Jack Taylor 'Rough Stuff' 1979 (1953-1974)

Hello Swizz69 ~

Wait till I upload the 1980 Range Rider Photo, to be followed by the 1982/3 version, you'll see how crappy that '79 machine was. Nevertheless it took me places I hadn't been before, and gave me confidence to move forward with the design. Up until then I'd been told I was wasting my time. Even the guy who made it thought it was silly and kept advising me to make it more conventional. Doubt he'd admit that now. Ha!

Cheers, and thanks for your words ~ Geoff

yes , great stories .

I love this kind of stuff fascinating

Its like discovering a parallel universe.

Fascinating!

A high-powered mutant?

"One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die...''

This sounds like Geoff Apps' 1981/82 29er Range Rider prototype: :!:

High (definitely) and high powered: 28 teeth front:34 teeth rear :roll: Spockets :roll: & 180mm cranks for extra leverage.

700c tyres that were so scarce that the bikes were never even considered for mass production.

wierd: wonderful and still in working order :?:

(at least it was a couple of years back)

P.S.

Is it me, or did the world just get a little bit smaller?

1979 and all that

A bit more on the history of the Cleland Designs; before ever I could contemplate building a prototype, partly because I was doing a lot of motorcycle trials, I used to draw up ideas. One of these turned up a while ago and I present it to you now.
This would have been in the period 1970 - 75 and the motorcycle influence can clearly be seen. However, there are some remarkable prescient elements. The mock petrol tank was for carrying tools and bits and bobs. Thats not a single-speed, there is a hub gear there (or in my head, at any rate). Look at the very short rear-end.
This design also has elements that came out in my Dingbat design, notably the wheels/tyres ~ 24" front and rear, but the rear is smaller and fatter. On the Dingbat the sizes were 63-424 rear and 44-531 front; rare indeed! You can see a picture of DB on the Cleland Website, and I've got another photo somewhere, which I'll track down and post here later.

Anyway, here is my sketch from a time before I knew much about bicycle design

swizz69 wrote:

swizz69 wrote: And Geoff, great bike & a fascinating history. I''m surprised the concept of such a machine hasn't already found a market in the same way Pashleys bikes do for a small segment of the marketplace. It looks like a discerning machine well suited to those who don't wish to rush anywhere - but get literally 'wherever' if that makes any sense. A lot of function rather than fashion.

Click to expand...

I believe the reason why Geoff's design never took up its rightful place as an alternative approach to off-road cycling is mainly down to two things.
1/ 1983-4, when Geoff marketed his designs was simply too early and he didn't have the financial resources or backing to fight for a place in the emerging market.
2/ Geoff's solution, the result of years of testing, wasn't understood by the people who saw his bikes. (This included me). Aesthetically, people related drop handlebars and no mudguards with cycle sport, modernity and speed. Geoff’s bikes had too many design cues from an older and more practical age of cycling.

Though Geoff's bikes share many of the same characteristics as Mountain Bikes, they never shared the same purpose or ethos. The modern Mountain Bike, with its low riding position and suspension has moved the two concepts even further apart. I love both equally. However, they sit at opposite ends of the same spectrum.

The Cleland design is more concerned with reliability and being able to ride across extremely challenging terrain, than racing and speed.
They also have a high comfort and low maintenance philosophy. They can be toured for days on end in wet and muddy conditions without the usual problems: discomfort, muddy clothes, mud induced breakdowns, wheel clogging etc.

Clelands are great fun. They are like a massive 650b wheeled BMX's they allow the rider to use the rider to utilise their body weight in a very BMX manner. They will perform tricks that are impossible my modern Giant NRS Carbon, and vice versa.

The upright riding position gives the impression that they are slow, in fact, in the right conditions they can move extremely swiftly. Their tyre pressures are run very low as an extremely efficient form of high frequency suspension. This gives each of them a footprint of up to 12 square inches and makes them very fast on soft ground. I changed bikes from my FW Evans ATB (Ritchey copy made by Saracen), to a Cleland, back in 1985 because on the Evans, I found it difficult to keep up.

I continue to ride my Clelands because they’re capable, reliable and fun, not because they're old and rare.

If the mainstream MTBs are the rally cars of the bicycle world then the Clelands are the tractors. It’s about time that someone started making them again, there must be a market for people who want to ride off-road in comfort, with a straight back and an unrestricted view of the countryside around them.

1979 and all that

And now for the 1980 Range Rider.
A word or two about hub brakes:
There are three kinds: Drum, disc and roller (there are also the coaster and band brake, but we can disregard them for now)
I have acquired a reputation for being an advocate for drum brakes to the exclusion of all other forms, but I am not. At the time I was going on about brakes, I kept talking about 'hub brakes' and the only ones around then were, indeed, drum brakes. My view is (and was) the brake is better at the hub than at the rim, for a number of reasons, and this could be the topic of a separate thread.
Drum brakes in general proved more or less useless for off-road use in our damp and muddy conditions. On the whole, better than rim brakes, and when drum brake worked well, they were suberb, but that could be rare.
The drum brakes on this machine were different to others, and this is rather technical, so I won't go into details (unless asked), but believe me, these brakes worked consisently, quietly and easily. They were not without problems to do with manufacture and supply. Nuff sed?
I love roller brakes nowadays.

Anyway, any questions, anyone?

.

Was your approach to geometry based on mobility and the 'feel of the rider' - the designs look like they support the standing position of a motorcycle trials rider - as opposed to trying to advance traditional bike frames like track or road formats, where the rider is static or prone for aerodynamics and stability?

Mr K