Build your own Cleland
by Geoff Apps
On the Pre-Order page it seems the production Aventuras won’t come cheap, if there ever is a production run. Whatever, you could choose to build your own.
You won’t save much money, although you will know exactly how it’s all gone together, and you could spread the cost over the project time-frame. I’ve designed, built and developed the AventuraTT prototype over two years (at the time of writing: January 2011) and my resources amount to an average tool kit, a workroom measuring about 2.5m X 3m and an annual income below £7000.
However, I am very lucky in having the services of a very talented retired machinist, Harry Haworth, who produces nearly all the specialist components that are critical to the efficiency of the AventuraTT, and which make the machine so innovative. Generally speaking, it is extremely difficult to find a machinist or engineer who is prepared to take on any more work; even then, you are lucky to get anything out of them, for any amount of money. A professional and skilled machinist will charge a considerable amount of money, which is generally well-earned, whereas Harry is retired, and so can work within a relatively low budget.
If there proves to be demand, during this year I’ll begin posting information about the various component options you have; whether they’re available second-hand, from a bike store, created by an engineer or available direct from Cleland Cycles. I’ll also discuss the reasoning behind the selection of particular components and any modifications that may be necessary.
June 29 2011
Yesterday I went for a ride with someone who has built his own version of a Cleland with 26″ wheels, disc brakes and derailleur gears, based around a trials frame. It’s still being worked on with regard to various aspects of the build, including mudguards and chain protection. However, we had so many breakdowns and adjustments to do, that we abandoned the ride after about 4 miles of riding. It reminded me of the many abandoned rides during the early months of 2010, tweaking the AventuraTT into the reliable machine it is now.
If you are contemplating such a project, please use the comments facility to raise issues you’d like to clarify.
BACK TO TOP or return to HOME PAGE
It’s in point of fact a great and useful piece of info. I’m happy that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
HI Geoff, David Whittam from NZ here. We met in 1984/85 when I was working with Muddy Fox in London. I recall a trip to the Wendover Bash and various escapades around Llanwrtyd Wells , etc. with Jeremy Torr, David Wrath-Sharman, Richard Ballantyne and others. Good times.
Reading about the 650B conversions reminded of my first 29″er, built in 2001. I used a Surly 1×1 frameset, after realising that there was clearance (just) for the WTB Nanoraptor, the only 29″ tyre at that time. Fitting the larger wheels to a frameset designed for 26″ wheels certainly gave a noticably higher BB. Obviously even higher than with 650B dirt tyres, which weren’t an option back then.
Once the Van Dessel Buzz Bomb (and soon after that, the Surly Karate Monkey) came along, I had no reason to continue with the modified 1×1, as I was always of the belief that bigger wheels were better, when it came to off-road riding.
Maybe someone might like to try this idea again, with the Cleland approach to riding/handling in mind. It’s much easier to achive the conversion now, as disc brakes make fitting another wheel size effortless, whereas back then, it involved re-jigging rim brake mounts and/or adding disc mounts.
Hi David, Geoff is away for a while so I will reply on his behalf. I was also at the Wendover bashes and used to regularly visit the Cycle Logical shop in London so our tracks will have crossed.
Geoff has given me the task of researching the suitability of a, yet to be launched, bike that looks like it should be able to form the basis of a 29er self-build Cleland. We are always on the lookout for suitable designs that will meet the exacting standards that we require, but this bike looks like a match for geometry and also has very good mud clearances around its tyres. Keep watching here for developments but my current thinking is that we would provide a short list of parts needed to convert this bike to Cleland spec but would also need to produce some of the more specialist parts ourselves.
Best wishes,
Graham.
A bit more research shows that the 16″ version scandal frame has (or can have) a 72 degree steering angle. Brant, I hope, will be sending me some technical details today. The AventuraTT prototype does have slightly too slack an angle, and this can be seen in the Birthday ride video, when I point to my right while climbing. An example of steering flop, and not really a problem most of the time. For example, I didn’t notice the flop occur until I saw the rushes. It is only a steep climb with a narrow course that will show it up. The slower you go, the more critical the handling characteristics.
Hiya Geoff & Graham,
Here’s another frame with a feature you may like – swapable dropouts like the TT. It’s British too (though probably welded elsewhere) The On One Inbred:- http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/FROOIN26V3/on_one_inbred_swap_out_frame
I’ve looked carefully at both the Surly and On-One frames.
The Surly frames have a hanger drop of 55mm, which means that to get sufficient ground clearance/high CG, the frame would have to be tilted back, which would slacken the steering angle and introduce steering flop.
Generally speaking flop is no problem descending or (to some extent) on the level, but the moment you begin to climb the steering begins flopping from side to side. The longer the climb, the more this becomes an issue, especially if your line is quite precise; in other words, to avoid hitting something that’s going to stop you, you need very accurate steering.
The steering angle on the On-One frame is 70 degrees, which is not good news. Slacker angles for the steering have been favoured in recent years to allow for the compression of suspension forks, which occurs the moment you get on the bike, but really affects handling when descending and front end braking. Put both these actions together and you get a very steep SA and a shortened trial dimension, which has a similar (but not the same) effect as steering flop.
When climbing with sus forks, it is important to throw your weight as far forward as possible because otherwise the forks are fully extended and the inevitable flop is made worse.
This is ONE of the reasons I do not particularly want suspension forks; with solid forks you always have predictable steering characteristics. I reckon to aim for something around 72 – 73 degrees, and this can be achieved by starting with a frame designed for 24″ wheels. When you design your new rear drop-outs for 29″ wheels, you can tilt the back end up slightly to steepen the steering angle.
When you design your new rear drop-outs for 29″ wheels, you can tilt the back end up slightly to steepen the steering angle.
Was pondering whether that was possible with the On-One with its swapable dropouts but 3 degrees sounds like a lot to make up for, esp’ if longer forks were necessary.
I suppose to get the full package only a made for the job frame will tick all those boxes :>/
The only mtb’s with high BBs appear to be some of the full susser’s & have seen the pics of Grahams NRS on the Flickr stream – is that an avenue worth pursuing for homebuilders do y’think?
P.S: Googling around I did come across something interesting & on the way there with the angles in the form of a Trials frame made by Pashley of all people – the 26Hz – now discontinued (saying that, shouldn’t be too surprised Pashley made it given that they have made a few unconventional bikes over the years)
Have you ever pitched your ideas to Pashley, Geoff?
After our ride over Minch Moor on the Innerleithen Red Route, Jez Turner is going to write his views over the next few days. He seemed quite surprised at the handling and his comments were generally positive. Although we both agreed that the weight of the prototype is not exactly a problem, it would be a great benefit if it could be got down to normal MTB levels. Unfortunately, that won’t happen until lots of £s come this way!
What of the weight of the 1981 Cleland Aventura?
From what I can see, the triangulation was done so as to use then available road bike tubing(no mountain bike tubing available at the time) in such a way that it can withstand offroad conditions without too much hassle. The frame was additionally reenforced in critical areas such as the headtube and the seat cluster. This should lead to a lighweight frame.
A framebuilder who aims to imitate the ’81 Cleland (more likely Graham Wallace’s Highpath/Cleland version) could change out the headtube and fork to use a 1 1/8″ headset, but that is about as much modification that is needed to improve that frame design.
Hi Ivan,
Though I do not know the exact weight of the 1981 (29er) Aventura prototype my 1983 Cleland/Highpath (650b) bike weighs 36lbs. Though adding a brooks sprung saddle could add 3lbs or more.
6lbs of the 36 is the weight of the heavy duty tyres and inner-tubes and the fork crown is virtualiy a solid lump of cast metal. Modern tyres/tubes are much lighter. The use of shielded disk-brakes and computer aided stress testing of the frame and components could easily produce a Cleland that weighs less than 25lbs.
I am gradually working towards putting such a machine together.
I hope this helps,
Graham.
Hi Geoff & Graham
I followed your discussions on Retrobikes a few years ago with some interest & it’s great to see how busy you both have been with the TT & NRS!
On retrobikes I mentioned a frame from Surly that used 29er tyres, but which you said was unsuitable due to the low BB. I’ve just had another look n their site and seen this – the Troll – http://surlybikes.com/bikes/troll
It’s designed for up to 26×2.7″ tyres and comparing the 18″ framesize in particular, isn’t a mile away from the dimensions of the Highpath Cleland.
Any use to your home builders?
Ian…
Hi Ian, Thanks for the info.
Geoff and I are interested in the Surly frames because of the large tyre/frame clearances they offer, even with large wheel sizes. The problem is usually that the resultant bottom bracket height is often lower than we ideally require. I will look into this with regards to the Troll. Having a suitable stock frame would allow us to publish some “build your own Cleland instructions” for anyone who may be interested.
Thanks,
Graham.
Hiya Graham & thanks for your reply in return.
Just for another option I came across this >>> http://gallery.mtbr.com/showphoto.php/photo/194971/si/650
It’s another Surly – the 1×1 which looks pretty similar to the Troll apart from having track-ends instead at the rear. This one has been fitted with 650b rims which may help with the BB height a little.
Would a longer fork upset the geometry too much?
Hi Ian,
Interesting, The bottom bracket height on that 650b 1×1 looks pretty good.
Very subtle changes in geometry can result in several marked changes to the dynamics of a bike so the overall effect of lengthening the forks is difficult to predict. Especially as the rake/trail of new forks may also be different.
I own five different Cleland style bikes and though geometrically very similar, they are subtly different. For instance they each have different climbing capabilities with my 1983 Aventura being able to out-climb my 1988 Highpath. I really ought to work out why but that could take some time to do as the variations between the bikes, though small, are many. To understand the effect of changes you really need to restrict yourself to one change at a time.
When putting together a new Cleland design I tend to copy the geometries of known machines in the hope that positive characteristics will be inherited. Therefore, when I study the Surly frames I will be looking for the similarities and differences when compared with existing Cleland machines.
…and another here >>>
http://tennesseemountainbike.com/board/showthread.php?13351-Surly-1×1-650B-project-complete!&highlight=650b
…side view >>>
http://img280.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=610399359_IMAG0089_122_471lo.jpg
Hello Ian ~
I read your blog about the AventuraTT on http://lazybicycleblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/cleland-now-for-something-completely.html. Thanks for your appreciation. The comments proved most interesting, being a discussion between one who gets it and one who clearly doesn’t. Your co-respondent mentioned that he was unconvinced that the AventuraTT would be capable of completing the Black Route at Innerleithen. Well, for the first time, I’m going to ride the Red Route on Monday, and I’ll have a shot at the black bits. I probably won’t be very fast, but speed alone holds no virtue for me. On the other hand, I am a (near) pensioner with arthritic knees and a smoking habit. I’ll post how it went.
Hiya Geoff,
The Co-respondent pops up on a few other local cycling blogs. He seems an alright bloke on the whole but can come across as a bit blinkered sometimes ;>D
Can’t wait to hear how you get on downhilling on Monday!
Ian…
P.S: The book mentioned in the blog post by Charlie Kelly & Nick Crane – I still have (or rather have since obtained another copy). Reading the chapter that describes the anatomy of the US bikes in the early ’80s, it’s interesting to note that the early Cannondale’s had higher bottom brackets for a similar reason to yours – because of the local environment that they were designed for. The is also a nod towards the practicality of drum brakes with muddy trails, even though they were never pursued by anyone else. I guess the quest for speed & saving a few grams was seen as a higher priority.
Just returned from Innerleithen. It’s the first time I’ve ridden a designated trail; I thought I’d woken up in heaven. We rode the Red Route over Minch Moor, as far as the diversion, which turned out to be a longish distance of broad forest road; a bit boring, so we rode in the gully alongside it (virgin terrain). Then we came across some downhill routes and went down one called ‘Brake and/or (something, can’t remember)’, further down it is called ‘Double D’. After that we re-joined the Red Route for the final yomp down to the car park. AventuraTT had a wonderful time. Jez Turner, who guided me around, had several goes on the Cleland, while I rode his Specialized. This is the kind of thing we could only dream about back in the 70s and 80s.
Sounds good Geoff – what did Jez make of your Aventura?
(for my reply to this see the comment above ~ Geoff)
For the skate plate, I have noticed that during the 90s, there was a fad of incorporating skate-plates to BMX frames.
Reportedly, GT and Kore sold bolt on versions, that bolted onto the downtube and the chainstays (in a manner similar to a kickstand). Apparently, GT’s version is still sold in places (link: http://www.probikeshop.com/gt-bash-guard-chainset-protector-trial-20/18063.html ).
While this version does not provide the mud blocking abilities of the Cleland version, this does provide a template for building up a Cleland version that can be retrofitted to existing frames.
I never thought of it that way, well put!
As an update to my prior comment, by happenstance, I found a lugged diamond framed mountain bike frame with true 24″ wheels and not much else. Over the course of several weekends, I rehabilitated the bicycle, adding tall BMX handlebars as well as fenders built for 26″ wheels, as well as setting it up as a fixed wheel.
Although having to retain the fender stays, the size mismatch between 24″ wheels and 26″ fenders allowed significant amounts of tire clearance, with the fender skirts providing additional crud coverage. The small frame and tall handlebars allowed me to throw the bike up, on, and over obstacles, which was something that was apparently impossible for a first time fixed wheel user!
Here are some photographs of the bike:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29981764@N04/5607771232/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29981764@N04/5607189937/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29981764@N04/5607779318/
Pingback: Here it is… | Cleland Cycles
Hi
I’ve only just discovered Cleland Cycles but have spent the last 18 months designing a bike for my 50th birthday. I wanted it to be a ride every day bike , on and off road, with an upright riding position, hub gears, chunky tyres, mudguards, a rack, lights etc.
I eventually managed to find someone who could make the frame for me.
Here’s a couple of pictures of the bike the day it arrived. It now has full length mudguards fitted. Thought you might be interested.
Nick
[img]http://www.zen202900.zen.co.uk/bike/pics/IMG_2167.JPG[/img]
[img]http://www.zen202900.zen.co.uk/bike/pics/IMG_2168.JPG[/img]
Hello Nick ~
That’s a nice build, how is it riding? How did you tackle the fitting of the mudguards without radial stays, or was that the method you used? Send some more pictures to me at geoff@cleland-cycles.co.uk
Hi,
I am writing from Colombia, and I am starting to muddle about building up a not-quite-a-Cleland out of a rigid variation of a Y-frame mountain bike with sufficient clearances (~40mm tire to crown/brake bridge, and 12mm sidewall to chainstay/fork blade from what I recall from Graham Wallace’s diagram), modified with BMX handlebars and stem. Its a low end frame, so I’m not exactly afraid of destroying it or making drastic modifications to it. The Y-frame opens up space between the front wheel and the frame to properly fit fenders without worrying about interference with the frame.
Then I’ll be adding BMX fenders taped to regular fenders, with a thin tall steel rack in the back supporting the rear fender, in order to keep the fenders stayless much like the Cleland Aventura.
At the present, aside from disk brakes, there isn’t much in the way of locally available hub brakes, although following discussions on Retrobikes, there is an understanding that mechanical disks may have adequate modulation to work well enough in comparison with the roller brakes that you use. The bike comes with V-brakes, and those will be used until suitable hub brakes are installed.
For the matter of the chainguard (the external geared Highpath version), from the various photographs, I take it that it serves as a “fender” to the chain, protecting the top run from the mud all the way to the rear hub, starting from the actual rear mudguard. It curves over the chain, so as to protect it from mud falling off the rear fender, as well as protecting the trousers from any muck the chain picked up, which it does in conjunction with the chainring chainguard The bottom run is protected by the bashplate which screens the chain from the rear tire. The top run is optimised to the large cog – granny ring combination, while the bottom run is optimised to middle of the cogset – big ring. Notable the whole setup is placed between the chainstay and the tire, and is bolted onto the frame braze-ons, and in order for the setup to work at all, it requires a front fender with an exceptionally long mudflap, one that nearly dragging the ground.
Am I following along right?
It’s quite a good idea to experiment with a bike you don’t mind making modifications to; you’ll find it can become a constant process. From what you say, it sounds like you are following the general theme well.
By fitting BMX handlebars to a mountain bike, you will immediately begin to appreiate the Cleland riding posture. Bringing the handlebar closer to the saddle is as important as their height. The aim is to achieve the upright posture that suits you.
Roller brakes provide worry-free low-maintenance braking in all conditions. However, as you rightly say, mechanically operated disc brakes can provide the required modulation, and they’re relatively easy to service and repair.
Your understanding of the function and layout of the chainguard is spot-on. It can be made from any material, so long as it works; some people have experimented by cutting up empty plastic oil containers and making best use of their moulded shapes.
You also see how the mudguards, skate plate and chainguard all work together to keep the chain and derailleur system protected from gloop. The mudflap on the front fender should be as long as it needs to be; if it’s too long, it may catch on rocks and steps – not a problem, but very irritating.
The most important thing is to be out riding and keep maintenance to a minimum. If the conditions are muddy, then a bike designed for the Californian climate will obviously not be suitable.
Send some photos when you’ve got going! You can email them to geoff@cleland-cycles.co.uk