i have been thinking about getting a muni for ages the pashley looks good and cheap i would get a kh for it.How does it hold up i have only seen xcountry riders use them.can they take a good trashing.And can you up grade them.
The Pashley 26" is not bad. However, I do regret getting it. Lollipop bearing holders don’t make any sense in our modern age. I have wished many times that I’d gotten a 24". I think the 24" is better for Muni, but there are conflicting opinions.
The uni has held up very well, although I am not an abusive rider.
Given what I know now, I would have gotten something different.
Re: pashley 26"
> i have been thinking about getting a muni for ages the pashley looks
> good and cheap i would get a kh for it.How does it hold up i have only
> seen xcountry riders use them.can they take a good trashing.And can you
> up grade them.
I love mine. I don’t abuse mine much, but it’s held up well to
my general use.
The one upgrade I would recommend immediately is to replace the
tyre. The original mine came with was lousy, it caused me to wobble
all over the place when I tried to ride in a straight line. I thought
it was just my lack of experience with a bigger wheel until I mentioned
it to Roger and he told me it was a known problem. I got a Gazalodi
tyre and it’s great.
Of course, I bought mine about 4 years ago, so Pashley might have
changed the standard tyre by now.
Lollipop bearing holders probably make upgrading the hub a bit harder. I think a Nimbus might be a better choice if you can afford the extra 40£. Pashley comes with a skinny tire and the saddle has no handle. Atleast I like my Nimbus. I haven’t been able to break or bend anything on mine yet, and the new one comes with the stronger and wider hub. You might want to save that extra 40£ before buying and get the Nimbus. But it’s all up to you.
PS. Nimbus looks nicer.
Don’t do it.
Pashleys were good about 4 years ago, but they haven’t improved at all and the other ones available have.
Things that are wrong with the Pashley -
Frame - it’s much much worse than the Nimbus II and can’t fit a 3" tyre. It’s also pretty heavy.
Seat - Much worse than the KH, no handle.
Tyre - Absolutely rubbish tyre
Bearings - non standard size bearings
Seatpost - requires a funny shim to use normal unicycle seatposts.
Hub - probably not as strong as the unicycle.com wide hub, has nuts instead of bolts. Definately not as strong as the onza or KH splined hubs.
The Nimbus Muni will be a much better unicycle, whichever wheel size you choose. It’ll also cost less than a Pashley + KH seat + new tyre, which are pretty much the minimum upgrades you’d need to do to get a decent unicycle.
go with the nimbus. By the time you’ve upgraded the seat and the tyre you’re already paying more. And the standard hub can take a fair bit of punishment, so you could hold off on the hub upgrade if you did that. my slightly upgraded nimbus II is pretty similar to the nimbus muni (combat rim), and it’s very nice.
Re: pashley 26"
In article <joemarshall.108ndi@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com>,
joemarshall <joemarshall@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com> wrote:
)1) Frame - it’s much much worse than the Nimbus II and can’t fit a 3"
)tyre. It’s also pretty heavy.
I think the frame is pretty high-quality–but you’re right that it can’t
fit a 3" tire, which makes it really inappropriate for a serious MUni.
)5) Seatpost - requires a funny shim to use normal unicycle seatposts.
The 25.0 seatpost is much, much better than a 22.2. You can use normal
bike seatposts, which gives you much more variety and choice. Please
let’s not perpetuate the idea that 22.2 is a good idea.
I have a Pashley 29er, and now a Yuni MUni (26"). I don’t think the Pashley
is a good choice for serious MUni, simply because it doesn’t fit a 3" tire.
I’d also prefer it without the water-bottle braze-ons, which are pretty
useless on any uni and especially on a MUni. I would only get a Pashley if
you’re looking for a touring and fire-road unicycle, not a MUni. And if
you’re looking for that kind of uni, you should get the 29er, not the 26".
Thanks I do think a pashley would be good for xcountry but is dated by the sounds of it i was thinking what some one said “after all the minimum upgrades it’s more expensive” I am more than likely going for a nimbus 26"/24" with an old nimbus frame to save money and I can’t see why I would wouldn’t a flat crown on a muni as I don’t really want to try 1 ft on that size wheel and I can’t glide YET…The muni is not to of my list a new hub/crank set for my trials is way more important seeming I am starting to get a kangeroo.
I find one footing a lot easier on a bigger wheel.
I can do it no problems on a 20" and I do not plan to try freestyle on a 26" only jumps maybe…
Re: Re: pashley 26"
I bought mine a year ago, and as of then the tyre was still rubbish. It’s in my garden shed if anyone wants it.
While I really like my Pashley, I can’t say I’d buy one now. If you add in £20 for a decent 2.6 tyre, it’s not that much cheaper than the Nimbus muni. Add a KH seat and it’s a wash. The Pashley also suffers with a weak rim (narrow and single walled), whereas the Nimbus has a DX32.
I also don’t think 26" is a great size for a muni. It’s not big enough to be fast, but not small enough to have that BMX-like fun feel. Not long after I got my 24x3 I built a 700C wheel around my Pashley’s Suzue hub (lollies and all), and now I use it as a 29er. It makes a good 29er, but even in that configuration it has a flaw, which is that it wont take a Big Apple.
So why do we love our Pashleys? I think it’s the bottle bosses.
Re: pashley 26"
Tom Holub <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In article <joemarshall.108ndi@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com>,
> joemarshall <joemarshall@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com> wrote:
> )1) Frame - it’s much much worse than the Nimbus II and can’t fit a 3"
> )tyre. It’s also pretty heavy.
> I think the frame is pretty high-quality–but you’re right that it can’t
> fit a 3" tire, which makes it really inappropriate for a serious MUni.
Call me “old school” (or even just “old”!) but I still don’t believe
that 3" tyres are the be all and end all of Muni. I’ve had a 2.1" tyre
in my Pashley for about 7 years now and doing Muni all that time. OK, I
don’t really do drop or jumps and like uphills almost as much as downhills.
I’m an old fashioned XC rider (hey, I’m fat, balding and getting old
and have even been known to race) but I’ll happily tackle singletrack with
roots and rocks from Devon to the Lakes and beyond, and the 2.1" does fine
for my style of riding. I’ve tried 3" a few times, and they always seem
rather heavy and cumbersome - I’d prefer my Muni to be more of a gazelle
than a rhino (despite my weight).
Paul (grumpy old man who has fond memories of fun off-road rides on his
2.1" shod Pashley)
Re: pashley 26"
In article <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
)Tom Holub <email@example.com> wrote:
)> In article <joemarshall.108ndi@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com>,
)> joemarshall <joemarshall@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com> wrote:
)> )1) Frame - it’s much much worse than the Nimbus II and can’t fit a 3"
)> )tyre. It’s also pretty heavy.
)> I think the frame is pretty high-quality–but you’re right that it can’t
)> fit a 3" tire, which makes it really inappropriate for a serious MUni.
)Call me “old school” (or even just “old”!) but I still don’t believe
)that 3" tyres are the be all and end all of Muni. I’ve had a 2.1" tyre
)in my Pashley for about 7 years now and doing Muni all that time. OK, I
)don’t really do drop or jumps and like uphills almost as much as downhills.
)I’m an old fashioned XC rider (hey, I’m fat, balding and getting old
)and have even been known to race) but I’ll happily tackle singletrack with
)roots and rocks from Devon to the Lakes and beyond, and the 2.1" does fine
)for my style of riding. I’ve tried 3" a few times, and they always seem
)rather heavy and cumbersome - I’d prefer my Muni to be more of a gazelle
)than a rhino (despite my weight).
It sounds like you’re describing cross-country, not MUni. (Not surprising,
coming from a country where there are no mountains). I quite enjoy my
Pashley 29x2.1 for cross-country. I took it to Moab last year, bent a crank
and taco’ed the wheel in two separate incidents. Not big drops or anything;
just trying to ride a hard, technical trail.
As for uphill, it’s a lot easier on a 3" tire.
I bought a pashley 26 as my first serious unicycle. I still use it regularly.
I wouldn’t choose another.
The bearing holders can be difficult to remove. Changing a tube is a major job.
The original tyre was awful and created handling problems on the flat.
I LIKE the Viscount seat and think I prefer it to the KH, though.
The Pashley is heavy.
With a Gaz 2.3 inch tyre and a good handle, the Pashley 26 is good for everything I ask of it. I don’t hop and jump and drop, but I do ride rough and broken ground, uphills and down hills, gravel, sand and mud.
Never mind arguing about definitions of MUni and cross country, as the differences are of emphasis, just ask what style of riding you like. The Pashley will roll you over or through all sorts of terrain, but less nimbly than a 24, and slower than a Coker.
I would recomend choosing between a 29 (if you like to ride long distances on varied and uneven terrain) or a 24 with a fat tyre if you want to ride shorter distances on extreme terrain. 26 is a funny in betweeny size.
My MUni is a Pashley 26". I’ve upgraded it many times now. For the wheel I built a Suzue/Doublewide/Gazz 2.6 and it is great. The Gazz 26x2.6 weighs the same as the Gazz 24x3.0. If you are doing cross-country racing on a 29er and wish you had a beefier tire and rim, do this wheel or use a DX32 rim and you’ll be really happy, or even narrow down a bit. The choice of tires for 26" is incredible.
Cross country is a branch of MUni, as are off-road trials. There is a lot of overlap.
Changing a tire or tube? 4 bolts, the same as every other frame in existence.
Lollipop bearing holders are the nicest seat for your bearings possible. The Pashleys are great. The custom bearing holders that split the lollipop are more convenient and the next best for your bearings. They are lighter, as well. The worst are the main-caps, which are also convenient and light but squeeze the bearings out of round and have a lot of play in them.
If you are buying a Pashley from uni.com then get the Power upgrade because the stock wheel is not much. Replace the cranks and seat too. Then you’re all set.
I think tyre widths are very much a personal preference.
Having seen Paul ride, he rides over the same stuff that people ride on 3" tyres without much trouble. 3" tyres are great if you need the volume, but for riding mountain bike trails as opposed to doing outdoor trials, you don’t get much advantage. Roger at unicycle.com seems to be saying that 2.6" tyres like on the Onza are a good thing for most muni. If you’re doing 6 foot drops and stuff, then you might want a fatter tyre. It’s a similar thing to the 150mm vs 170mm cranks argument.
Having a 26" wheel is similar, its a trade off between more speed on the one hand and more leverage on the and a bit of added strength if you do 4 foot plus drops, or land badly on the other.
The one thing that sets most 26" riders apart from the 24" riders is riding long distances over technical terrain. Once you start doing decent distances, the extra bit of speed really makes up for the slight lack of boingyness and the less strong wheel.
I’d totally disagree that removing the wheel on a Pashley frame is the same as any other frame in existence. On my frame, it took about an hour to change a tyre last time I tried, whereas on the nimbus II, I can do it in 5 mins.
From my Pashley, the only thing left by the time I got rid of the frame was the rim, spokes and hub, everything else was upgraded.
There’s totally no point in buying the pashley and upgrading, because you’re basically paying for loads of rubbish parts and then throwing them away.
Re: pashley 26"
In article <joemarshall.10ah45@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com>,
joemarshall <joemarshall@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com> wrote:
)I think tyre widths are very much a personal preference.
I respectfully disagree.
)Having seen Paul ride, he rides over the same stuff that people ride on
)3" tyres without much trouble. 3" tyres are great if you need the
)volume, but for riding mountain bike trails as opposed to doing outdoor
)trials, you don’t get much advantage. Roger at unicycle.com seems to be
)saying that 2.6" tyres like on the Onza are a good thing for most muni.
)If you’re doing 6 foot drops and stuff, then you might want a fatter
)tyre. It’s a similar thing to the 150mm vs 170mm cranks argument.
No, actually it’s not similar at all. Riding technical trails is much
easier on a 3" than a 2.6". There’s really no way to argue
differently; ask anyone who’s tried both. If you live somewhere where
there are no technical trails, you don’t need a 3", but if you’re ever
planning to ride at Moab or in the California mountains, or really at
most of the interesting places to do MUni, you will do a lot better
with a 3" tire. It doesn’t take 6-foot drops to see the benefit.
I’ve never done a drop larger than maybe a foot.
Re: Re: pashley 26"
Then why is Roger recommending a 2.6 now over a gazz in all the threads about onzas? He’s obviously ridden both because he sells them. He’s also pretty good, probably one of the best muni riders in the world, so I’m sure he knows his stuff. I’m sure that the fatter tyre has some advantages, but it also has some disadvantages, notably the sluggishness and not so good turning ability.
I’ve ridden some of the best and hardest muni in the UK, which is apparently a similar technical difficulty to that at Moab and I’m not convinced the fatter tyre makes it that much easier having seen riders with narrower tyres ride it too. I can see how super-incredibly technical shore riding is made a bit easier because there’s a lot of drops involved and skinnies are easier with a fatter tyre. I don’t really see what your point is about the UK not having any major mountains (well not many over 3000 metres), that doesn’t really have any effect on the technical difficulty of the trails, just on the length of downhill available in one go. We’ve also got an incredible amount of variation in trails, because almost all land outside cities is open to riders to some extent.
Re: pashley 26"
> It sounds like you’re describing cross-country, not MUni. (Not surprising,
> coming from a country where there are no mountains). I quite enjoy my
> Pashley 29x2.1 for cross-country. I took it to Moab last year, bent a crank
> and taco’ed the wheel in two separate incidents. Not big drops or anything;
> just trying to ride a hard, technical trail.
Since when has XC not been a valid discipline in Muni? Is XC bike
riding no longer part of mountain biking? Surely Muni is a broad
church - containing the whole range from drops/jumps, trials,
XC, downhill and more. Remember that the term Muni was coined by
Duncan Castling who was riding in NE England on the NY Moors and
Pennines at the time.
Please don’t go down the “no mountains => no technical trails” route -
it’ll only inflame tempers (“what’s a mountain?” is a debate that has
failed to find resolution in many other newsgroups - let’s not
rehash it here). There are plenty of technical trails in the UK and
wider Europe, just as there are in the US. I’ve ridden some of them,
and for me a 2.1" suits my style of riding better than a 3".
I’ve never claimed it is the right thing for everyone, just that
it shouldn’t be discounted as a valid choice for some.
> As for uphill, it’s a lot easier on a 3" tire.
Not when aerobic capacity is the limiting factor as it usually
is for me - the added weight just makes life harder. If you’ve
got lungs like Roger Davies or Nathan Hoover, then the added mass
of a wider tyre might not matter. To me, it does. Remember, I’m an
unreconstructed XC rider - albeit one who isn’t very fit.
XC may not be a fashionable thing in either Muni or MTB circles
(I still think that the cool “freeriding” genre is really just
XC with a new name to appeal to a younger crowd who have poor
images of XC from World Cup racing where the terrain is often too
smooth to be interesting) but that doesn’t make it less worthy
of the name in any way.
A couple of things about the onza, it is actually a 24" not a 26". It is not a 3" tyre… but it certainly rides well, I am as happy on it as on my 24" Contra. It does not bob as much during riding, may be does not have quite as much mud grip or cusioning during drops but for me gives me a greater jump… well it is almost half the weight!
The only other 24"x 2.6" tyre that I have ridden on a regular basis is the 24x2.6" Gaz tyre. I hate it! the lack of volume and very rigid side walls give it a very odd feel in my opinion. Do not consider all tyres are the same by the figures they say on the side.
I ride both a 3" tyre and a 2.1" tyre on a regular basis and riders who know me know that I am normally the last to get off going up a hill (if at all) and I ride 150mm cranks! Unicycles do not loose grip on hills as a general basis. It is technique that causes loss of grip on hills. To get good technique you need to be happy with what you are riding, if you are not then you will not get good technique. That may be on a 3" tyre, it may be on a 2.6" or even a 1.9" tyre.