craigjames

He seems right at home on it. I wonder if he'll continue to be sponsored by Hope, as the hubs won't fit in his new frame.

What bike is it? What rear wheel does it have?

I agree, it looks like the frame is made up of several sections of different frames. It's a shame as Clean do make some nice looking bikes.

Whut?! An 8 year bump, just to make no sense at all!?

I did think about this, my only issue is you don't see many pole vaulters landing with their poles. What I mean is you'd need to be able to dampen that springy energy whenever you landed a move to rear wheel to stop you getting bucked off. It might be possible, but does make things more complicated.

Rear rims have followed a fairly similar design for quite a while now. So unless something crazy and new comes along, I don't see that changing. Stick to 135mm it works for all different sized wheels, one size is cheaper for bike and component manufacturers, it also opens up the choice in aftermarket hubs. I think from a design and materials point of view, that we've reached peak trials bike, it will just be incremental improvements. Maybe more parts produced by additive manufacturing using exotic materials?

I don't think there is any logical need for the 120mm spacing used by Clean and Comas unless it's a chain line thing? My cynical mind tells me that they've probably done it to sell their proprietary hubs. Crewkerz use 135mm on their 20" bikes, as does my MK6 Echo 20". I run a hope Pro5 SS hub. So they've proven that a 135mm hub can play nicely with the chain line on a 20" bike. It's a bit like Jitsie and their 1-1 1/4" tapered headtubes, there's just no need! I don't see the need to move to 142mm on 26" bikes, I don't think it will bring any real world benefits to trials.

to be honest the Extention frames looks pretty good quality, do you know what factory they're made at? Or have you seen them fail?

Rough isn't it! It looks like the b*****d child of a 20" comp bike and 24" street bike, and it got all the bad attributes of both. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with design and i'm sure it's had some FEA to prove it's sound. Personally I wouldn't buy a street bike from a company that is known for comp bikes, especially when the alu comp bikes have had a reputation for cracking. Even more so when it appears to be a collection of parts from their other frames and not a ground up design like an Inspired.

I still have a TrialTech singlespeed spacer kit in my spares box from when i ran a CK rear hub. Sprockets and cassettes would fit fine. I ended up using the spacers between the cogs on a cassette.

Apologies, I've done some reading of old posts and it was the Koxx/Hashtagg issues and not paying suppliers, not Gilles and family. I've got my wires crossed.

That follows with what I've seen in MTB, questionable rule changes etc. The UCI just doesn't seem to be that interested into aspects of cycling outside of the traditional road and track disciplines. In what way? I'm curious, I always thought he was the "good guy" in French trials, with Giles and his family having some questionable business ethics.

I couldn't say, i'm speculating. I mean i've only seen his riding from one camera angle, i can't see what he or the observer saw and i'm certainly not a sports psychologist!

Not sure there is an awful lot of money to be made as an MTB trials rider, Ackrigg is the only rider of that ilk that i actually enjoy watching. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned his lapses in concentration, it's not the first time he's lost a comp because he's missed gates completely or has been deemed to have gone the wrong side of a marker.

He's got a bit of a history of feeling hard done by with the observers. Some of the calls were a bit suspect and inconsistent, maybe Jack just doesn't concentrate as much as he should when competing? Charlie was pretty flawless in the final. Eloi also thought he'd received a dodgy call/questionable route marking, he missed the final for the first time in a while.