Variomatic scooter tranmissions

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic mounted
in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda downhill
bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with a countershaft
between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I wondered why not use
a DAF type variomatic transmission, and wondered how efficient they
were.

they were not efficient, and suffered from a limited gearrange. Just try
pushing one through the workshop! (however they are fun to drive, esp
the older ones (55) which do not have a differential)
Smaller drives are found in industrial machinery (mixers, drills etc),
but for bike like torque you'll need a big one.
The VDT pushbelt drive was develloped to improve on the variomatic
shortcomings

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic
mounted in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda
downhill bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with a
countershaft between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I
wondered why not use a DAF type variomatic transmission, and wondered
how efficient they were.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So....

Does anyone know where in the UK one might get hold of one of these
things (ideally off a scrapped scooter, and cheap) to play with?

Off a scrapped scooter?

It's a good idea. I remember thinking about it, but I can't recall what I
came up with. Still, it has to be >95% efficient for bikes, and I'd have
thought even low power scooters would be happy with 85%, so who knows.
--
Ambrose

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, more interestingly, I found that
Variomatic transmissions based on the old DAF design are widely used in
low-powered motor-scooters on engine sizes down to 30cc. This means that
(i) they can be miniaturised and (ii) they must be reasonably efficient.
I've found this
<URL:http://www.scooterpartsdepot.com/web_gas/x1_Pocketbike_transmission.htm>
in the States which makes it look as though the cones are in the boxy
part downstream of the reduction gear, and thus low revs, high torque,
ideal for push-bike adaptation.

FSVO low revs, high torque - have you seen the size of the wheels on those
things?

A bike rider can relatively easily generate 100 lb ft or 140 Nm of torque -
that's about the same as a medium-sized car engine. (the difference being
that a bike rider can't do that at high speed).

You also know how fast little scooters accelerate - that's a clue for how
much torque they're generating even after the reduction gear.

Ie I reckon you'll break it very quickly, especially mountain biking.

That said, free-ads is probably the place to look for one of these.

cheers,
clive

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But, more interestingly, I found that
Variomatic transmissions based on the old DAF design are widely used
in low-powered motor-scooters on engine sizes down to 30cc.

Ie I reckon you'll break it very quickly, especially mountain biking.

Oh, yes, I expect so. The objective of starting with something someone is
manufacturing already is to have something to play with, see if the
fundamental concept works (chiefly efficiency, but also how you can
servo the belt movement), and see what components one would have to
manufacture.

Quoted message said:

That said, free-ads is probably the place to look for one of these.

'spect so. But there must be specialist scooter breakers and scrapyards
somewhere.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

m-gineering said:

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic mounted
in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda downhill
bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with a countershaft
between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I wondered why not use
a DAF type variomatic transmission, and wondered how efficient they
were.

they were not efficient, and suffered from a limited gearrange. Just try
pushing one through the workshop! (however they are fun to drive, esp
the older ones (55) which do not have a differential)
Smaller drives are found in industrial machinery (mixers, drills etc),
but for bike like torque you'll need a big one.
The VDT pushbelt drive was develloped to improve on the variomatic
shortcomings

Having worked as a consultant for VDT many years ago the belt has to be
under quite a bit of tension and that makes for needing a very strong
thick belt to transmit the power and take the tension. I suspect it
would tranfer to a bicycle but not is a way that would make it an
attractive solution. I currently sometimes drive a variomatic on a Ford
Fiesta.

There have been many many attempts at everything from automatic
gearboxes to variable drives on bikes but none have passed the real life
test to widespread adoption - yet.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does

8<...

There's a simple reason variable cone drives aren't used on bicycles:
they're quite inefficient. I've worked with them as industrial speed control
solutions, both in elastonomer belt and metal linkage ('edge drive'😉 form.
There are a couple of things to remember - they can't be changed (or
designed to be changed easily) when static - OK when you have a clutch
between the output and driven load, but diffiucult otherwise. Secondly, both
ends of the drive have to change to take up slack, causing load.

Remember that the belt stays the same length, so both pulleys have to be
dynamic. That leads to one usually being spring loaded to throw the belt out
and take up the slack. This action causes load - some drives currently
manufactured by the likes of Lenze get quite hot as a result.

HTH

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
Look, mum, an anorak on a bike! Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

Tony Raven said:

m-gineering said:

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic
mounted in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda
downhill bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with
a countershaft between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I
wondered why not use a DAF type variomatic transmission, and
wondered how efficient they were.

they were not efficient, and suffered from a limited gearrange. Just
try pushing one through the workshop! (however they are fun to
drive, esp the older ones (55) which do not have a differential)
Smaller drives are found in industrial machinery (mixers, drills
etc), but for bike like torque you'll need a big one.
The VDT pushbelt drive was develloped to improve on the variomatic
shortcomings

Having worked as a consultant for VDT many years ago the belt has to
be under quite a bit of tension and that makes for needing a very
strong thick belt to transmit the power and take the tension. I
suspect it would tranfer to a bicycle but not is a way that would
make it an attractive solution. I currently sometimes drive a
variomatic on a Ford Fiesta.

There have been many many attempts at everything from automatic
gearboxes to variable drives on bikes but none have passed the real
life test to widespread adoption - yet.

I had a Triumph T10 scooter 22 years ago with variable transmission. It was
driven by a rubber band that sat between the conical clutch plates, which
were forced apart by weights which moved away from the spindle as the revs
increased. It was [censored].
I should think that the weight and the high revs required would make it
totally useless on a bicycle. It was only just viable on the T10.
At traffic lights you were supposed to stand up to release a switch under
the seat, thus disengaging the drive. This didn't work, so unless you sat
tight with brakes jammed fimly on, the scooter would leap forward from
between your legs, and do an un-pilotted wheely through the red lights, and
over the junction.
Oh the fun I had!
--

Martin Bulmer

http://www.nacc.org.uk/content/nurses/petition.asp?e=20

Tony Raven said:

There have been many many attempts at everything from automatic
gearboxes to variable drives on bikes but none have passed the real life
test to widespread adoption - yet.

Not widespread, but the automatics do appear to work okay. I used one
on an R&M Equinox (a semi recumbent designed for people who wanted a
minimum of fuss, sort of high tech revamp of a classic Roadster) that
Ben had in as a demo. It was (IIRC) 4 speed and you could set it for
sporty or "normal" and there were electronic push-buttons for a manual
override. I found the changes weren't in /quite/ the right spots for me
but the manual meant no problem, and the changes were in /reasonable/
places. Given the target market for the bike I'd say it was a pretty
good bit of kit as many people are Scooby-Free when it comes to bike
gear use.
I would imagine these would have a much greater takeup in places like
Germany because they're not labouring under the misapprehension that all
bikes are meant to be sports equipment.

I see from Pashley's spec sheets that a 4 speed automatic is one of the
options on the APB Moultons they do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic mounted
in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda downhill
bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with a countershaft
between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I wondered why not use
a DAF type variomatic transmission, and wondered how efficient they
were.

The benefits, from a cycle design point of view, are that the input shaft
and the output shaft rotate in the same direction, so you don't need to
gear off a countershaft. So I did a bit of web searching to find out
whether a variomatic type transmission had ever been tried in a pedal
cycle, whether it could be made small enough, and whether it could be
made efficient enough.

Apparently, belt-and-opposed-cone transmissions have been tried in pedal
cycles, see
<URL:http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/old_derail.htm> (about a
quarter of the way down). But, more interestingly, I found that
Variomatic transmissions based on the old DAF design are widely used in
low-powered motor-scooters on engine sizes down to 30cc. This means that
(i) they can be miniaturised and (ii) they must be reasonably efficient.
I've found this
<URL:http://www.scooterpartsdepot.com/web_gas/x1_Pocketbike_transmission.htm>
in the States which makes it look as though the cones are in the boxy
part downstream of the reduction gear, and thus low revs, high torque,
ideal for push-bike adaptation. Furthermore, if, following the Nucleon
idea, you placed the driving cone on the bottom bracket axle and the
driven cone concentric with the swing arm pivot, you would have no
primary drive losses, and a fixed length rear chain which means that the
chain run could be enclosed in the swing arm and protected from
environmental dirt and damage.

So....

Does anyone know where in the UK one might get hold of one of these
things (ideally off a scrapped scooter, and cheap) to play with?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

Sounds like an interesting idea!

Internal transmission has to be the way forward, especially for
mountain bikes!

Aren't the revs a lot higher on engined bikes however? Doesn't this
system rely on centrifugal force etc?

If you do a search on 'Variomatic stepless gears' on this forum there's
some info.

Good luck!

Regards,

Nick

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic mounted
in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda downhill
bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with a countershaft
between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I wondered why not use
a DAF type variomatic transmission, and wondered how efficient they
were.

The benefits, from a cycle design point of view, are that the input shaft
and the output shaft rotate in the same direction, so you don't need to
gear off a countershaft. So I did a bit of web searching to find out
whether a variomatic type transmission had ever been tried in a pedal
cycle, whether it could be made small enough, and whether it could be
made efficient enough.

Apparently, belt-and-opposed-cone transmissions have been tried in pedal
cycles, see
<URL:http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/old_derail.htm> (about a
quarter of the way down). But, more interestingly, I found that
Variomatic transmissions based on the old DAF design are widely used in
low-powered motor-scooters on engine sizes down to 30cc. This means that
(i) they can be miniaturised and (ii) they must be reasonably efficient.
I've found this
<URL:http://www.scooterpartsdepot.com/web_gas/x1_Pocketbike_transmission.htm>
in the States which makes it look as though the cones are in the boxy
part downstream of the reduction gear, and thus low revs, high torque,
ideal for push-bike adaptation. Furthermore, if, following the Nucleon
idea, you placed the driving cone on the bottom bracket axle and the
driven cone concentric with the swing arm pivot, you would have no
primary drive losses, and a fixed length rear chain which means that the
chain run could be enclosed in the swing arm and protected from
environmental dirt and damage.

So....

Does anyone know where in the UK one might get hold of one of these
things (ideally off a scrapped scooter, and cheap) to play with?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

Sounds like an interesting idea!

Internal transmission has to be the way forward especially for mountain
bikes!

Don't engined bikes have higher revs?

Doesn't a variomatic system rely on centrifugal force of some sort as
a result of high revs?

I happened to come upon some info recently. If you search 'variomatic
stepless gears' on this forum you'll find something!

Good luck with your project!!

Regards,

Nick

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I happened to come upon some info recently. If you search 'variomatic
stepless gears' on this forum you'll find something!

Which forum? Nothing very useful even just on 'variomatic' on
uk.rec.cycling. Are you somewhere else?

cheers,
clive

Nick said:

Internal transmission has to be the way forward, especially for
mountain bikes!

Well you can always use a hub gear and chain case. Whoops, someone
already has.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

CVTs are inefficient at the best of times. (Numbers vary, but are
generally in the 90% to 95% range, versus 99% or more for chain &
sprockets). A CVT would be heavier than a derailleur setup, more
expensive, and less efficent - I can't see any advantage.

The cones would need to be fully enclosed as well - get some mud & muck
in there, and your efficiency will go way, way down.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

CVTs are inefficient at the best of times. (Numbers vary, but are
generally in the 90% to 95% range, versus 99% or more for chain &
sprockets). A CVT would be heavier than a derailleur setup, more
expensive, and less efficent - I can't see any advantage.

The cones would need to be fully enclosed as well - get some mud & muck
in there, and your efficiency will go way, way down.

Yup, but for off road cycling the economics may look a bit different.
Dearailleurs are very efficient in theory, but a lot less efficient when
being thrashed round a muddy forest. They're also very vulnerable. If
you've got a Nicolai Nucleon/GBoxx/GT iT type transmission you've got a
primary chain, then an epicyclic, then a final drive chain; if you've
got a Honda, you've got gears on the bottom bracket axle driving gears
on the secondary shaft driving gears on the output shaft driving the
final drive chain. 95% efficient is quite enough to be competitive in
this field, particularly if you can do without a primary drive chain.
And having the rider pedalling at his/her preferred cadence all the time
whatever the terrain throws at them has got to be a win.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

Simon Brooke said:

Yup, but for off road cycling the economics may look a bit different.
Dearailleurs are very efficient in theory, but a lot less efficient when
being thrashed round a muddy forest. They're also very vulnerable. If
you've got a Nicolai Nucleon/GBoxx/GT iT type transmission you've got a
primary chain, then an epicyclic, then a final drive chain; if you've
got a Honda, you've got gears on the bottom bracket axle driving gears
on the secondary shaft driving gears on the output shaft driving the
final drive chain.

But those are designed that way for other reasons. If you wanted an
efficient system you would use a Rohloff and enclosed chain which will
be much more efficient and lighter than a CVT. Even those shaft drive
bikes would do better.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

In article <[email hidden]>,

Simon Brooke said:

Mulling over ideas for mountainbike transmissions, as one does, and
thinking about both the Nicolai Nucleons (which use an epicyclic mounted
in the frame, driven by a primary chain) and Minaar's Honda downhill
bike (which appears to use a motorcycle type gearbox with a countershaft
between the bottom-bracket and the output shaft), I wondered why not use
a DAF type variomatic transmission, and wondered how efficient they
were.

The benefits, from a cycle design point of view, are that the input shaft
and the output shaft rotate in the same direction, so you don't need to
gear off a countershaft. So I did a bit of web searching to find out
whether a variomatic type transmission had ever been tried in a pedal
cycle, whether it could be made small enough, and whether it could be
made efficient enough.

Apparently, belt-and-opposed-cone transmissions have been tried in pedal
cycles, see
<URL:http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hadland/old_derail.htm> (about a
quarter of the way down). But, more interestingly, I found that
Variomatic transmissions based on the old DAF design are widely used in
low-powered motor-scooters on engine sizes down to 30cc. This means that
(i) they can be miniaturised and (ii) they must be reasonably efficient.

Keep in mind that little 50cc bikes often have double-digit horsepower
in sharp forms of tune. Ever noticed how 50 cc motorcycles can go faster
than cyclists, even though they weigh as much as their riders?

Here's an ordinary 50cc scooter with a continuously variable
transmission, 5.4 horsepower*, and a dry weight of 160 pounds (72 kg):

http://www.yamaha-motor.ca/products/products.php?model=601&section=td&gro
up=M#contentTop

Also, this is a low-torque, high-rpm system. Cyclists are high-torque,
low-rpm sources of power. The technologies are not easily interchanged.

Quoted message said:

I've found this
<URL:http://www.scooterpartsdepot.com/web_gas/x1_Pocketbike_transmission.htm>
in the States which makes it look as though the cones are in the boxy
part downstream of the reduction gear, and thus low revs, high torque,
ideal for push-bike adaptation. Furthermore, if, following the Nucleon
idea, you placed the driving cone on the bottom bracket axle and the
driven cone concentric with the swing arm pivot, you would have no
primary drive losses, and a fixed length rear chain which means that the
chain run could be enclosed in the swing arm and protected from
environmental dirt and damage.

Friction losses at the CVT interfaces will be substantial. This may not
matter for the bike you are planning, but it is unlikely to approach the
efficiency of a chain-drive bike.

Quoted message said:

So....

Quoted message said:

Does anyone know where in the UK one might get hold of one of these
things (ideally off a scrapped scooter, and cheap) to play with?

Scrapyards.

* I calculated this from the given torque-at-6000 rpm numbers, and am
very proud of myself.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Yup, but for off road cycling the economics may look a bit different.
Dearailleurs are very efficient in theory, but a lot less efficient
when being thrashed round a muddy forest. They're also very
vulnerable. If you've got a Nicolai Nucleon/GBoxx/GT iT type
transmission you've got a primary chain, then an epicyclic, then a
final drive chain; if you've got a Honda, you've got gears on the
bottom bracket axle driving gears on the secondary shaft driving gears
on the output shaft driving the final drive chain.

But those are designed that way for other reasons.

Currently the Honda gearbox is only on a downhill bike, but on a downhill
bike that regularly comes first or second, racing against Steve Pete who
uses an SRAM X-0 short cage derailleur on a very tight range cassette.
The GT iT thing is described as 'downhill/freeride' but you wouldn't
want to ride it uphill, and as far as I know it isn't seriously
competitive. The Nucleons range from seriously downhill machines to
machines described as 'Enduro', but still too heavy for me to want to
ride all day.

New transmission technology is likely to arrive first on downhill bikes,
because they're much less weight sensitive. But they're still quite
efficiency sensitive, particularly at the top end of racing. And in the
long term the category where transmission improvement is most needed is
cross country, because that's where the vulnerability of the derailleur
system is most problematical.

Quoted message said:

If you wanted an
efficient system you would use a Rohloff and enclosed chain which will
be much more efficient and lighter than a CVT. Even those shaft drive
bikes would do better.

Sticking a Rohloff out at the back end of the swinging arm is certainly
the most efficient solution available at present. It may even be the
best solution, although instinctively one feels that that weight would
be better nearer the bottom bracket. And unless you use a URT, then
putting the Rohloff at the back means you will need an idler, so you
can't enclose the chain, so you haven't made the big reliability 'win'
over the derailleur. But URT brings in a whole bunch of other
compromises around pedal bob and brake jacking ...

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; lovely alternative to rice.

Simon Brooke wrote:.

Quoted message said:

Currently the Honda gearbox is only on a downhill bike, but on a downhill
bike that regularly comes first or second, racing against Steve Pete who
uses an SRAM X-0 short cage derailleur on a very tight range cassette.
The GT iT thing is described as 'downhill/freeride' but you wouldn't
want to ride it uphill, and as far as I know it isn't seriously
competitive. The Nucleons range from seriously downhill machines to
machines described as 'Enduro', but still too heavy for me to want to
ride all day.

Is that the bike or the rider? Tomac, Vouilloz, Peat, Giove all seem to
be at the front irrespective of the bike they were riding. Personally I
think the Nikolai strapline correctly sums it up "radical amusement"

Quoted message said:

New transmission technology is likely to arrive first on downhill bikes,
because they're much less weight sensitive. But they're still quite
efficiency sensitive, particularly at the top end of racing. And in the
long term the category where transmission improvement is most needed is
cross country, because that's where the vulnerability of the derailleur
system is most problematical.

Quoted message said:

If you wanted an
efficient system you would use a Rohloff and enclosed chain which will
be much more efficient and lighter than a CVT. Even those shaft drive
bikes would do better.

Sticking a Rohloff out at the back end of the swinging arm is certainly
the most efficient solution available at present. It may even be the
best solution, although instinctively one feels that that weight would
be better nearer the bottom bracket. And unless you use a URT, then
putting the Rohloff at the back means you will need an idler, so you
can't enclose the chain, so you haven't made the big reliability 'win'
over the derailleur. But URT brings in a whole bunch of other
compromises around pedal bob and brake jacking ...

No reason you can't enclose a chain plus idler. In fact you could
enclose a chain plus derailleur except that the movement of the
derailleur makes the enclosure big and bulky. But you don't have that
problem with a static idler.

But how many people even bother with a Rohloff on a cross country
hardtail? If the vulnerability of the derailleur system were that
problematical then lots of people would be adopting that solution. But
it isn't and they aren't although they are a lot more common for some
reason in Germany.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

Quoted message said:

The Nucleons range from seriously downhill machines to
machines described as 'Enduro', but still too heavy for me to want to
ride all day.

Is that the bike or the rider?

The rider. I'm going to be a Grand Vet in a fortnight...

Quoted message said:

Personally I think the Nikolai strapline correctly sums it up "radical
amusement"

Oh, absolutely. For me Nicolai is the ultimate mountain bike brand - the
bike I would have if I could afford it. It's just that my Nicolai
probably wouldn't be a Nucleon. I don't want that much suspension
travel, and I don't want that much weight (although the 2006 TFR looks a
lot more interesting than last years). Put a GBoxx into something like
the Saturn frame and I'd be a lot more interested! And, of course, it's
almost certain that Nicolai have such a bike kicking around a
development workshop somewhere, and that it will be a production model
in a year or two.

Quoted message said:

But how many people even bother with a Rohloff on a cross country
hardtail? If the vulnerability of the derailleur system were that
problematical then lots of people would be adopting that solution. But
it isn't and they aren't although they are a lot more common for some
reason in Germany.

They're more common in Germany because German people buy German bikes,
whereas the British market largely buys American-branded (mountain)
bikes. Also the market is very fashion driven - monoblade forks are
still very rare despite having real racing advantage, and the very
radical Whyte PRST has done so badly in the marketplace that Whyte's
top-of-the-range model now uses conventional telescopic forks. Indeed,
both of the British made forks I'm aware of - the Whyte Plus Four and
the USE SUB - have real technical advantages over telescopics, and
neither are commercially successful, which says a lot about how the
British buy mountain bikes (says he, who rides a Cannondale Jekyll and a
Klein Mantra).

Just because it isn't common doesn't mean it isn't better. Mountain bike
technology is still evolving very rapidly, and will continue to evolve
quite rapidly for some time to come.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably
;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.