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

swizz69":13r3nsd2 said:

Thanks for all the info so far & great thread - soz to CK for encouraging the Cleland/Highpath slant - maybe this warrants its own thread?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There is a Geoff Apps and Highpath Thread started by C.K.....

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... sc&start=0

But all the action seems to be happening here!

The link between Jack Taylor, Geoff Apps and Cleland, is of course the Rough Stuff Fellowship.

jack didnt get into mtb's till he copied my bike (ridgeback) he had cyclo cross stuff simply because his bikes were made of girders and unbreakable - made lots of one offs for tv, specially good at tandems and bigger.. his workshops were an aladins cave.. had a little office when someone came to visit - a huge electric heater on the table - you had to have toast and a mug of tea if you went there.. bread cut from a huge mansize loaf with doorstep slices.. didnt ever dare say no thanks.. lol

he had my bike on the jig table for a few days while he blatatly copied the dimensions - but credits due - he didnt stop there - added his own individualistic touches - anything was possible there.. shame it closed down - factory has even been levelled..

yosamite sam":2rgfjwgj said:

lol - that was a good event - they should do it again - remember the first climb? the start went up a VERY deep rutted tractor trail - couldnt even walk up it! you would of gone to the dudley arms in ingleby greenhow probably - down the long gravel path near the camp site..

Click to expand...

That certainly sounds like the pub and that first climb was the stuff of nightmares, literally pushing one step forward and slithering two to three back. I also remember coming down a stream bed through the clouds with almost no visibility, hearing canti squeal and just being able to stop before hitting a five barred gate. Innocent days

ededwards":3cvn5udo said:

yosamite sam":3cvn5udo said:

lol - that was a good event - they should do it again - remember the first climb? the start went up a VERY deep rutted tractor trail - couldnt even walk up it! you would of gone to the dudley arms in ingleby greenhow probably - down the long gravel path near the camp site..

Click to expand...

That certainly sounds like the pub and that first climb was the stuff of nightmares, literally pushing one step forward and slithering two to three back. I also remember coming down a stream bed through the clouds with almost no visibility, hearing canti squeal and just being able to stop before hitting a five barred gate. Innocent days

Click to expand...

thats the famous 'incline' rises from 0-500 ft in a straight line - was an old railway track - it had a winch on the top its that steep - right near camp - not many have rode that - toooo dangerous

Re: I also ride Moultons

one-eyed_jim":u3vvzpsx said:

GrahamJohnWallace":u3vvzpsx said:

I've got a 1986 AM7, and a 1992 Pashley built APB.

Click to expand...

There are a few obvious parallels between Moultons and Clelands of course (and I'm not just thinking about the head tube length! )

Click to expand...

Here is a concept drawing for a Cleland/Moulton/Pederson/ re-invent the wheel suspension system. It dates from 1993 and is based on Newton’s laws of motion and the physics were tested through experiments with radio controlled models. It was never built.

Would it work? Well, yes and no.

With a few tweaks of its proportions, it would achieve what I set out to do. Namely to design a suspension system in which the various rotational forces and reaction forces were held in equilibrium and other forces like chain tension, were isolated. I worked out that it would also need RockShock SID type pre-loadable springs (not available at the time).

On the other hand, the geometry is a disaster. Braking forces are not isolated from the suspension and the bike could stall suddenly if the rear wheel hit a large bump when travelling at low speeds. The cost of making a prototype, and my understanding of its flaws, were the main reasons why it was never built. (Look up Klien Manta, for information on the issues with high pivot suspension designs)

Notice that it does not have a Cleland riding position. This is because moving the centre of gravity, back and up, increases the vertical components of the propulsion forces, which would further exacerbate the design problems.

Unlike the Giant NRS system in which equilibrium is maintained through chain tension + pre-loaded springs, this idea uses the torque reaction from the rear wheel. This was not a new idea at the time. I remember that Joe Breeze used this in his "Sweet-spot" designs.


Yes, it has two chains, one running inside the seat stay. The gearing is based on the "Osgear" derailleur system and is designed change gear whether forward or back-pedalling. The entire drive system is designed to be totally enclosed.

Unlike Geoff Apps who turns his ideas into real machines that work, I just think up I ideas, lots of them. I might even post some more if anyone’s interested.

yosamite sam":1kyvbbjo said:

yea - i had a vitus 979 dural at the time - couldnt afford the carbon one - bout a grand then!! sold it to a guy down cornwall for 400 squid - 2nd hand i thought that was a good deal but in reflection - it did have suntour superb pro gear fitted - had to sell an arm to buy thats stuff..

man we had some good days - people were amazed to see bikes on the moors and we had a lot of problems as well - there were probs with access even on bridleways! walkers just wanted to kill you or stare at you blankly... lol.. iv still got some old magazines from the time somewhere kickin about - 1st editions - i kept em - and 2nd editions.. read em from time to time..

Click to expand...

Hi there. Nice to hear of other early users of the NY Moors. Me and my friends were using the Southern and Western parts of the moors from 1985 onwards. In contrast to the reaction you received from walkers- we were usually met with slight bemusement and friendly smiles and amazement that such young lads had got so far into the Moors on Bicycles! Back I'm those days you never saw other bikes up there- funny to think that just a few miles over the other side of the hills you lot were exploring in the same fashion- almost like the Repack mob on one side of Marin and the Morris Dirt Club on the other side!
Also remember the Boltby Bash very well- my mate took part on his brothers brakeless Raleigh Bomber. We kinda 'borrowed' a friends dads Transit van ( he ran a veg shop and it stank of cabbage!) which we got stuck on the drove road near Paradise Farm just to the north of Boltby. We were stuck all weekend until a farmer pulled us out.
Happy days indeed!

Si

A thread has filaments, and the filaments of this thread seem to be coming unravelled!

Fascinating!

GeoffApps":39hfbliu said:

A thread has filaments, and the filaments of this thread seem to be coming unravelled!

Fascinating!

Click to expand...

:shock: : Does this mean I can now go off at a tangent and talk about carbon fibre? :shock:

swizz69":2earp9od said:

wondering about putting longer forks on an old steel frame to raise the bb.

Click to expand...

One problem with that approach is that the bottom bracket is nearer the rear end than the front. Every inch you extend the fork only gains you a centimetre of bottom bracket elevation. Meanwhile you're slackening the head and seat angles by about half a degree per centimetre of extra fork length. That'll help get your weight back on the rear wheel, but you may find it plays hell with the steering.

swizz69":3jukax39 said:

wondering about putting longer forks on an old steel frame to raise the bb.

Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn’t particularly mind riding a Cleland that had a standard bottom-bracket height as long as the bikes other characteristics weren’t effected. It would more readily ground when riding down ruts, and your pedals and feet might get muddier, but that's no big deal.

The high bottom-bracket is a feature that puts off some riders when they first ride Clelands and though it's part of the overall experience, it's by no means essential.