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

[GrahamJohnWallace]

..the sound of sloshing wellies...

....the sound of sloshing wellies... The solution to this is to drill a hole, somewhere between the toes.

I'am disappointed that Geoff can't always digitally shift without stopping. The idea of stopping riding, when the going gets easy, in order to shift to a higher range of gears is familiar. It sounds like the reverse of the Rough Stuff Fellowship philosophy of getting off when the going gets difficult.

Anyway, the idea of off-road pioneers with greasy fingers and water-filled wellies sounds rather heroic to me.

:idea: !Eureka! A hook attached to the wellies, through an oversize, and leaky hole, could solve both shifting and sloshing problems. :idea:

Biopace chainsets... (I think I have one, still in the box, somewhere).

They weren’t elliptical, more parallelogram with rounded corners.

In terms of reducing the dead spot and smoothing the transfer of power, they didn't make sense. I believe that it was just Shimano's way of getting a patent out of an old Victorian idea.

 

[swizz69]

it would make a very good Cleland, except, perhaps for the BB drop.

Ah, okay I see, 2.7" drop - not kind to ground clearance then.

What was the rough spec of the Clelandale out of interest?
Just wondering out loud how you would go about making a fairly conventional frame work as a Cleland would - for example could a longer fork be used to raise the front end/pitch the seat further back over the rear wheel without destroying the general handling of the bike? (by longer fork i'm thinking along the lines of a modern 'suspension corrected' rigid fork being used in a frame not intended for suspension forks).

I'm building a fixie at the moment for road use, but looking beyond that, probably like a few others reading this thread I can see some mileage in building something inspired by one of your bikes. There are enough hills & steeps trails in the vicinity of home to tackle, on something a bit more comfortable that my Tufftrax which is almost always used on tarmac now i've got a young family & lost the urge to scare meself witless

 

[orange71]

Just wondering out loud how you would go about making a fairly conventional frame work as a Cleland would - for example could a longer fork be used to raise the front end/pitch the seat further back over the rear wheel without destroying the general handling of the bike?

Sounds a bit like my Fuquay. The head tube is 8 1/2" :shock: The seat tube is a more standard 21".

 

[swizz69]

Sounds a bit like my Fuquay. The head tube is 8 1/2" Shocked The seat tube is a more standard 21".

That does look tall - the head tube tricks the eye & makes it look more like the 23" Raleighs some of my mates had!

Your Fuguay has a similar riding position to mine (pictured below pre rebuild) bloody uncomfortable off the beaten track, for me anyhow :roll:

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

What was the rough spec of the Clelandale out of interest?

What was the rough spec of the Clelandale out of interest?

:?: I don't know about the Clelandale :?: but this drawing of a Cleland may be of interest.

This is a drawing of my 1988 Highpath Cleland. I am six foot two and the bike has a 13 inch bottom bracket height so this is a tall bike. That makes me seven foot three if I stand on the pedals.

Other interesting features include: a 110 mm wide bottom bracket to allow for straight chain stays, an un-dished rear wheel and an offset rear triangle to centre the wheel in the frame. Also, the freewheel can be removed with an allen key to allow for non-workshop spoke replacement.

It has twelve, non-index, gears the lowest being 18 inches.

 

[Repack Rider]

This thread started with a discussion of the Appetite Seminar, our local 30-year plus annual event which takes place in two days.

I just uploaded my photos from the previous two years to my new photobucket album, but here through the magic of Google Earth is the route.

 

[GeoffApps]

Swizz69 ~

If you're seriously thinking of building yourself a genuine Cleland, I can provide full details, but the information is quite extensive, so may not be suitable for this platform. Perhaps you can give me your email address and I can send it all there. The material is not in sendable form at the moment, so allow 2 or three weeks.

You'll need a very simple workshop and plenty of time. If you're lucky, you can do it for less than £500.

CK ~

OOOOOO, that route looks mmmmmm.


where's the deep mud?
Hope you all have a splendid time!
Give my best to any characters who know of me.

Cheers ~ Geoff

 

[mrkawasaki]

Wandering star

CK,

How was that route devised originally - or did you just make it up for the first one? Looks to be a tough one - how long does it take?

Mr K

 

[Old Ned]

Re: What was the rough spec of the Clelandale out of interes

What was the rough spec of the Clelandale out of interest?

:?: I don't know about the Clelandale :?: but this drawing of a Cleland may be of interest.

This is a drawing of my 1988 Highpath Cleland. I am six foot two and the bike has a 13 inch bottom bracket height so this is a tall bike. That makes me seven foot three if I stand on the pedals.

Other interesting features include: a 110 mm wide bottom bracket to allow for straight chain stays, an un-dished rear wheel and an offset rear triangle to centre the wheel in the frame. Also, the freewheel can be removed with an allen key to allow for non-workshop spoke replacement.

It has twelve, non-index, gears the lowest being 18 inches.

An interesting mix of tubing! How did you manage to source so many different individual tubes? And what made you select the ones you used?

The allen key removable freewheel sounds intriguing. Can you provide details of how this was achieved?

I like this thread, great to find out the 'whys and wherefores' of how bikes were originally designed. Thanks to everyone involved in bringing this info to us all.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Re: What was the rough spec of the Clelandale out of interes

This is a drawing of my 1988 Highpath Cleland.

That's very interesting.

What surprises me is that - on the face of it - the geometry isn't so very far from my '92 Stumpjumper in many ways. The frame angles, wheelbase, and chainstay length are almost identical. The bottom bracket is higher, but the big difference is in the handlebar position. The Cleland's fork is longer, and the head tube is nearly twice as long. It's the handlebar position that's chiefly responsible for the weight shift up and back, not the frame angles.

I realise of course that most other mtb designs of the eighties were very different - long chainstays, slack angles, flat top tube - but your Cleland isn't so very far from, for example, a mid-nineties Kona, again with the exception of that very high bar position.