29er+ based but using narrow rims. So maybe 700c or 650b rims with 3" tyres.

Two years ago I looked into the feasibility of building a fat-bike framed Cleland on which the wheels/tyres could easily be swapped over depending on the riding conditions. I still like the idea, but have no plans at present to build one. Though this could change if I found an off the shelf fat-bike frame with the correct geometry.

Though I like the idea of extra flotation, one issue I have with fat-bike tyres is their high rolling resistance in sloppy mud and potential for building up heavy mud deposits when riding in sticky conditions.

Having larger diameter,narrower tyres is probably the best "one size fits all" solution for a Cleland style bike. Though one frame and a variety of inter-changable wheel sizes sounds ideal, though expensive. Especially for the Rohloff geared bike I am currently working on.