source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Bike Polish for Carbon Frames I'm looking for a recommendation for a good bike polish for carbon clear coat frames. Something the fills in minor hair line surface scratches and leaves a nice shine. <Q> Not sure about filling in hairlines, but I have used Pledge and have been very happy with the results! <A> Again, not sure either will fill scratches, but... <A> Your best bet is to look beyond the bike forums and head into the world of cars. <S> I know cars and mountain bikes are slower than the world of cycling, but carbon fibre is now accessible to the motorist. <S> Some of them polish and polish and polish and polish. <S> Zaino is well worth a Google... <A> I was given a can of the FinishLine polish product and think it works really well. <S> Smells pretty good too! <A> You have two different questions here. <S> The first one, which is what should you use to clean and polish carbon without damaging it, it what most every one here is answering. <S> The real answer is, you can use just about anything. <S> Pledge, Bike Lust, Turtle Wax, Storck's Carbo'Coat Polish . <S> It doesn't matter, as long as there's a wax base, and no abrasives in it. <S> Use detailing clay, like that made by Meguiar's. <S> Their Mild Overspray Detailing Clay works very well to remove race stickers, adhesive residue, tree sap, etc.. which you need to do to prepare the surface before using something like their Swirl Remover 2 to remove the surface scratches and cracking. <S> You can do this with a rag, by hand. <S> You don't need to use a buffer. <S> Swirl Remover uses a very fine abrasive effect. <S> Used badly, it can damage your paint, but if you read and follow the directions, it's like magic. <S> Just use with care. <S> DO NOT USE IT <S> ON <S> A MATTE FINISH FRAME. <S> It will polish up a shine on the matte clear coat, and many UD carbon matte frames don't have much clear coat to begin with. <S> You could expose the carbon. <A>
|
Bike Lust is very popular, but I've also heard the Pledge recommendation. meguires quick detail car shine is a fine product. Also you could wet clay bar to get rid of the small stuck on grime. To fill the fine cracking in your clear coat caused by UV exposure, you do need to go outside the bike industry.
|
What's the difference between galvanised brake cables versus stainless steel? I'm looking at buying a set of new brake cables and I'm wondering what the difference is between the stainless steel ones and the galvanised cable? I'm only getting relatively cheap ones but I can't find an obvious description of the benefits/disadvantages. <Q> Galvanised ones rust eventually. <S> Especially in the high wear areas. <S> Stainless steel ones don't rust, but possibly don't deal quite as well with sharp curves. <S> Unless the extra dollar is critical, always buy the stainless steel ones. <S> The bike shops I've been in don't even sell galvanised ones any more because the price difference is so small and the benefit so far outweighs it. <A> I refurbish old bikes, and it's very common for cheaper machines to have cables rusted badly... <S> The better iron usually comes equipped with stainless and they normally look fine even if the bike has been sitting out in the weather for several seasons. <A> I am sure you get the material science part - stainless steel does not rust. <S> However, the cables on my bike are due for replacement right now and none of them have rusted. <S> Frayed ends, outers that route badly (to get cracked), non-existent end-caps and outers that compress also come into the equation. <S> I will be swapping my worn-but-posh cables for properly assembled cables soon and I will go for cheap and cheerful (within limits). <S> I advise that you do the same. <S> With the money saved you will be more willing to swap them out next time you refurbish. <A> I suspect, along with everything else, that SS cables produce less friction than galvanized. <S> And for the price difference it's pretty silly to use anything but SS.
|
New cables always trump old cables for shifting and braking and the steel being stainless or not makes very little practical difference.
|
Suggestions for progressive upgradation of bike I have one bike, which is pretty cheap. It's a Mid-Level Mountain Bike of Motache (I tried to find a picture but, no luck) . But, now I want to upgrade this bike progressively and change it into High Level Bike (or somewhere near) pduring course of time. For doing this, my policy is if something breaks down, replace it with high level parts. I am not sure if this is how I am suppose to do it. Like for my recent upgrade when my rear derailleur broke, I replaced with Shimano XTR which is pretty neat. But, it is going to take a long time to upgrade i think. So I want to upgrade something now. Now my bike contains V Brake, has lowest grade of fork suspension ( I think, its terrible ) . 7*3 Speed Gears, normal shimano crank set and etc. (you can guess the remaining.) Now, from the passionate and experts cyclist, I would like to know what should be first my upgrade and so on. One of mechanics and also my buddy told me upgrade my suspension first. I use my bike for daily road riding, and occasional off roads trips in holidays. <Q> I tried the same approach that you're outlining with a bike I bought (a Shogun), but I had heaps of trouble trying to upgrade components. <S> Every time I upgraded one component it wouldn't work well with the other existing components. <S> I tried to change the cassette but it wouldn't work with my derailleur <S> (even my mechanic couldn't figure out why). <S> So my advice is to live with your bike unchanged as long as you can, saving the money you would be spending on components and then buy a new/second hand better quality bike. <A> Before undertaking such a program, the thing to consider is this... <S> Is the frame worth it? <S> Sometimes, manufacturers will produce a line of bikes that use an identical frame, and bolt on progressively-better components for each upgraded model. <S> In such cases, with a good frame to begin with, replacing cheaper components as they wear or fail might be a decent way to go, especially if you do your own work. <S> However, if the frame is just a generic item of no special quality.... <S> You'd do better to save your money and buy an upgraded bike to begin with. <A> If you're going to buy components, buy things that can be easily transferred to a new bike. <S> When you eventually upgrade. <S> Eventually, you're going to want a really good frame. <S> Now a frame usually comes with forks, and handlebars, so you'll probably want to hold off on replacing those. <S> The easiest thing you can probably replace is pedals. <S> As they can be easily transferred to a new bike, and many high end bikes don't even come with pedals. <S> Also, seats, wheels and tires can easily be transferred to other bikes. <S> I have a hybrid I bought about 5 years back. <S> I've added clipless pedals, slick tires, bullhorn handlebars, a new seat and a seatpost, and a rear pannier rack. <S> I'm a commuter <S> so my needs may be a bit different than yours <S> but I think you get the picture. <S> Switching to clipless pedals has made a world of difference. <S> Also, the tires add quite a bit of performance too. <S> You can get a lot out of a bike without actually changing anything in the frame/drivetrain. <A> Lighter wheels are THE best upgrade you can do. <S> Saving 500g on the wheels will make a much greater difference (due to reduced rotational inertia) to the amount of energy you save whilst cycling, than the same amount off a non-rotating part of the bike. <S> And, of course, the wheels are very easy to transfer to a new bike <S> , should you ever wish to do so. <S> I bought a pair of second hand Campagnolo Eurus rims (with record hubs) for my bottom-of-the-range road bike. <S> I couldn't believe what a difference they made.. <S> I could accelerate at a much higher rate, climb hills easier and was expending less energy on the flats.
|
The other problem with upgrading is that each component bought individually will be vastly more expensive than buying a bike with better components in the first place.
|
Aero Wheels, Velocity Wheels. Does it really matter? Of course, they look pretty. But what I do not understand is: How will having taller rims or composite wheels improve a ride? Is the increase in efficiency drastic enough to make you think twice while changing rims? Or is it really not that necessary with the cash it demands, for a tiny bit of improvement? PS: I tried to find out about this on the internet, but I have found bulky articles about them, so frankly I didn't read them and decided to ask here. <Q> Given graphs like the first one on this page , which show how steeply wind resistance increases with speed, I take it that small changes in shape can be relatively important/effective at high speeds (and not at relatively low speeds). <S> E.g. my top speed when commuting is about 30 kph; the tour de France speeds on the flat are more like 50 kph. <S> The power required to overcome wind resistance at 50 kph is <S> more than triple that required at 30 kph. <S> It's also relatively important/effective <S> if and only if you've already improved/maximised everything else (e.g. the rider's position and clothing). <A> Here's the skinny from my perspective. <S> Two factors: weight & aerodynamics Carbon wheels are super lightweight which requires less power to spin. <S> Obviously, the taller the rim, the more material, therefore they are also heavier. <S> Many folks talk about spin up, which means how quickly one is able to get the bike up to speed, when discussing Taller/Deep Profile wheels. <S> The ideal wheel is a balance between these two factors, but then again, it really boils down to your goal? <S> Are you racing? <S> If so, what is type of racing? <S> Are you able to afford/maintain multiple sets of wheels? <S> This is a great question because it deals with the one area that many inexperienced riders underestimate. <S> Wheels IMO, after the frameset, is the most important component of speed, weight and ride quality! <S> Please keep in mind this is only scratching the surface, but nonetheless I hope it helps! <A> Over a time-trial of perhaps 30k, Someone with an entire aero package (bike, skinsuit, booties, helmet...) might gain only a few seconds compared to riding his usual bike and gear. <S> But that can be the margin of victory. <A> There is a reasonable summary of bicycle aerodynamic improvements on Sheldon's page . <S> It's only 1000 words or so. <S> Broadly, wheels don't make a huge difference on their own. <S> A few percent at most. <S> If you want a dramatic change you have to make a dramatic change - my velomobile goes at least 30% faster for the same power input than any of my other bikes <S> but it looks nothing like them and is unlikely ever to be approved by the UCI. <S> With handicap bikes (pdf) it's all about incremental improvements adding up to a significant overall change, with political lobbying and bribery to get the rules changed to allow further improvements. <S> Which is why you don't see those wheels on the Tour - they're not allowed. <S> The advantage of disk/low spoke count wheels in this context is that they're easy to use. <S> You just leave them on your bike and they work. <S> A skinsuit is annoying to put on, restrictive to wear and expensive to replace. <S> For about the same aerodynamic benefit.
|
Taller(Deep Profile) rims are more aerodynamic, so once moving they reduce wind resistance. The benefits of an "aero" bike over a standard bike are minimal and likely of little use save in racing.
|
How should I alight from the pavement? Whenever I'm exploring a new bike route or climbing a steep hill, I often need to get of the road and onto the pavement to avoid motorists, pushing my bike on the pavement until I feel it is appropriate to join the road again. I look left and right for passing cars, but I feel that I might be doing something wrong. Is there a signal I should use when I wish to join the road and is there anything else I must take into consideration regarding how and where I alight? <Q> Depending on what you mean by "should", you possibly "shouldn't" be riding on the pavement. <S> After parking or walking on the pavement, I move back onto the road in a way that's similar to setting off from/in a parked car. <S> Stand on the pavement/side-walk, side by side to my bike. <S> Look to make sure there's still nothing coming. <S> Mount the bike (standing on the side-walk, holding the brakes, swing one leg over and sit on the saddle, with the other leg still on the side-walk) <S> Now I'm on the bike, and the bike is on the road: stationary, and at the curb, and now ready to move off when traffic permits. <A> The UK Highway Code say's: <S> Look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. <S> Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do. <S> Source <A> I'm not aware of any procedure other than exercising extra caution. <S> Use the same turn signals you'd use when changing lanes in the road, and be extra careful that there are no cars nearby. <S> They'll usually expect you to stay on the sidewalk. <A> I generally avoid going onto the shoulder, unless it's reasonably well paved, sufficiently wide, and otherwise suitable for riding, in which case I'll try to stay on it. <S> I don't get off the roadway just because cars are coming, or because I'm necessarily moving slowly. <S> A bicycle is a "vehicle" in most of the US, and entitled to use the roadway as any other vehicle. <S> (Of course, one must always be wary of the junction between roadway and shoulder, as there is frequently an uneven joint there, so it may need to be "attacked" at a relatively large angle, <S> making choosing your time to move into traffic that much more difficult.)
|
In those situations where I may need to move from shoulder to roadway (as in when the shoulder is coming to an end) I generally try to plan it well in advance, look for a break in traffic, signal as for any lane change, and then move over when it's safe to do so. Lift the bike down onto the road, close to the curb, facing in the correct direction (i.e. with the traffic)
|
Why would I need a torque wrench for a bicycle? I was rather surprised to find a question about choosing a torque wrench on this site. I haven't cycled for years, but many years ago when I actually cycled I would do with a set of ordinary wrenches just fine. What bicycle maintenance tasks would require a torque wrench and can't be done with an ordinary wrench? <Q> A torque wrench is needed mostly for lightweight bike parts, especially at the high end. <S> There is no spare strength to allow for overtightening. <S> things are made very precisely now. <S> Rather than being able to take a 250kg gorilla, the lightweight bike can take a 120kg human. <S> And rather than be maintained by a gorilla, you need an actual bike mechanic. <S> This is partly to save weight, and partly to shave costs. <S> Why use 1kg of titanium where 500g will do? <S> Most people do things up until they feel the resistance change. <S> This slight yeild in steel is non-destructive and can be repeated thousands if not millions of times. <S> In aluminium you need to be more sensitive because the yeild limit is sharper, but with composites and lightweight metals like titanium and magnesium the change is so fast it might as well not exist. <S> The torque limits are likely to be tight and precise. <S> to save weight more threads are cut into expensive parts. <S> Rather than having a semi-captive nut the body of the bike/fork/wheel is threaded. <S> Stripping it means replacing something expensive. <S> What this means is that the traditional steel bolt in a steel bike will work well with (say) 15-50Nm of force used to tighten it. <S> At 15Nm it's only just tight, at 50Nm <S> it's probably digging into the frame <S> and it's about to strip. <S> But a (hollow!) <S> titanium bolt in a carbon/epoxy stem will have a torque range of 5.5-6.4Nm, and the failure mode at the high end will be the stem failing- <S> either it will strip the thread or the clamp will snap. <S> And the bolt is built to match - why put in a bolt that will take 10Nm of tightening when the stem will fail at 7Nm? <S> There are other design changes to match these - four bolt handlebar clams on stems <S> are now commonplace where there used to be one bolt <S> and you just bent the clamp open then forced the (curved) handlebars through it. <S> You can't bend an aluminium clamp like that, it will fail. <S> And splined cranks require a lot more precision than tapered one, but that precision also allows them to be lighter as well as easier to service. <S> The days of stripped extraction threads in cranks are (hopefully) over. <A> Crank bolts. <S> They need to be really torqued, but you're always wary of over-torquing, so a torque wrench provides a good confidence factor. <A> I bought a torque wrench after writing off a the bottom part of a set of Fox 36's: <S> Those four little bolts at the bottom hold the axle in place, and need to be tightened enough to stop it coming out, but not so much that you stress the clamp. <S> I'd over-tightened them and <S> apparently the fork legs had tiny cracks. <S> The replacement legs have a metal shim to prevent over-tightening, and the design is now different - lesson learnt for me and for Fox. <S> The problem is that no-one buys a torque wrench when they're starting out and could really benefit from one. <A> I love my Torque Wrench. <S> I picked up one from and off brand that was calibrated in inch/lbs, and it wasn't as expensive as the park version. <A> I admit I never use one... <S> Still, for certain applications, specific tightening torque is specified. <S> Things like crank-retaining nuts, quill-stem retaining bolts... <S> Crank bolts on models with removable chainrings... <S> That sort of thing. <S> Some people have a good feel for "tight enough", but others may be ham-fisted enough to break or strip fasteners without some reference. <A> I am with yourself - no need (unless you have a very expensive pro roadbike). <S> However there are new 'carbon fibre' components that have changed since the good-old-days. <S> These can have things such as 'helicoil' inserts glued in to them. <S> Nowadays you can do up almost every bolt to a torque level specified in the component's manual. <A> I use a torque wrench because I like a little piece of mind, and have unfortunately ruined a few parts by over tightening. <S> I have a Wright Tool torque wrench which is perfect. <S> No complaints and no more broken components. <S> You can pick one up for a decent price off ebay.
|
In the olden days it was just chainring bolts that were tricky to get right without a torque wrench. There are several related causes: with lightweight parts the manufacturer has shaved off everything that is not absolutely essential. It takes away the guesswork of being sure you are tight enough. If you are no pro and working with carbon fiber, you need this tool.
|
Do aluminum rims provide better braking than steel ones when wet? When I upgraded the brakes on my bicycle recently, the shop asked if I wanted to also switch from my (chromed) steel rims to aluminum rims, saying the aluminum rims would provide better braking power. I opted not to at the time to save money; with the brake upgrade (old-style sidepull caliper to dual-pivot), I have plenty of stopping power when dry. In the rain, however, my brakes are almost worthless. Do aluminum rims provide significantly better braking when wet? <Q> Since you have gone for steel rims and need to stop in the wet and are unlikely to upgrade to alloy rims straight away, I think you are deserved of a practical answer... <S> This much is known and these brake blocks are the wrong ones for your steel rims. <S> You need the brake blocks designed for the job, the ones with a leather face: <S> Typically these are nice and cheap, they also last a very long time. <S> In the wet they work remarkably well on steel rims, although it can take a wheel revolution for the braking power to kick in. <S> To work around this 'turbo lag for braking' you can put the brakes on extra early to clean the rims of water and get into a habit of having your brakes ready on tricky descents, junctions etc. <S> You can run them just on the rear wheel first, in that way you can see how they work and use your existing rear pads on the front when the existing set run out. <S> Don't let their hum-drum appearance put you off - if you have steel rims they are a performance product. <S> If you want the in depth on 'coefficient of friction' as it applies to bike wheels and different materials, here you go: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0JJo6DlF9iMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA248#v=onepage&q&f=false <A> The shop are correct. <S> Steel or chrome plated steel rims will give poor braking power in wet conditions. <S> Even under normal dry conditions braking power is considerably lower when compared to aluminium rims. <S> You should expect a braking power improvement of up to 4 times by switching to aluminium rims. <S> From wikipedia : Rim brakes are cheap, light, mechanically simple, easy to maintain, and powerful. <S> However, they perform poorly when the rims are wet. <S> This problem is less serious with rims made of aluminium, than on those with steel or chromed rims. <A> Yes, aluminium rims help wet braking performance a lot compared to chrome plated steel rims. <S> You still usually need roughly one rotation of the wheel for the brake block to wipe off most of the water film before you get really good braking, but there's still almost no comparison to steel rims. <S> One thing to keep in mind though: if you do a lot of riding in wet weather, the brakes can wear out aluminium rims fairly quickly. <S> When the rims are wet, a lot of road grime tends to stick to them, and when the brakes clamp on that, it grinds down the surface of the rim relatively quickly. <S> We're not talking about a ride or two (or anything like that) here, I've seen people who commute all the time wear out a set of rims in a couple of years or so <S> (whereas I've rarely seen a fair-weather rider wear rims out at all -- they usually last until they either get bent in some kind of accident, or the rider gets the itch for something newer and/or lighter).
|
In the wet, with regular brake blocks, the alloy rim will have a better coefficient of friction than the steel rim.
|
Could road rims be damaged by using v-brakes? I once heard that road rims aren't strong enough to deal with the force of v-brakes, is this true? What about your standard cantilever brakes? <Q> Not true--the pad/rim contact force should be more or less independent of the brake design (assuming the pad/rim friction coefficients are about the same, as they will be if the pads are of similar material). <S> V-brakes tend to require more cable pull to actuate than other types, which does make them incompatible with road brake levers. <S> No problem with the wheels, though. <A> Yep, the amount of force required on the rim is a function of the pad composition and size -- has very little to do with the design of the caliper. <S> The difference in brakes is at the other end -- some require more cable movement than others, and that affects the design of the brake levers. <A> If the brake pads are worn down to the metal, then yes they can make a screeching noise and eat into the wheel. <S> This will eventually destroy the wheel by creating a bow shaped groove in the wheel, whereby the it will become deeper and deeper until the inner tube pops out from the top and pops on the metal brake block. <S> Of course that's an extreme situation of bike negligence. <S> your rims should be absolutely fine.
|
In answer to your question, under certain "extreme" situations it could happen, however this shouldn't hamper your choice between cantilever or v-brakes, just change your brake blocks and other than light wear and tear (over years)
|
Where Can I Find a Single Right Front Crank Arm for a Tandem? Among the bikes in my stable is a department store tandem that really isn't worth much, but would be enjoyable to ride with my wife. Like many department store bikes this one was not assembled correctly and now the pedal threads on the right front crank are beyond stripped, there are millimeters of smooth clearance around where it would screw in. It doesn't appear that it could be re-threaded. The problem is, on a normal bike the right crank has the splines for the chainrings, and the left is unadorned. On the front crank of a tandem this is backwards. So while I can find replacement left crank arms, what I really need is a plain 170 mm right crank arm. I've searched my usual online retailers to no avail - and don't want to spent the $$$ for a full, 4 crank arm tandem set. Anyone know where I might find one? <Q> I know that some BMXs have left side drive. <S> I actually found this out by accidentally ordering a left hand freewheel that was backwards on my single speed! <S> I don't know if these cranks will work for you <S> but it might be a place to look. <S> Wikipedia describes left side drive here . <S> JensonUSA <S> have Sugino tandem crank arms sold separately. <A> The cheap options are fitting a helicoil or equivalent to replace the thread, or finding another cheap tandem that's been wrecked and get the part from that. <S> There are companies that re-tap cranks for tandems ( Greenspeed is one) <S> but that adds $50 or so to the cost, however it may be less because they have a surplus of spider-less cranks (a tandem needs three spiders and one spiderless crank, leaving two spare). <S> It would be worth asking them. <A> There is a nice bargain priced set on ebay <S> right now - Sugino <S> , search 'tandem crank' should get you there. <S> Get your bid in, sure the crank will be good and you will have spares for all the rest. <S> Failing that you can get a spare from Middleburn in the UK - pop them an email.
|
The helicoil is probably the easiest option, but if you can find a wrecked tandem that will possibly be cheaper.
|
A month in Italy (May or June) on a bicycle - advice needed I'm going to travel in Italy by bike for 1 month, from the north (Venice) to the south (Sicilian) and back to Rome. I'm not professional, but also not a beginner. I need some help information about my route. Can you recommend some popular routes and camping stations in Italy? In northern Italy (Verona, Venice, and so on) Near Rome, the capital of Italy Route from east to west side of Apennines On Sicilian Are there any sites with roadmaps you recommend? Can you recommend some specific map creators (not GPS, unfortunately), and where can I buy such maps. Is there any preferred way to travel with bicycles then we are not using them (on train, on bus or something)? <Q> ad 1 and 2: I'm not really aware of any completely researched cycling routes from Rome to the South. <S> These guys (in dutch) have almost all guides that I know about. <S> (click "Zuid europa" and then "Italië" to get to their italy selection). <S> The "fietsgidsen" section has some books in dutch and german that are reasonably easy to follow just from the maps without working knowledge of dutch or german. <S> They also carry a very comprehensive selection of maps suitable for cyclists. <S> The European Cyclists Federation also has some nice routes, I don't know how far into the south though. <S> Italy has a pretty extensive train network. <S> Take the time to buy tickets, make sure you tell them you're taking bicycles. <S> Sometimes you'll have to buy a bicycle ticket, sometimes you won't, they are not very expensive. <S> This looks like a good site to get an idea of the italian train system. <A> These guys come to London bike shows to pedal their wares and have been in business for years: http://www.riccionebikehotels.it/en/ <S> There are also their competitors: http://www.italybikehotels.it/en/ <S> Check out what they have to offer <S> , maybe a bit too organised for you, but they have probably worked out routes that work. <S> I have not been with them myself, however, a 'bike hotel' sounds fun to me. <A> Let me start by saying that May/June is the best period to visit Italy, imo. <S> Alas, I need to warn you that the bicycle culture in Italy is not as advanced as in other European countries, such as Denmark or Netherlands. <S> Nevertheless, some useful links below. <S> In the following link, you find a description of the network of cycling paths in Italy. <S> http://www.bicitalia.org/cakebi/ <S> (the page is in Italian, unfortunately only some of it is translated, http://www.fiab-onlus.it/english/bicitale.htm ) <S> Here is a page about hotels, campings and B&Bs that are cyclists-friendly: <S> http://www.albergabici.it/ (again, a reduced English version here: http://www.albergabici.it/albergab/ingindex.htm ) <S> P.S.: <S> I am going to edit this answer with more info when I will have free time.
|
Busses usually don't have the cargo capacity for bicycles, but this may vary by locality. ad 2: The Touring Club Italiano maps are by far the best for cycling in italy. ad 3: The train is by far the best option for alternative transportation.
|
restoring old bike, remove scratched stickers, yes or no? I'm restoring the first adult bike I owned. It has about 30 years and was made by a brand that no longer exists, which makes it some sort of a semi-relic :) My problem is that the brand stickers at the frame, are very scratched and I plan to paint the frame and so probably they will have to be removed... I've read that when restoring an old bike the stickers are important, and I think this is a matter of "are the stickers that important in this particular bike?". In other words, should I keep the stickers and try to restore the rest of the frame the best that I can, or just remove them and do a proper restore? To be honest, this bike's value isn't that much, even with its semi-relic status, I'm just afraid of making the mistake of taking the stickers and find out that it was best to leave them on. This combined to my urge to take a lot of pictures in high-quality to preserve a record of how it looked before the restoration, and then work on it stripped from any sticker, with a proper paint job and all. <Q> If you feel the bike has no significant resale value, then why not just do what would produce the results YOU would like the most? <S> But if you really want to preserve the stickers, but want to avoid the trouble and less than ideal paint job due to masking them, I'm guessing it would be possible to photograph (and PhotoShop) <S> them (or find matching images on the web) and then reproduce them somehow with a reasonably waterproof printing scheme. <A> Why don't you see how well you do at recreating the sticker set/finding it on ebay THEN decide on your restoration strategy? <S> @Daniel's answer applies. <S> Get them made up in Photoshop, certainly go for the better paint job first, particularly if restoration is the dream. <S> Ask around, there are a surprising amount of decals in warehouses and workshops. <S> Here is a starter: http://www.yellowjersey.org/vindecal.html <A> For my personal taste, it makes no difference as long as the job is faithful. <S> Take them off, scan them in, use Illustrator to draw over them, and find someone who can print them off. <S> It's all to do with how much attention to detail you want to put in. <S> Clearcoat is usually a necessity to make it look good.
|
Clearcoat over the stickers is a nice feature too. Most UK frame restorers/painters have no problem at all in getting replacement stickers, even if they are not identical your mates will not spot that, they will just see 'wow' paint finish.
|
Are chain-drive gears 'ridiculously' efficient even when dry of oil? Allegedly chain-drive gears are something like 99% efficient when well oiled and something like 98% efficient when without oil. Personally I do not like the noise a dry chain makes, this has a 'I must be going slow' psychological effect on my riding so, even if I am not going slow, I think that I am. For this reason I never drive with a dry chain. If the efficiency gains of an oiled chain are minor then that means the main reason for oiling the chain is to reduce wear/prevent rust rather than efficiency/speed. This is why I would like to know the efficiency of a chain when oiled as well as dry. Comparisons against other drive mechanisms and their efficiency, e.g. bicycle shaft drive, automatic car transmission are also of interest to put the oiled/dry chain in context. <Q> This is why I would like to know the efficiency of a chain when oiled as well as dry. <S> As explained in the IHPVA paper linked in moz's answer, apparently lubricating the chain makes little difference for efficiency, so yes, it's mainly to "reduce wear/prevent rust". <S> However, you should note that the IHPVA paper apparently used a new chain in mint condition. <S> It may well be that the lubrication does not make a difference in this case. <S> Still, an unlubricated chain will corrode much faster than a lubricated one, and corrosion does make a huge difference in efficiency (as it increases internal friction). <S> So in practice, lubrication include efficiency, though indirectly (by preventing corrosion). <A> This IHPVA research paper suggests that oil does not help with efficiency: http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf <S> This question discusses efficiency for hub gears vs derailleurs and links to research: <S> What's the efficiency of hub gears compared to derailleurs? <A> You go through gears like crazy without lubricant. <S> Metal to metal is hard environment, the chain wear <S> causing the gears to wear out is very high without lubricant. <S> With proper maintenance and lubrication you can go through three chains on one cassette, without it <S> I've managed to burn two chainrings and chains so far within months. <S> These things are made to last years, mind you. <S> You should be able to get 10k miles out of one cassette, I get 2-3k because I'm stupid. <S> Bought the chain oil for the new bike today :P
|
If the efficiency gains of an oiled chain are minor then that means the main reason for oiling the chain is to reduce wear/prevent rust rather than efficiency/speed.
|
Weight of disc brakes People say ( for example here ) that disc brakes are relatively heavy, giving this as a reason for not using them. How much heavier than rim brakes are disc brakes? Is the extra heaviness in the brakes, or in the stronger rims, tires, and/or forks? <Q> Scott, for instance, is building a complete, disc brake hardtail with a 4" travel fork. <S> Bike weight: 7.45 Kg, or roughly 16 lbs. <S> That's 2 lbs less than my road bike. <S> The weight comparison only becomes truly significant when you look at more basic bicycles, i.e. the $600-1500 market, because the cost penalties for premium parts, like truly light weight disc brakes and hubs, don't allow use in that market. <S> If you are looking at an aftermarket upgrade, expect to spend $1500 on new wheels and brakes, and often more, for quality, lightweight kit. <S> The weight penalty has gotten down to only 50-100 grams in most cases, between a bike built with a high quality disc setup and a high quality V-brake setup. <S> In my opinion, the advantage in brake modulation and power, not to mention consistency in all weather conditions far outweighs the the addition of a few grams. <S> No pun intended. <A> All of those examples you cite add to the weight. <S> However, I think the biggest complaint is the brakes themselves. <S> Not only do you need a caliper which needs to be much stronger (and therefore heavier) because it's dealing with huge amounts of compression, you've got to have the extra disk hanging on your wheels, along with the associated mounting hardware for both parts. <A> I did a recent build with a surly cross check but was also checking the soma double cross with discs and <S> the manufacturer specs said Avid Shorty Ulitimate cantis were 260g/pair vs the Avid BB7 mechanical disk rotors & pads/mounts at 1060g/pair. <S> This is just those components and not the frame tabs or disc hubs which might also contribute small amounts to the disc set up. <S> Those are among of the lightest cantis available and mechanical discs are heavier than top of the line hydraulic discs (eg Avid XX at 560g/pair) so the difference is not always that much. <S> I don't know any hydraulics that run on drops so I went with the cantis and never had any no regrets. <S> Even deep mud is not a problem, I just learned how to brake differently. <A> You can reduce significant amounts of weight just by swapping the generic steel hardware for titanium bolts. <S> Dollars per gram saved is quite unreal. <A> Lost in this thread is the weight savings on the circumference of the rim. <S> With no need to have a brake surface, the rotational weight impact may be better with a disk even though the overall weight increases. <S> I'll trade rim weight for hub weight. <S> Besides, how many gram counters (keep in mind that there are 28 grams in an ounce) can afford to take a dump before the ride and save lbs????
|
Disc brakes do add weight due to the caliber, pads, steel mounting hardware, and if they are fluid operated, then they are generally even heavier than the cable counterparts. The difference in weight is there, but hasn't really been significant for the last few years.
|
how to reassemble mountain bike rear wheel hub and bearings So I thought I would sort out my wheel bearings (after asking a few questions here first). Did the front without much of a problem, (reused the existing bearings at the moment, had not got round to going to the LBS to get new ones). I tried to do the rear wheel tonight. So I got the wheel off, took the quick release out. undid one side of the axle (disk brake side I believe), took out the bearings etc. I noticed that a few of the bearings from the cassette side had fallen out while taking the other side off. I then used the chain whip and other bit thing (who's name I can not remember) to eventually undo the cassette (was on real tight). Took everything apart (trying to remember the order, even placing things in rows of where it came from) and cleaned it all up. Went to put it back together again and I can not figure out at all (not with any confidence) how the bearings go into the cassette side under the locking nut (think its called that, the bit that comes off with the chain whip and tool). Here are all the bits and the wheel. Think I may have to admit defeat and go the LBS to get it sorted but they had a 5 or so day wait. I am hoping someone might be able to guide me in the right direction to get this working again please. Thanks If anyone else has this problem here is a picture of the final way I assembled it: <Q> While not necessary, it will probably be easier to understand what is happening if you lift the cassette off. <S> The ring at the front of your photo (C) is the nut that holds the cassette on, so <S> right now you should be able to lift the cogs off the freewheel. <S> That will leave you with the splined body of the freewheel exposed and you'll have one less distraction. <S> The parts labelled are : A: cone locknut (the last thing to go on) <S> B: seal, probably from the drive side C: cassette nut/lockring that holds the cassette together and onto the freewheel D: spacer/washer that goes between A and E E: cone with seal attached F: seal from the axle and cone labelled H G: seal from the non-drive side H: axle with cone attached. <S> I: there is no I J: washer. <S> I have no idea where this goes. <S> K: quick release axle. <S> Ignoring the bearings for a minute, the order things go back in from the non-drive side (underneath, in the photo) of the wheel is likely to be: Put the seal F back on H from the long side - it probably should not go all the way to the washer. <S> Push H up into the wheel screw E down onto it then add D, screw A down and lock it off. <S> Push G over the non-drive side cone assembly to seal that side. <S> Push B into the drive side if it fits (I'm not sure it will, I haven't seen a seal like that or in there for a very long time). <S> Put the cassette cogs back on, then add C to lock them in place. <S> Before doing this you will have cleaned the old grease off the cones in the hub (careful with solvents, you don't want to wash the grease out of the rest of the freewheel), then put in new grease and pushed new bearings into it (the grease holds the bearings in place while you reassemble). <A> It goes like this: <S> There's a lot of knack/technique to setting up bearings, its very hard to put into words. <S> Since its already open, you should consider a clean of all the parts before reassembling. <S> Do a close inspection of the cones and cups - the running surface should be smooth and chip free. <A> The part named F is a type of indented washer that sits against the bearings in quando hubs. <S> If you have problems with your back wheel, ie grinding, annoying sounds, I find removing this washer alltogether helpful. <S> It seems to stop any friction noise. <S> When you tighten the cines the rubber seal seats against this washer pushing it against the bearings. <S> These hubs are usually poorly put together when new, but can be tuned to give good service. <S> I would definately remove the unidentified washer for future noise free riding. <S> Also in addition to this, while you have the spindle stripped down check it for straightness. <S> My rear spindle was untrue and caused a rebuild every other ride; I should have checked this first. <S> So I replaced both front and back with decent axles.
|
Degreaser and a clean rag helps - paper towels tend to be quite linty. If the ball bearings are vaguely dull just buy new ones - they're cheap.
|
Does the chain direction make a difference? Recently, I helped a friend install a new chain on her road bike, and for the first time read the instructions for installing one. It seems to claim that there's a forward direction, and that it actually makes a difference. Does anyone know if that's actually true? My LBS (which I love dearly) just replaced my chain, and I thought it was installed it backwards. The new chain, if it makes a difference, is a Dura-Ace, 10 speed, CN-7801. Does it matter? Do I care enough to reinstall it? <Q> This Bicycle Repair Guide says: One- and three-speed bikes use 1/8-inch wide chain, which use master links. <S> There is one master link per bike chain. <S> These snap on and off easily. <S> There are two types of master links. <S> Two-piece master links are opened by loosening the chain, then gently bending the link toward the outside, so the outer plate of the link is free to be lifted off. <S> Three-piece master links have a clip that slides to one side and then lifts off. <S> When reinstalling three-piece links, install the clip with the open end facing away from the direction of rotation, so that friction between the bike chain and clothing, chainguard, etc, will not accidentally remove it . <S> It's also covered on Bike Forums , here's one of the answers: <S> Chain direction matters if the chain is worn. <S> If you remove and soak your chain regularly (which, by the way, is not recommended, regardless of how easy it is to remove the chain), then you won't have a problem regardless of orientation of chain. <S> If you remove a well worn chain and install it in the reverse direction, you'll end up with a mysterious skip in your drivetrain. <S> Reverse your chain to see if that's the cause. <S> There are two exceptions - if the chain has an "inside", i.e. points to the cogs, and "outside", i.e. never contacts cogs, except the pulley of the rear derailleur. <S> If you have such a chain, you'll need to make sure that the inside is inside. <S> You can still reverse its direction though, unless it is also directional, i.e <S> there is a left and a right (the second exception). <A> Turns out that while some chains are directional (like the CN-7900 @lantius mentioned), this one is not. <S> So while I'm not sure how much it matters for other chains, in my case, I clearly don't care :) <A> Many bicycle chains use different platings for the inner and outer links. <S> Inner links are typically plated with a nickel/Teflon surface. <S> Outer links will only get a nickel plating. <S> The extra Teflon coating helps the inner surface of the chain glide over the cogs on the cassette. <S> Here is a video of the manufacture process: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h8j5-dC6_x8 <A> I know you are supposed to: Resize the chain by from the side that terminates at an inner link, this way when you place the new pin into the chain, the outerlink has never had a pin in it before. <S> There's wear created on outerlinks when you insert and remove a pin as you probably guessed by how much force you need with a chain tool to insert and remove a pin. <S> BTW - lube your pin before inserting it.. <S> This is the "forward way" to connect it, the other way is backwards which is what I think you are asking about. <S> If you follow both this rule and the first one I listed you will automatically follow the next rule: <S> If you look on your chain ring, you can see that it has guides for upshifting. <S> The chain will better ride these up while shifting especially when under power. <S> So, in answer to your question, I think it's to guarantee that you install that chain so that if it is asymmetrical, it will be installed properly. <S> If you don't install it properly, the chain can more easily snag while shifting. <A> It is true and I experienced it myself. <S> After removing, cleaning, remounting the chain, the chain was noisy, especially in the derailleur and cogs. <S> I noticed that the text on the side of the elements in the lower part of the loop (between derailleur and front sprocket) was upside down when read standing on the right side of the bicycle. <S> Flipping the chain left <S> /right (that means changed direction of movement, keeping the inner part in contact with the sprockets still inside) solved the issue. <S> I have a IZUMI INDEX (by reading the text in the chain elements).
|
Some chains are asymmetrical slightly, this is to improve shifting. When installing the outerlink should be forward to the direction of travel of the chain.
|
Affordable GPS with maps? I have my eye on the Garmin 800. It looks fantastic, but alas I can't afford it right now. I would like a gps / cycle computer that would work well in Europe with maps. What are my options? I want something I can couple with wheel sensors for speed (better accuracy). Next month I intend to cycle through Czech Republic and Slovakia. Thanks in advance <Q> One option would be to use an iPhone. <S> If you use software such as MapMyRide <S> you can integrate it with ANT+ sensors to measure speed, cadence and even heart rate. <S> These sites also have excellent mapping, training review and history functions. <S> Pros: <S> You can use your existing phone rather than needing separate hardware <S> The online version of mapping software allows you to plan routes and review your history <S> Cons: <S> Waterproofing the iPhone will be harder than with dedicated hardware, although I have seen solutions (such as Biologic's case ) that claim to do this. <S> Battery life will be an issue. <S> You'll need to find a way to keep it charging (using a hub generator as seen here ) or have battery extenders (as seen in the millions on ebay). <S> Maps are downloaded from google maps so you'll need to have a data plan. <A> I have a Garmin eTrex Vista HCx with a 4GB card and all of streetmap Europe on it. <S> Just dont hit the "search street button", or <S> the poor little processor will go south. <A> If you don't need turn by turn, consider the 500. <S> It's got all the othe features, except the tur by turn. <S> I've tried the iPhone, but the lack of integrated sensors and good, solid handlebar mounts. <S> Also, the iPhone is only cost effective if you already own it. <S> Otherwise, it is far more expensive, after accounting for buying transmitters and receivers. <S> So my answer is, no. <S> There aren't any other GPS cycling computers which do the same job, as well, for less cost. <A> I am using Garmin Oregon 300, a discontinued model, which should be cheaper on eBay. <S> I have a bike specific mount from Garmin. <S> Pros: <S> Uses AA batteries (can use rechargeble ones), one set will last ~12 hours <S> ANT+ <S> : Can see heart rate and cadence data, if you have these sensors GPX track saving on by default - you do not have to worry about turning this feature on, you will allways have your data <S> Can display various maps, including user made and OpenStreetMap <S> Cons: <S> Display is sometimes hard to see in direct sunlight, newer models of this product line have fixed this problem. <S> A bit heavy, for a cycle computer <S> No training programs built in (interval, etc), no HR alerts. <S> Basically it is a tourism device, not sports one.
|
Try a handheld gps device with openstreetmaps. If you are using the device for turn by turn directions, then the Garmin 800 is really the only available choice which meets all of my requirements for a cycling computer with GPS. The Oregon, eTrex, or others are suited well for the handheld hiking options, and will work with a bike, but you still have to buy the sensors, and they aren't exactly cheap.
|
What is the widest tyre that you can get away with, on a standard road bike? In general, what is the widest tyre that you can get away with, on a standard road bike (with dual pivot brakes)? Edit: I have a Campagnolo Eurus wheelset. <Q> With a bike designed around modern "short-reach" 39-49 <S> mm calipers, you're going to four main issues: 1) <S> Brake clearance vertically. <S> If everything else is optimal, a 49mm reach caliper should be able to clear around a 32mm tire. <S> You can verify this with an unmounted brake. <S> 2) Brake clearance horizontally. <S> Extra cable tension releases (e.g. in levers or inline) help with this, but the maximum width that the calipers can spread will not be enough to allow an inflated tire through, and even with a deflated tire you might have to force it. <S> 3) Frame clearance. <S> You'll need to have adequate clearance in three places: seatstay bridge, chainstay bridge, and fork crown. <S> In extremely aerodynamic frames, you also may have issues with seat tube clearance. <S> 4) Rim width of your current wheelset. <S> The general rule of thumb is that a tire should be no more than 1.45 to 2.0 times the rim width , which would limit you to roughly 30mm wide tires at the biggest. <S> In general 23mm should be expected, 25mm is likely, and 28mm is occasionally possible. <S> What actually works on a given short reach frame is going to be heavily dependent on the factors above. <S> Bikes with medium-reach (57mm) or long-reach brakes are more capable; I do road riding on a classic 27"-wheeled Trek refitted for 700c with long-reach brakes, 33.3mm tires and full fenders. <A> This depends entirely on your frame and your brakes. <S> On a commuter frame with fenders, perhaps 28. <S> Without fenders on something like a Surly, you can easily handle 32s. <S> Assuming your brake calipers can reach around the increased tire width. <A> I've got 28s on my old Euro roadster.
|
The Campagnolo Eurus wheelset has a 15mm wide rim. On a racing frame, you likely won't get over a 25, and some won't fit anything larger than 23s. Cyclocross bikes are also set up for wider tires, and are often equipped with cantilever brakes to accommodate them.
|
biking with lower back pain I have regular lower back pain (mostly mild, with severe episodes during which I generally stay home; there's nothing wrong with my spine, I just sit at a computer too much). I just started biking to work - it's just a couple of miles and pretty flat, but having my back arched still doesn't feel very good. What biking position should I try for? Any particular adjustments to my bike I should consider? <Q> Others have mentioned good tips about position, but I thought I'd add a few things other than that which I find helpful to reduce lower back pain: <S> I stopped carrying any sort of bag on my back (no matter how seemingly light!) and switched a rack with panniers <S> I stretch after riding, focusing particularly on my lower back (obviously), but also my buttocks and hamstrings, since having these tight can lead to lower back pain. <S> In other words, don't start from zero biking days to biking every day and expect to not be in pain. <S> I've found that these steps have largely eliminated the problem for me. <A> FWIW, I'm a programmer too; and also a biker (or bicyclist). <S> I learned about my lower back from learning Tai Chi: from an expert. <S> I learned to push my lower back outwards - more convex and less concave: <S> but, I didn't learn that on a bike. <A> According to, Andy Pruitt's Complete Medical Guide for Cyclists . <S> Incorrect bike fit is a frequent contributor, especially too much reach to the handlebar. <S> Also, lack of "core" strength in the torso can cause fatigue and pain. <S> I'd go with taking a look at your bike <S> fit first. <S> If that doesn't help, you can definitely consider torso strength and flexibility as the root causes of the lower back issues. <S> Seriously, bike fit is the first place to start. <S> Have you looked into this? <S> A "dutch bike" may be the answer. <S> But, maybe not? <S> Things to try are: seat fore:aft, handlebar extension, handlebar height. <S> Second thing, is that your torso may be weak or inflexible or both. <S> I don't know? <S> Folks are out there on road bikes, mountain bikes, hybrids, and just about any kind of bike with no pain. <A> I am familiar with this problem and the efforts people go to in order to reduce back pain on the bike. <S> Far too frequently people go for expensive stems and bars that climb skywards. <S> Next thing they come back wanting to try something else. <S> The problem being that their hands are no longer taking any of their upper body weight, every bump agitates their spine. <S> Have a look at other cyclists on the road and their posture, get your own idea of how to sit. <S> Bars at seat height and close, i.e. short top tube and relaxed geometry, might be worth a try. <S> This will not be optimum on big hills as you cannot do a lot out of the saddle, but for most roads this should be nice and comfy. <S> Consider getting some old steel bike second hand that has this geometry style. <S> Then you can adapt your proper bike if you like the 'old fashioned' setup.
|
It is possible to get an upright position where the weight balance is good, 'Dutch bikes' seem to manage it, retro-fitting a road bike or MTB is very tricky to get right. When I'm getting back into commuting after not riding for a while, I give myself more recovery time between rides to gain strength.
|
Disk brakes severely reduced in power after replacing bearings so I am creating a few posts about bearings and wheels, (story so far): how to reassemble mountain bike rear wheel hub and bearings mountain bike freewheel hub stopped rotating I have now got the wheels, bearings and freehub working. Started riding to work this morning and I almost couldn't stop at a junction. Thankfully wasn't going too fast. I physically can not get the wheel to lock. I have to use both brakes at full force to get the bike to roll to a stop. If I only use one brake I would not stop at any junction in time. Could the cause be any of the following: Over greased bearings? Over greased axle? not tightened cone hubs enough? not tighted axle enough? I do not have any grease on the disk brakes them selves. Rather nervous getting on the bike now. Don't seem to be doing too well with this bike home fixing thing. over greased bearings? EDIT Forgot to mention that it is hydraulic disk brakes. EDIT 2 So in the end I took it to the LBS as I didn't have much confidence in my self at this point. They had to replace the front pads but where able to clean the rear and cleaned the rotors. (I had tried to clean the rotors but obviously not vigorously enough). He said it was a bit of a pain to do. All is working again. They double checked my wheels and said I had put them back together correctly which is reassuring. Thanks for all the help <Q> If the brakes appear to be engaging fully then it sounds like you have some contamination on the rotors/pads. <S> I would clean the rotors throughly and replace the pads. <S> I have heard it is possible to bake contaminants off pads in the oven, and if you want to give that a shot google for it. <A> That would be my thought... <S> Are you sure with all that work you've done you <S> didn't get any grease on the pads or rotors? <S> I would pop out the pads and clean them thoroughly with something like acetone.... <S> Likewise the rotors. <S> Then make sure the cable adjustment is good and the discs are centered... <S> I am just working on the first bike I've handled with discs, so I'm doing a bit of quick research... <S> These are the Shimano cable-pull models. <S> The rear one is not centered properly and drags. <A> You may also need to re-center your disc in your caliper. <S> I use Avid BB7's, and the owner's manual gives you the directions to re-center the disc. <S> This is basically making it so that when the pads impact the disc, the pads on both sides pinch down on the disc. <S> If the disc is too far off-center, only one pad will rub, which isn't really enough to stop the wheel. <S> This may or may not apply to your brakes, but <S> I can't imagine it not being in the instructions. <A> If the feel of the brakes (i.e. when you squeeze the lever) has changed since your maintenance then there may be air in the system, and you may have to bleed them. <S> If this is the case then they will feel spongy, and the levers will probably move further back towards the handlebars than you're used to. <S> This can sometimes happen if there is air in the reservoirs and you leave the bike upside down while you're working on it - the bubbles work up into the brake cables. <S> You can sometimes avoid having to bleed the brakes if you pump the levers repeatedly, but this is normally only a temporary fix. <S> Having said all that, I wouldn't expect braking to be as badly affected as yours seems to be, so it's more likely that there's some contamination on the discs or pads - maybe some spray lube got onto the rotor? <S> Or maybe just greasy finger prints on the rotor?
|
The best solution I've found is disc cleaner - just spray this on the rotor then apply the brakes and it will clean the pads as well.
|
Non U-Lock that can be mounted for carrying? I recently moved away from NYC to the suburbs. In NYC, I always locked up my bike with the New York Lock, which is a super heavy duty U-Lock. With a plethora of signs and parking meters, NYC works amazingly well for a U-Lock. Now however, the security is overkill and also there's very few signs and no parking meters in the suburbs. I find that I spend at least 10 minutes when I get places trying to identify a U-Lock compatible location to lock up. I'm looking for a bike lock that isn't a U-Lock but is still fairly secure. I might not need such high security still, but you know the old saying... (You can take a man out of the city but you can't take the city out of a man.) My one requirement is that whatever chain/cable lock I end up with needs to have a mount for the bike. I don't want to be carrying this or draping it on the bicycle. I've found tons of cheap, really insecure locks with mounts. I can't find anything that's both secure and mountable. Cost is no obstacle here. A bike theft would cost much, much more. <Q> Any specific lock recommendation is going to be out of date in a year, so I'll focus on identifying the best kind of lock: <S> Any cable locks are going to be insecure by nature, but it's unfortunately the only other kind of lock available just now. <S> (I'm not counting big-ass chains with giant locks; those are more for show than for security.) <S> One of the heavier Kryptonite cable locks is probably your best bet. <S> To beef up the security, I'd get two of them and lock up different parts of the bike. <S> I'm told that keyed locks are harder to crack than combination locks. <S> However, have you considered getting a smaller U-lock and a long cable? <S> You'd get the best of both worlds that way. <S> Since places to lock up are scarce, you'd usually end up using it as just a cable lock, but it'd give you flexibility in the event <S> you find a good sign or bike rack. <S> Bike mounts: These tend to fall apart rather quickly. <S> I recommend focusing on a small pag to carry your locks, rather than use a frame mount. <S> There are triangle frame bags and small trunk bags that do the job nicely. <S> Unless you have smaller drop bars, it's amazingly convenient. <A> A couple of months ago, I purchased an OnGuard link-plate lock which claims to be as tough as some u-locks. <S> It mounts easily to the bicycle and has thus far served me well. <S> It feels pretty durable and will go around more potential anchors than a u-lock. <S> Mine came with a plastic case that attaches to the downtube using velcro straps. <S> It looked kinda cheesy right out of the package, but I must say that I use it every day and it has been just fine. <S> Here's the manufactuer's description: http://www.onguardlock.com/?page_id=329 <A> You should check out the ABUS extreme editions of their folding bike lock: <S> See how it packs away: They also do a twinset version so that you can have two rings of steel around both of your wheels and working off a common key. <S> I don't own one myself <S> but I know people that do own them.
|
However, cable locks have a great advantage over U-locks--you can coil them up and hang them from your handlebars. I think that something in the ABUS 'Bordo' range will be perfect for you being able to put your mind at rest when off-bike, yet easy to carry when on-bike.
|
Are bicycle registration websites any use for recovering stolen bikes? Ther are quite a few bicycle registration websites aimed to help you recover your bike if it is stolen, such as Bike Shepherd , Bike Register and MyBikeNumber . I'm curious if these sites are of any use. What are the strengths and weaknesses of registering on these sites? Is there any data available on their efficacy? <Q> The two questions that I think matter are: which sites do your local bikes shops check all the bikes that come in against? <S> which sites do your local police check bikes they receive against? <S> When we have checked it's been because of something like filed-off serial numbers or a DIY repaint job, and we've not ever had any joy doing so. <S> Even ringing the police in one case didn help - the bike hadn't been reported as stolen. <S> As far as the police go, I've been told by one officer that at least in Australia the best you can hope for is them typing the serial number(s) into google. <S> One thing that also helps is carving your ID number (national ID, driver's licence, whatever is common in your country) into the frame or something obvious like the outside face of the cranks. <S> That makes it irritating to remove and again, easy for the police to identify but not easy for anyone else. <S> If you have access to an engraving tool itś not hard to do this (practice on something first!), <S> but of course it also makes your bike hard to sell. <A> If you have the serial number of your bike, the police will enter the information into NCIC. <S> That's the National Crime Information Center. <S> Anyone running that serial number will get a "hit" on your report. <S> The main problem we have is that folks simply don't do it; they don't keep track of the serial number and we have to tell them that even if the bike is found, the chance it will be legally identified as theirs is minimal. <S> One Trek 4300 looks pretty much like another... <S> I have never used any of these sites, and I can say with some assurance that we police in this area don't check them. <S> I suppose it might catch on.... <S> I'll have to do some research. <A> The site <S> www.stolenbicycleregistry.com <S> is a free resource to register and track stolen bicycles. <S> The site covers USA and Canada, and allows you to register your bike as stolen, or check a bike that you want to buy to see if it has been reported. <S> The following cities have Twitter feeds for their bikes: <S> Tucson Seattle San Francisco <S> Berkeley Chicago <S> San Diego Marin County Philadelphia .
|
In my experience bike shops very rarely check bikes at all, largely because so few are registered (and a relatively low proportion of serviced bikes are stolen). You're better off keeping a record of the serial number and reporting your bike stolen with those details, because the police do actually check serial numbers (it's built into the computer systems).
|
How do I make the platform side of a Shimano PD-A530 multi-purpose SPD pedal less "slippery"? The lock side is great, however, shoes does not stay on the platform side. Your leg always slip out from the pedals during pedaling. Any solution to improve it? <Q> Some people have modded the pedals to add set-screws which provide better grip. <S> Typically this involves drilling a hole, tapping it for threads, and adding a set screw of the desired length. <S> For example, here's an a530 with 2x <S> set screws added: <A> This should be inexpensive and it can be applied in such a way that your pedals are not permanently damaged. <S> The glue on the stuff is pretty good and it is pretty much totally designed for keeping feet in place. <S> Your pedals might look a bit naff with bits of tape wrapped around them, a further consideration is that you could go away from the normal black and get hi-viz tape. <A> I wired a piece of rubber tubing around the front and back beams on mine <S> and it helped a lot. <S> I like the skateboard tape idea and will try it. <S> These pedals are beautifully finished but the edges of all the lugs are rounded over and then hardcoat anodized resulting in a really slippery pedal; your feet tend to slide sideways and go off the outside edge periodically. <S> Running shoes are definitely better. <S> None of this has anything to do with technique; I have old style metal and rubber pedals that you slide off of if you hit a large bump, otherwise you're fine, but these are slippery enough that you can nail your ankle pretty easily. <S> There are a bunch of pedals like the mentioned Shimano M 324 that I think should be better, mostly at the expense of increaded wieght. <A> I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question. <S> It probably depends most on what type of shoes you wear. <S> Have you tried using trainers/sneakers with a rubber sole? <S> I wouldn't want to try and modify the pedals as you may risk damaging them. <S> If you want a really good reliable pedal connection on the platform side, I reckon the Shimano M324 pedals are more likely to suit. <A> That's why you have clips. <A> This seems an easy solution pretty easy to take on and off:
|
Wearing SPD MTB shoes on the flat side is the worst, especially when the cleat reaches the outside edge. Perhaps you need to change your pedalling style when you're riding without clips: push (only) down onto the pedal, instead of spinning. I would pay a visit to your local skateboard shop and get some 'skateboard grip tape'.
|
Why are most tyres black? While looking for new tyres that would fit my bike from a design point of view, it turned out that none of my color wishes could be fulfilled. Most tyres on the market are black, with a handful of exceptions (some mentioned here ) There are headsets, clamps, brake levers, saddle posts etc. available in all colors, why not tyres? <Q> The highest volume use of carbon black is as a reinforcing filler in rubber products, especially tires : <S> Two of the pictures of 'orange' tires show that while the sides of the tire are orange, the tire is black 'where the rubber meets the road'. <A> You can get other colors of tires, but they aren't usually available because if the tire is made with the tread actually a different color, they must use different more expensive additives to increase durability. <S> (See Carbon Black answer above) <S> In addition, on colored tires, the tread portion of the tire rarely looks good for any length of time after being ridden. <S> So customers aren't often satisfied with the product for very long. <S> Lastly, most retailers prefer not to stock a tire that is limited in use to only the few bikes which match the tire color. <S> Tires are expensive, and bulky to store. <S> So why fill your wall space with 5 colors of one model of tire, when you can give better service to more customers by stocking one color of five models in the same space. <A> To protect against ozone and UV damage, a stabilizer molecule called a “competitive absorber” is blended with the tire polymer. <S> Competitive absorbers work by capturing and absorbing UV radiation and converting it to heat which is dissipated harmlessly. <S> All tire manufacturers use the same competitive absorber, carbon black. <S> This is why all tires are black.
|
Practically all rubber products where tensile and abrasion wear properties are crucial use carbon black, so they are black in color. Since the same matching effect can be achieved by the sidewalls being colored, most manufacturers go that way instead.
|
How many balls to put in a bearing? I'm cleaning out most of the bearings on my new (second hand) bike. I'm replacing the grease inside the pedal bearings and I was wondering. How many ball bearings should be inside? I thought there had to be just enough to fill the full circle, but a friend of mine told me I should fill the circle to its fullest and then remove one ball. The reason, he said, is that else there is to much pressure on the bearings. Is this true? And is it true for all the bearings (say, the ones in my hubs)? And also, I'm putting vaseline (the yellow heavy-duty variant) inside the bearings – is that a good idea? <Q> The reason behind the "full less one" is that you need at least half the race full (rounded up) for it to work and performance improves with more balls past that point, but if it's too full you get a dramatic loss in performance. <S> So "full less one" is an easy guide. <S> You can usually see this - when you're adding balls they generally sit in against the axle, then when you add the cone it spreads the bearings slightly. <S> So filling the race is almost always fine. <S> Don't be tempted to add one more to fill in the extra space created when you tighten it up, this is exactly the situation the "full less one" guide is trying to avoid. <S> That "full plus one" means all the load is on one bearing (and one section of the cone), plus the bearings are really grnding against each other as the wheel rotates. <S> If you're lucky the wheel won't rotate in this situation, but if you're unlucky you're wreck the cups and have to replace the cups (or hub, if the cups are not replaceable). <A> The general rule is a full race minus one ball. <S> But if the race holds, say, 20.5 balls (ie, has space for more than 1/2 additional ball but not a full additional ball) then you can use as many as will fit (without forcing). <S> There probably is a (very small) rolling resistance advantage in using fewer balls (down to perhaps 3/4 full) <S> but it would be at the expense of increased wear on the cones and races. <S> Do note that you should try to use all new balls or all balls that are originally from the same axle. <S> The balls wear slightly over time and adding a new ball to a bunch of used ones will mean the new ball is slightly larger and will create additional wear and resistance. <S> You should use a good bicycle bearing grease for the bearings. <S> This will resemble your standard black/brown/gray automotive grease but is better formulated for the conditions in a bicycle hub. <A> Did you not count the ones you removed? <S> That's basic... <S> Also, be sure to take a couple of the old ones to the shop so that they can match the size; most are standard but some bikes have odd-ball sizes. <A> From an engineers point of view, if any of the balls were deformed or fractured, I would suggest that the cups and cones would be shot also. <S> If they have just one visible line, crater or flat on the bearing contact surface, then new balls will not last very long in any case. <S> When in doubt, use white lithium grease preferred or Castrol boat trailer grease.
|
In practice most bearings spread a little as you tighten the cones so "full" when you're adding balls is not actually full in use. At the very least use the automotive grease -- I would not expect petroleum jelly to hold up very well in a bike axle. And be sure to buy new bearings; they are cheap and most authorities recommend that old ones not be re-used.
|
Better solution for uncomfortably low bars: a stem riser, or taller stem? I've got my (threaded) stem at the maximum height, but I'd be more comfortable if the bars were higher relative to the seat. It would be uncomfortable to lower the seat any further. I was intrigued by the idea of a stem riser as a cheaper solution than a taller stem, or a larger frame. <Q> If you're a strong guy with wide handlebars and you're prone to really grunting on the bars you're more likely to break a riser (or anything else), and will probably find the small amount of extra slop makes the bars feel loose (or as though they're about to break). <S> threadless: <S> quill: <S> I've generally suggested them as an interim solution for someone playing with bike fit, or for someone who wants a bigger frame but can't afford a new bike. <S> Right now I have a back injury that means I need a more upright riding position, and I've obtained that via a set of upright bars that have a bit of rise as well as the sweep back, and a stem with more rise (that I swapped off my old commuter bike). <A> In addition to Moz's answer , with which I agree, a stem riser can affect the handling of a bike, and it's safety. <S> In most cases, they are fine and perfectly safe. <S> Any thing like this can be carried too far, however, and your frame is designed with particular limits on the amount of leverage placed on any part of the frame. <S> There are always extra margins built in for safety, but carrying any kind of modification to the design of a frame TOO far can result in damage. <S> Also, too large a change can, depending on body proportion, put you in position that will pull you too far toward the rear of the frame. <S> That change of balance can make the bike steer "skittishly" or "lightly", because there is not a balanced proportion of the weight on the front wheel (which handles your steering). <S> Meaning that a 1"--3" riser is probably fine, but <S> installing a 10" riser is probably not. <S> Given funds and opportunity, you are in the long run better off getting a frame that is fit correctly, or a style of bicycle better suited to your needs. <S> IMHO. <A> I am agreed with @zenbike + @moz <S> and I have <S> part-covered some of the gotchas of this topic already . <S> What you might also like to try are some 'North Road' style handlebars. <S> These will bring your arms into a more relaxed posture whilst still enabling you to put some weight onto the bars. <S> Typical 'North Road' bars do rise a bit, bringing the hands closer <S> helps too: <S> You can try before you buy as lots of bikes have this style and a short ride with them might have you convinced.
|
They increase the amount of force you can put on the headset (as does anything else that gets the handlebars further up), they can break (unlikely but possible), they add a little slop and they often creak (a consequence of the slop). Stem risers do work but have limitations.
|
Why is it important to have good saddles? Why is it important to have good saddles? Other than the comfort in long rides. <Q> Taken from the livestrong website: A March 2005 article in "European Urology" discusses the overuse injuries that can stem from long-term bicycling. <S> The article states that, although cycling can be a healthy, beneficial sport, some injuries can occur to the urogenital system. <S> Genitalia numbness was found to be most common, reported in 50 to 91 percent of the cyclists, followed by erectile dysfunction reported in 13 to 24 percent. <S> Prevention/Solution <S> Although studies do not link bicycling with specific prostate diseases, the pressure of traditional seats can create problems for both men and women. <S> Fortunately, there are several types of seats that can help alleviate that pressure and prevent injury. <S> Look for seats with a split saddle, or one with a space in the area that would normally press into the perineum. <S> There are more extreme options like the "no-nose" bicycle seat, the moon seat and the easy seat that are geometrically different from a standard saddle. <A> There are several reasons, one of which is a fear of ED , which we can all agree is bad. <S> In my opinion, there are 2 other major reasons as well. <S> When you ride (or exercise otherwise), your body tries to adapt to the new form of motion, support, or what have you. <S> This is why we create callouses, and new muscle. <S> It is why we get more flexibility with stretching. <S> If your saddle is poor quality, it usually lacks the stability to be a platform your body can adapt to. <S> We all know what it usually feels like to ride a new saddle the first 2 weeks or so. <S> A quality saddle remains the same saddle, long enough for your body to adapt to it. <S> It also allows the break in to happen in pre-designed ways, which means that break in of your new saddle does not equate to break down on your new saddle. <S> If you are comfortable you will enjoy riding more. <S> If you enjoy riding more, you will ride more, with all of the associated benefits. <S> For the record, these same points can be made regarding saddles, gloves, grips, shoes, pedals, cycling shorts, jerseys, and any other point of contact with the bike. <A> Also better aerodynamics - you'll note that all of the speed records and many of the marathon records are held by bikes or trikes that have proper saddles. <S> Something like this:
|
In addition, although I know you were not asking about comfort, if you are adapted to your saddle, it will be more comfortable. The main advantages are better power delivery and lower rider fatigue.
|
How can many people move a car -trailer with bicycles? I need to move a trailer like this one here but with 4 wheels (two on both sides). I have no access to cars. The distance is about 100km or more, and I am a bit unsure how I am going to move it: where I should move it on pedestrian way or on car road? How should I do it? I am ready to buy any bike to move this type of things so some recommendations for this type of cargo moving with bike? Diamond-framed may not be the best option. I have some friends on the journey so I have considered to hack a dandem or tri-bicycle or weld old touring bikes together to form one larger X-cycle. I have noticed that my bicycle brakes are not really enough to move larger cargos, any ideas how to upgrade brakes in bike or some hack to the trailer? Or how many bicycles would be enough to stop this at least 1.3Mg beast? I think we are going to move during night anyway but we may need to use some car roads - what kind precautions should I do with the trailer besides installing a lot of blinking lights and reflectors? <Q> The first question is what the legal situation is. <S> I am fairly sure that in Australia that trailer would not be a legal bike trailer because of the overhang past the rear axle, but the police would stop you because it's too large (they generally don't know this part of the law very well). <S> Either way, I doubt you'd get far before they took an interest. <S> If you can tow it legally, I'd look at how to activate the brakes in the trailer. <S> You will need to be able to do that relatively easily, because those will be your only effective brakes. <S> That trailer will push a bicycle with it's wheels locked up quite easily. <S> So, make the trailer brakes work. <S> Then I would build a quick semitrailer-style load tricycle, either a tandem or triplet. <S> Somewhere on the net are photos of a bike shop move (in north america?) <S> where they built a couple of semi-trailer style trike+trailer units for the heavy stuff (workbenches at 200kg+). <S> Broadly, a solid axle between two wheelbarrow-style wheels, one side driven, very low geared, upright trike. <S> You would probably want gears in there, but the main thing is to mount the towball as close to that axle as you can. <S> Have the rear rider operate the (trailer) brakes, and the front rider operate the steering and gears. <S> I would fit brakes to the trike but only for legal reasons and so it can be ridden separately from the trailer. <S> Depending on the weight of the trailer and the slope of the hills, you may find that you need a few extra riders to help push the trailer up hills. <S> Either way, walking speed is a fair guess at how fast you'll go. <S> Partly because you don't want to go faster than that down hills either. <S> You will probably have better luck if you do it as a charity ride - it doesn't really matter which charity, just pick one <S> you kind like who will let you use their name and start advertising "fund raising ride - five idiots pull a big trailer from Here to There using a tricycle". <S> With a little effort I'm sure you could even make enough money for them to be really happy :) <A> Put an advert up with your local paper/Craigslist and offer the free use of the trailer on the proviso that they collect it for you. <S> There are always people wanting to move house etc. <S> and they may be glad of the favour. <A> Moving this with bicycles sounds horribly unsafe. <S> I recommend against it, and here's why: <S> You'd need to find a way to trigger the trailer's brakes from the bikes, possibly to work simultaneously. <S> From the picture, it looks like this trailer is as wide as an automobile, perhaps wider. <S> I don't think you'd be able to fit that on a sidewalk/pavement in any case <S> , local regulations aside. <S> (Most locales encourage bicycles from riding on the sidewalk/pavement, and sometimes prohibit it entirely. <S> It's difficult to say more without knowing what locations you'll be passing through.) <S> Keep in mind that if you lose control of the trailer, not only could the trailer be damaged, but the cyclist(s) could be injured, and another driver or a bystander could easily be hurt or killed. <S> It <S> it's vital to have the trailer moved, I would seriously consider having it moved on a flatbed truck rather than tow it with bicycles.
|
Tandems often use drum brakes, particularly on the rear wheels, but if the trailer you're moving is as heavy as most auto/truck trailers, you're going to have a difficult time stopping it from moving, particularly when going downhill, even with a drum brake system built for bicycles.
|
How do you connect and disconnect a quick release chain link? I can't find any nice video or pictures tutorial that explains how to connect and disconnect a quick release chain link . Am I not finding anything because it has another more common name? How do you connect and disconnect a quick release chain link? <Q> They're more commonly called master link s and sites like the Park Tool one have detailed instructions. <S> If you can edit in more detailed questions about the actual problems you're having that would help. <S> From the Park Tool Website: Some chain manufacturers offer a "master-link" to join the chain. <S> Be sure to read the manufacturers directions. <S> Typically, the bicycle chain ends must have inner plates on each end. <S> In other words, neither chain end has an outer plate with a rivet. <S> The link comes in two pieces. . <S> Install one piece through inside face of chain, and install second piece through outside of the other chain end. <S> Engage the two pieces so link rivet mates to link plate hole. <S> Pull chain to lock the link. <S> This insures the link is fully locked. <S> Inspect link before riding the chain. <S> Note: Some master links are reusable, while others are disposable and should be replaced after each removal. <S> Check manufacturer's specifications. <A> What you're looking for is also called a master link chain. <S> A search on Youtube brings up several videos: <A> Not totally sure I follow the question, but if you're looking to take a chain the currently does not have a qr link and add one, you'll need a chain link tool to first remove one of the links in your chain. <S> You do this by lining up the pin pushing part on a pin and then cranking it until the pin is all the way out. <S> Do the same on the other side, so one complete link is out. <S> Now put the qr link in that spot and slide the side of the link that as the "c" part down over the pins. <S> the open part of the link will pinch one of the pins in a little grove. <S> If you look at the site you sent's pix while reading this, I hope it makes more sense. <S> Good luck.
|
The best method to do this is to move master link to top section between rear cogs and front chainrings and press hard on pedals.
|
Should I get a bike that's too small for me? I'm considering buying the 2010 model of the Pinarello FP2. They're substantially cheaper than this years model (~£700). However, they only have the 55cm frames in stock. I'm 6ft tall, looking at this size chart it says the 55cm frame is suitable for people up to 5ft 9in. Would it be advisable for me to get a bike of this size? Is it going to cause me problems? Is it not such an issue? After all it's a massive saving but if the bikes unrideable (for whatever reason) then it's not worth it. <Q> Riding a bike in the wrong size (either too small or too large) for long periods can lead to all kinds of lower back, upper back, neck and shoulder issues en various leg injuries, mostly in the knee. <S> Also, your power output can be reduced significantly. <S> However, "properly sized" really depends on the rider. <S> Sheldon Brown has a lot of good info, but mostly it comes down to: Try the bicycle to find out how it feels. <S> Compare it to your current bicycle. <S> How this works also depends on the relative length of your legs and your upper body. <A> Proper size is definitely important--it's not a good deal, no matter what the price, if it doesn't fit you. <S> In my experience, top tube length is the one that's most important to get right. <S> There's a bit of latitude for adjusting the reach to the bars by changing stem length but this will change the handling dynamics so you don't really have more than a couple cm of adjustment. <S> Adjusting the reach by moving your seat forward or back isn't really an option. <S> The seat positioning should be largely determined in relation to the pedals. <S> If the seat's not positioned properly with respect to the pedals, I feel like I'm constantly sliding forward or backward as I ride. <S> In your case--compare the FP2 geometry specs to your current bike, or take a ride on a bike with similar geometry. <S> You can also try an online fit calculator, competitivecyclist.com for example, to give you an idea of what size you should be looking at. <S> In the end, there's no substitute for actually riding the bike in question, though some fit problems only become apparent after an hour or more on the bike. <S> Looking at the FP2 geometry, the top tube seems long-ish for the nominal size, and the sizing chart seems to run a little big. <S> As an example, I'm 5'8" tall and generally prefer about a 54-55 cm top tube. <S> This is all, of course, specific to my preferred riding position and body geometry but suggests that the 55 cm frame might not be out of the question for a six-footer. <S> Make sure you're comfortable on the bike (or one of similar geometry) before plunking down the cash, though. <S> Peter White Cycles has a pretty comprehensive article on bike fit that I learned a lot from--it's more qualitative in its approach but gives a good understanding of things to take into account. <S> In short--maybe, <S> but it depends on your preferred riding position and body geometry. <A> As jilles says. <S> A few CM one way or the other will not be critical as appropriate changes can be made in the adjustable parts. <S> Stem, saddle, etc. <S> My current roadster (which I've been riding for about 10 years) is technically a tad too large for me, but it's completely comfortable with the adjustments I've made. <A> To answer the question directly: <S> No it is not advisable to purchase a bicycle which is to small for you. <S> To answer the question you didn't ask: You need to have someone qualified to fit you on a bicycle look at the bike, and look at you on the bike. <S> I say it that way because asking the question tells me you aren't confident in your own opinion on the matter. <S> So get a friend, your LBS, or pay someone to fit you professionally. <S> No one can ultimately decide for you. <S> It is a red flag for me that you consider it too small, and are interested anyway because of the price. <S> (If I'm not reading too much into the question.)
|
So a properly sized bicycle is important. Finally, you can compensate some sizing issues in this specific case with a longer stem and/or higher saddle. Therefore, I'd probably be most comfortable on a 53 cm FP2 even though I'm 2" taller than the max recommended height on the sizing chart you linked.
|
Should inner tube have excess length? I've recently changed the default 700x35 tires and 35mm Schrader inner tube to 700x25 slicks with 25mm Presta inner tubes. However whilst fitting the new tire and inner tube, I noticed that the inner tube had about an inch or two of excess length to it. This mean I had to tuck it into the tire, doubled back on itself. I've doubled checked the inner tube packaging and it's definitively for a 700 diameter rim. I presumed that it would sort itself out when I pumped up the tires. Is this normal? <Q> A tube should not have excess length, and doubling on itself will cause the tire to feel uneven while riding, as well as increase the likelihood of flats. <S> Assuming the tube is the correct size for the tire, as you said it was, there are 2 common causes for this problem. <S> It isn't, just add enough air to the tube to give it a little shape and try it again. <S> If you did that already, then in the process of inflating the tube to make easier to install in the tire, you have probably inflated it too much, and so it has gotten larger. <S> It's not permanent, just let the air out and inflate it only enough to give it shape before installing it in the tire. <S> If these don't work, there is likely a problem in manufacturing, and you should get the tube exchanged. <S> Hope that helps. <A> I've personally seen a tube too-long when not inflated, turn into "perfect fit" with just a bit of air in it; just enough air to give it a circular shape if you lay it on the floor. <S> I just blow lightly into the open presta valve - no need to use a pump. <S> And push the tube into the cavity of the tire, don't try to "seat" it on the rim. <S> (caveat: <S> my experience is with larger MTB tubes & tires) <A> It isn't normal, and will cause a problem. <S> Tubes only expand when you put air in them, and will never get shorter. <S> I'd try a different brand of tubes. <A> Some (many) tubes are made to fit too wide a range of tire sizes and will tend to be a bit on the long side inside some tires. <S> One should make a point to only inflate the tube enough to fill it out before installing (so as not to stretch it further), then make sure during installation that it's not buckled or doubled on itself at any point inside the tire. <S> If the tube is buckled/doubled anywhere not only will you have a "lump" while riding, you'll also have a flat tire in a few dozen miles of riding.
|
If you installed the tube without inflating it first, just a tiny amount, then it hasn't got the shape to sit in the tire completely, and it will appear to be too long.
|
Daily commuting - are dietary supplements recommended? I've been commuting daily (Apart from holidays, illness and some other exceptions) for the past year, riding 12 miles daily (6 miles with 500ft height gain coming in, 6 miles 232ft height gain riding back) on a hybrid. Recently there have been times when I've been feeling quite run down by the weekend, lacking energy. It could just be a virus doing the rounds, but it made me wonder if there was a specific diet or dietary supplement that would be of benefit to a daily commuteer. <Q> The canonical recommendation is for "a complete and balanced diet". <S> Whatever 'supplements' you might need depend on what your current diet is. <S> The recommendations I've been given (I'm 50 and commute 24 miles/day) from a dietitian are vitamin D (because I live in Canada - I suspect that recommendation is obsolete currently while I'm commuting 2 hours/day in summer) and (based on blood test results) <S> perhaps a bit more iron <S> (I'm vegetarian). <S> Some of the important components to consider, IMO, include water, salt, carbohydrates, and, rest/sleep. <S> In summary, perhaps you should talk with a doctor or dietitian. <S> If you want to discover what your current diet is (which is presumably one important question before deciding how to supplement it - an alternative might be physical exam, blood tests), I quite recommend DietOrganizer . <A> No. <S> Dietary supplements are not recommended. <S> Just the all-you-can-eat I-don't-have-to-count-calories cyclist-special-diet of a hearty, big, evening meal. <S> Years ago, when I did a shorter journey than yourself but with a fair amount of free-wheeling/climbing <S> I asked my doctor why I was getting so many colds/feeling-run down. <S> He explained about my immune system, the cold morning air and so on. <S> No references unfortunately, however, you might want to ask your doctor, and in the general context of your riding + times of riding. <S> Post what you find back on here. <A> It's two years later now <S> and I no longer feel this way. <S> What's changed? <S> Two more years of fitness on the bike : I ride every day, apart from Wednesday Better sleep pattern : I've got used to having two kids now and making sure I get enough sleep, rather than pushing my luck and staying up too late Better cycling technique Maybe...? <S> Overall <S> I imagine it's generally down to keeping at it and my body adjusting, getting fitter, etc... <A> Good advice. <S> The entire field of "supplements" is a can of worms that might better be asked in the "skeptic" area... <S> Although it's a multi-billion dollar insdustry with loads of people having almost-religious fervor.... <S> Scientific studies keep showing little or no benefit from most all of the various nostrums. <A> I think it depends on what you eat already, if you get enough energy and Vitamins/minerals from normal food then your probably doing ok, guess taking multi- <S> vitamin wont do any harm. <S> 12 Miles is not that much, takes you how long an hour? <S> Try going to the gym 4 times a week after a days work, you'll feel tired too by the time Friday comes around, <S> specially if you have had virus, can sometimes take a good few weeks to get over. <S> Try not cycling for a few weeks, go take the car (figuratively, I would never recommend some one drive if they can cycle), see how you feel. <S> I know how I feel after being away from home and not getting my daily cycle, I may not be physically as tired <S> but I sure feel slower, discontent and apathetic.... <A> One does need to keep in mind, though, <S> that exercise at the level you practice can expose any one of numerous possible medical conditions, particularly of the "metabolic disorder" category. <S> Generally these cause muscle pain, though, rather than simple fatigue. <S> However, there are other categories. <S> At one point I was suffering fatigue similar to what you describe (in similar conditions) and it turned out to be incipient post-polio syndrome. <S> (It's largely controlled with several drugs, but is encroaching more and more as I age.) <S> And of course everyone needs some "down time", and it's natural, in a sort of meta-circadian rhythm way, for it to occur on the weekend. <A> There are actually studies suggesting that in the generally population, most vitamins are worse than useless unless diet is really bad. <S> Which studies you believe is up to you. <S> If you land at your desk and find work waiting for you (or the equivalent when you get home) and don't stretch, after a decent ride <S> (mine's about 50% longer than yours, less climbing but some of it very steep) <S> you will start to feel tired and achy pretty quickly. <S> So find a good stretch routine, not forgetting your core, and do it religiously. <S> Personally I have a protein bar on arriving in work as well <S> - I'm hungry by then, and I can afford the calories (1/2 of those for my each-way ride). <S> I believe, though not strongly, that it makes the evening ride easier - worth a try. <A> I don't think you need anything particularly special. <S> Sleep well and make sure you have calories before you ride. <S> Breakfast before your morning commute and possibly a snack before your commute home may do a great deal to prevent you feeling dragged down during your ride. <S> Anything with some carbs will probably do, PB&J works great, so do cliff bars.
|
"Eat a balanced diet" is the best general recommendation. But also understand that "energy level" is closely related to your degree of stimulation, and if you're simply not doing anything that interests you on the weekends you'll feel less energetic. It is a fair call to ask your doctor what could be going on, a lot of people clutter up doctors waiting rooms with more frivolous complaints. How about doing a go slow week, see if you can get rest from cycling slowly or take the bus for a few days.
|
What cause and cure for tense or cramped stomach muscles? I recently restarted cycling to work. I did four round trips. After riding back from the fourth trip, my stomach muscles started to tense and cramp. I heard that stretching before and after a ride, as well as remaining hydrated, could prevent this. Is there anything else I could do to prevent cramps? I intend on riding four days next week too because of the lively feeling I gain from cycling. EDIT There is nothing abnormal about my medical circumstances. I ride 9mph on average in one direction (using cycle paths rather than roads) and slightly less coming back. A one-way trip is under four miles. <Q> Of course, as with any exercise, stretching is worthwhile. <S> Mostly, try riding 2 or 3 days a week, with a rest day between, until you get fit enough to ride comfortably. <A> Given the information that you provided and knowing nothing else about your physical condition... <S> I recently restarted cycling to work. <S> I did four round trips. <S> After riding back from the fourth trip, my stomach muscles started to tense and cramp. <S> There are a number of ways to accomplish this. <S> The methods include things like: traditional strength training, yoga, pilates, tai chi, and others. <S> Sounds to me <S> that you're re-starting an activity that your body isn't quite ready for. <S> So, maybe you just overdid it to begin with? <S> After riding back from the fourth trip, my stomach muscles started to tense and cramp. <S> It's not certain that the cycling caused this. <S> Sounds like your first 3.5 trips were ok; it's just the latest return trip that caused the tense and cramped stomach muscles? <S> Unless this is a recurrent issue, I would not blame it on the cycling. <A> If you were going longer I'd suspect dehydration, but no way you can get dehydrated in eight miles unless the temp and humidity are both in the 90s. <S> It's vaguely possible <S> Find some sites on the web about bike fit and make sure your bike is reasonably sized and reasonably well-adjusted. <S> Raise your handlebar a bit higher, if it's not already at the warning mark. <S> There are some medical conditions that can be "revealed" from more intense cycling, but not likely at the level you're doing. <S> Added: <S> One other possibility is cycling in too "high" a gear (on a multi-speed bike). <S> This places unnecessary strain on the entire body, especially the knees, but also the leg and lower torso muscles. <S> Generally (on the flat) one should adjust gearing so as to pedal at a rate above 60 RPM (ie, one complete revolution of the pedals per second), and experienced cyclists will tend to pedal at 70-90 RPM (for some reason getting slower as we age). <S> Another way to gauge pedaling speed (that works pretty well across a range of effort levels) is that you should do at least one revolution of the pedal for each breath you take, and preferably two revolutions per breath. <S> It's OK to slow RPMs somewhat on a hill, but don't go so slow that you're "grinding". <S> The two most common mistakes made by new cyclists are to have the seat too low and to pedal too slowly. <A> I just warm up on the bike, taking the first ~1 mile of my commute fairly gently. <A> How much effort does the 9mph require for you? <S> (note that for some people it would require super human effort, for others, not so much) <S> I used to find that when I rode my commute with annoyingly younger, fitter, male friends, that I would push very hard to keep up/ <S> impress them <S> (I know, why?!) <S> and when I got home I would have gut cramps. <S> This was the only circumstance that this happens for me (and I bike a lot). <S> So I would have been breathing harder for sure. <S> Perhaps not breathing enough? <S> I am not sure the medical/physical cause, but I thought if your 9mph is pushing hard, try easing off and see if you still get them.
|
Mostly a few slow warm up laps around a short course, or taking it a bit easy the first few trips out, as you get used to riding a bike again. You may want to consider some sort of torso (core) strengthening and flexibility routines. you're OVER-hydrating, but more likely your riding position is too awkward -- perhaps reaching forward too much (given your waist circumference & general condition), or perhaps you're seat's too low.
|
Why am I breaking a ridiculous number of spokes? First, this is a follow up to this: Why does my back wheel keep becoming untrue? (The short version is I bought a used bike a few weeks ago, I broke a spoke on the back wheel, replaced the spoke, trued the wheel with a tensiometer, and found that it had become untrue again. The diagnosis was either the wheel was bent, or that the spokes were just settling and re-truing it would sort out the problem.) I've been riding it over a week with an untrue back wheel (aka Kayak Mode ). Today, I checked the wheel because the trouble had become a big issue again, and found I had two (!) broken spokes since replacing the first broken one a week or two ago. So, why are my spokes snapping like spaghetti? I guess: Because I was riding without truing the wheel Because I'm riding too hard (i.e. coming off curbs) Some combination of the two, or something else. Thanks! Your pal,JKD POSTSCRIPT July 28, 2011 First, thanks everybody. I wanted to follow up for people who find this question later, and describe the rest of my experience with the wheel. I kept breaking spokes after replacing them, and by the time I got to the shop again, I had broken five (!) more. They looked at it, I looked at it, and I ended up replacing the wheel. It rides fine now, and as far as I can tell, it was just an old wheel. Kazah! <Q> Generally, repeated issues with broken spokes indicates either damage to the rim, meaning that the metal hoop of the rim is physically bent while under no tension, or that the spokes are at the end of their fatigue life. <S> Any wheel has an expected use life, and usually, you will wear a track in the aluminum rim from braking forces before the fatigue life of the stainless steel spoke becomes an issue. <S> However, if the the rim is damaged, as referenced in your previous question, then the tension of the wheel cannot be evenly consistent, because some spokes must be tighter than others in order to hold the rim true and straight. <S> If our wheel is unevenly tensioned, it allows a far greater amount of movement of each spoke during the revolution of a wheel, and this stresses the spokes beyond their designed strength. <S> And you break more spokes. <S> If the rim is not bent, the same issue applies, except it is smaller movement of the spokes over a far greater period of time which has pushed the spoke beyond its useful life. <A> Several possibilities: <S> The wheel is poorly built -- over tensioned, improperly crossed, wrong side of the flange, etc. <S> You're too heavy for the wheels. <S> You're too hard on the wheels (for the ruggedness of the particular wheels). <S> The spokes are corroded or otherwise reaching end of life. <A> I had the same issue with a set of wheels. <S> I was breaking a spoke every week or two. <S> My advice was that it was a cheaply built wheel with weak spokes. <S> Whenever I replaced a spoke I marked it <S> and I confirmed that it was always the original spokes that were snapping. <S> I upgraded to a new set of wheels and haven't had any trouble since. <S> I'd suggest having a good hard look at the bike and either buying new wheels or upgrading to a better quality bike. <S> Wheels are a pretty safe investment because you can transfer them to a new (similar) bike relatively simply. <A> Spokes usually break from fatigue. <S> Hitting things hard might dent the rim, or cause a spoke that is about to break from fatigue to fail, but it won't in itself fatigue rims. <S> If your a heavy guy and the wheels are light, that might cause the spokes to fail early. <S> Otherwise the chances are that the wheel just wasn't built very well. <S> After all most cheap bike never actually go very far, so that fatigue life might not be the most pressing issue for the manufacturer. <S> Once one spoke in a wheel has broken from fatigue, the rest will follow shortly. <S> If the rim is not very worn and has no obvious dents, you may be able to get the wheel rebuilt by a good bike shop. <S> Or you could by The Bicycle Wheel book by Jobst Brandt and it yourself. <A> Just for future reference, I'll add this: My son purchased a "Eurobike" of sorts a couple of months back and brought it on the week-long group bike tour we took last week. <S> The bike is branded by a purportedly good outfit in California, and built (of course) in China. <S> It is a 26-inch unsuspended hybrid, with a variable-speed NuVinci rear hub and a Shimano generator front hub. <S> In general it appears to be a good quality bike. <S> Before the ride started it was discovered that one spoke was broken on the rear wheel (and a repair was effected), and during the last day of the ride a second spoke broke. <S> Both spokes broke at the nipple. <S> On examination of the wheel it could be seen that the large-diameter hub and the 2-cross pattern caused the spokes to approach the rim at an angle substantially off from 90 degrees, causing quite obvious bending of the spoke where it enters the nipple. <S> The tendency to break at this point was likely further abetted by undersized, poor quality spokes. <S> I am guessing that the wheel will need to be relaced, though we will see what the bike shop and manufacturer say after my son gets back to California. <S> It's vaguely possible that the rim was drilled for the off-angle nipples but the wheel was built wrong, with the odd nipples in the even holes or some such. <S> In any event, heavier gauge, better quality spokes are needed. <S> (Other than the spoke problem -- and an associated problem with the enclosed chain while servicing -- the bike performed admirably, handling some very substantial hills.) <A> I have a Giant road bike from the late nineties, which hung unused in the garage for ten years. <S> When I started riding it again seriously a few years ago I snapped quite a few spokes, perhaps a spoke or two a month. <S> The broken spokes were on the drive side of the rear wheel of course; the spokes on that side necessarily have higher tension because of the offset of the hub flanges. <S> The owner of the LBS said that my problem was "cheap Taiwanese spokes". <S> (It was kind of him not to say anything about my being a heavier rider at 210 lbs / 95 kg.) <S> He predicted that eventually I would have replaced all the drive-side spokes (with replacement spokes from his shop naturally) <S> and then I would no longer have the problem, and that's exactly what happened. <S> I wish I'd changed them all at once, instead of one at a time. <S> So for those with similar problems, it's possible that the manufacturer built the wheels with inferior spokes to save a little bit of money, and that all you need to do is change the spokes.
|
Riding without truing the wheel doesn't help the situation, but wouldn't by itself cause a problem unless the tension was so far off that a few spokes were bearing the lion's share of the load.
|
Recommendation on new $400-500 hybrid Analysis paralysis. My wife says I can spend up to $500 on a first bike. I don't want to spend it on the wrong stuff. My intention is to use it as the "last mile" on public transit on commute/weekends, quick to the grocery, leisure ride, and perhaps even intentional exercise. I've read tons of other posts on this site talking about what to look for in the abstract. Now I need some concrete advice. Which bike to buy? At 6'4", 36.5 inseam, This calculator says my ideal mountain bike measurements are 21.5" seat tube and 180mm crank. I don't know how that equates to a hybrid. I think the larger frame size limits my options - bikes stores don't seem to carry these sizes. So perhaps I have to order online? Besides being the best value in all parts, certain luxuries I think I'd like are wheel splash guards and a rear rack as I might commute to work. Can these be added to any bike? Front suspension? Not sure if I need it, but I know to want lockout if I do. Aluminum vs Steel? I've read that aluminum is less shock absorbing than steel, yet my known options below are all aluminum. Here's what I'm looking at: http://www.marinbikes.com/2011/bike_specs_compared.php?serialNum1584=1584&serialNum1581=1581&serialNum1580=1580&serialNum1882=1882 http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1094212_-1_20000__400321 Are these any better than a Dick's Sporting Goods Diamondback brand hybrid? What others should I look at? Thanks. <Q> I've worked on a number of Marin bikes and they are impressive IMO. <S> Simple, straightforward design. <S> Here's the bottom line. <S> In this price range, regardless of what you get, you are looking at a Chinese-made frame built to "spec" (what the company wants). <S> Then, various major-manufacturer components are bolted on and the bike is shipped. <S> It's common to throw on an "upgraded" rear derailleur as this catches the consumer's eye... <S> Costs the manufacturer only a few bucks more. <S> Not that these are not perfectly fine bikes... <S> Most hybrids are made with a frame that leans more to the "road" type, with a straighter top tube. <S> Most mountain bikes have a more compact design with a sloping top tube so that the rider can maneuver on the bike while off-road. <S> The old "standover height" or "inseam" height measurements date to when road bikes were built with the standard diamond frame with a flat top tube. <S> Modern bike design is a little more flexible. <A> Look at the Scott SUB line . <S> (Keeping in mind than I'm in Dubai, and prices are not the same here.) <S> On the SUB line, you would ride a XXL, FYI, assuming accurate height and inseam. <S> Also, consider asking your wife if she would prefer to increase your budget now by $300 or so, or have you replace the bike due to either wear and tear, or changing necessities, in a year or so. <S> Long term, buying a "cheap" bike is generally more expensive, if you ride it. <S> And yes, both of those bikes would be better than the Diamondback, if not by as much as I'd like. <A> Fenders and racks can be added to most conventional "diamond frame" bikes (though it's nice to have a frame with the mounting bosses already present). <S> However, fenders are problematical on skinny-tire (less than 28mm or so) road bikes and both fenders and racks can be a problem on bikes with "suspensions". <S> For those you need to have some assurance from a knowledgeable person that suitable components can be found and attached. <S> You don't need aluminum or other exotic frame materials -- the additional weight of a steel frame is not that significant for your use. <S> Suspension is also unnecessary for street riding (and is mostly there to "suck in" the macho types), unless you're dealing with giant potholes, though a shock-absorbing seatpost is sometimes a worthwhile add-on. <S> Though purists will turn up their noses, it's nice to have a (decent) kickstand. <S> Based on your criteria, that Fuji Crosstown looks pretty good to me -- fenders, rack, shockpost, 700/35 wheels, reasonably decent components and gearing <S> [though unnecessary AL frame and front suspension]. <S> About all I'd likely do (if I weren't a drop handlebar guy) is change out the seat. <A> Aluminum vs Steel? <S> I've read that aluminum is less shock absorbing than steel, yet my known options below are all aluminum. <S> I read that too. <S> I eventually bought an Alu bike with no suspension (and no 'carbon seat post', etc.). <S> I'm riding on paved roads: not hopping or flying or dropping; when coasting over (small) pot-holes and frost-crazed pavement I just stand / lift myself slightly: <S> put more of my weight on my feet/pedals and less on my seat/saddle. <S> Advantages are <S> Alu are a) lighter b) <S> doesn't rust c) just as strong. <S> Advantages of no suspension include a) lighter b) <S> cheaper c) more efficient and less maintenance. <A> What others should I look at? <S> My requirements are very similar to yours, I ended up getting a GT Traffic 3.0 . <S> Things I like about it:
|
They are all really rather similar; variations in frame geometry are minimal, variations in component spec are also minimal. The main thing you are looking for is fit, which you already recognize as important, and the best components you can get for your money. solid forks pinhead security for the wheels and handlebars rubber bumpers so you don't mess up the frame when you park it holes in the right places for luggage attachments and mudguards The prices vary depending on components, but you should be able to get an excellent road hybrid commuter for $500 approximately.
|
What to look for in Riding Suits? I have been using a riding jacket but it is a bit hot during summer over long trips. I like the jacket because it is very simple, only one pocket for a key and it protects in accidents (or so I think). I have now used a so-called "technical t-shirt" used by footballers and armies as underwear. It moves the moisture out of the skin so my body temperature is more stable even with the jacket. I have replaced my cotton t-shirt under the jacket with it and I feel much better with it. I am unsure why but it works, ideas about such layered bicycling welcome. I have been considering to buy this suit here but I have no experience with them earlier. What should I look for with this kind of suits? And how do layers work here? Which layer moves the moisture, not to get cold etc? <Q> For the wicking action to work you need to wear something that is relatively taut on the skin. <S> I and others have had success with light weight wool jerseys like from ibex . <S> Generally speaking, cotton is not a good choice for the base layer next to your skin. <S> It will work for a while but as soon as it gets drenched with sweat you'll be miserable. <S> Layering is key for colder weather. <S> After that, a "dicky" for your neck and tights over the bibs <A> The suit you have linked to has a few red flags, if you are looking for cooler riding apparel. <S> First, it is long sleeved and long pants. <S> This is generally only the case if it is designed for cool weather riding, and so will be warm. <S> It is also rather loose fitting for cycling apparel, and it is also (apparently from the photos) thermal cloth. <S> Also quite warm. <S> Last the suit is made mostly of polyester, which doesn't tend to breathe well. <S> Look at something like <S> this for hot summer rides. <S> Especially if you can pull off those stylin' shades. <S> ;) <S> Edit: I was mostly basing my comments on @hhh's desire to avoid heat as stated in his OP. <S> It also appears he is worried about safety which means covering up for protection. <S> You really only get cool or covered, though, in my experience. <S> Finding a balance is tough, and personal. <A> If you're planning to have accidents, then armour (e.g. as worn by inline skaters) might be cool and protective: because it would only cover your points, e.g. elbows. <A> Especially if your temperature won't be consistent - if you cycle some where hilly your temperature will fluctuate quite a bit. <S> If you have unsettled weather too this will cause the same effect. <S> I ride in a technical t-shirt with a waterproof jacket on top. <S> The jacket has a mesh section on the back covered by a 'flap', which can be buttoned down (if raining), or left to flap about a bit and keep you ventilated. <S> The cuffs have velcro straps which when tightened stop air flowing into the arms. <S> The front zip is pretty self explanatory. <S> The jacket can be folded up and the fits into its own back pocket (inside out), and then velcro attached onto the top bar. <S> Altogether this kind of jacket allows you to cycle in multiple climates, and most importantly you can 'change climates' very quickly, without change outfit. <S> Sunny and warm: jacket on bikewet and warm: jacket on, cuffs open, back closedwet and cold: jacket on, cuffs and back closed Long story short, get one jacket which is very flexible for purpose. <S> Allowing you to adjust your outfit to maintain a level of comfort through varying conditions. <S> I use this set up on 200 kms without fail, and spending max 2 mins of the bike to adjust (folding up jacket to velcro onto bar if it's suddenly gotten hot and sunny).
|
First knee and arm warmers, then a cap under helmet, and shoe covers, then a lightweight jacket or winter training jersey. Any common jersey should do the job . The ability to 'layer' up or down is important if you want to be comfortable.
|
Advantages of higher quality cranksets What are the advantages of upgrading the crankset on a bicycle? For example, my bike ( 2009 Kona Dew ) comes with a FSA Dyna Drive crankset. I'm assuming this is a pretty basic crankset since it lies at the bottom of their product list . Would there be a substantial improvement by upgrading to something nicer? My (uneducated) guesses are that a higher end crankset would be lighter (e.g made from carbon) and possibly have less flex under power application. <Q> They will definitely be lighter, and probably shift a little better. <S> More rigid is possible but not especially likely, as the cheap one will be strong enough to take a lot of abuse (they don't particularly care about weight so that's easy to do). <S> (edit) <S> A cheap crankset very likely has the chainrings rivetted on, and they're not designed to be changed. <S> Sometimes the smallest chainring is bolted on and can be changed. <S> Swapping one of these for a more expensive one that has interchangeable chainrings will probably give better shifting. <S> More expensive bikes get crashed instead. <S> The cranks are designed accordingly. <S> As discussed in Suggestions for progressive upgradation of bike <S> you're almost certainly better off saving up for a more expensive bike rather than trying to upgrade the one you have. <S> Buying parts retail is a lot more expensive than getting them as part of a bike (manufacturers buy 1000's at a time and don't pay for retail packaging). <A> Upgrading your crankset typically means shedding grams, improving stiffness, and often getting much better craftsmanship and materials. <S> Usually resulting in improved performance both under load and not under load. <S> In doing so, durability and longevity of the parts are often sacrificed. <A>
|
Also worth noting, some higher end performance parts are built with weight in mind thus keeping it the lightest possible. Cheap bikes are the ones more likely to be bought by people who either weigh a lot or are careless with their bikes, so are more likely to be overloaded. A higher end crank might have better quality materials for it's chainrings and hence the chainrings might last longer.
|
Metal seat post with carbon fiber frame? Is using a metal seat post on a carbon fiber frame advisable or not? I want to use a seat post mounted rack on my road bike (no regular rack mount points are on this bike), but I have been told that is not a good idea for carbon seat posts. So I thought I get a whole new metal post & saddle and swap the posts as necessary for commuting versus recreation. I ask primarily because the famous Sheldon Brown once wrote on his site "Using a carbon-fiber seatpost in a metal frame, or vice versa, invites problems." but didn't explain why. Any thoughts? <Q> This is an issue that's well-trod in both the bicycle and aeronautics fields. <S> In essence, in the presence of an electrolyte (sea air, your sweat) and a cathode (carbon fiber-embedded resin) <S> the anode (aluminum) will corrode. <S> In the case of a seatpost/seattube interface, this corrosion will wedge the seatpost in place. <S> This can, at best, make it extremely hard to remove the seatpost. <S> At worst, it can render the frame unusable. <S> The first thing to do is to check to see if your frame was built with an aluminum insert for the seat tube. <S> Given that you currently have a carbon seatpost this is unlikely, but it would alleviate the main concern. <S> If that's not the case, there are still some precautions you can take. <S> As Calfee notes, anodization will provide some protection. <S> As well, regular removal and cleaning and reinstallation with carbon paste can help prevent excessive buildup. <S> On the significantly more expensive side, you could also consider a titanium seatpost, which wouldn't corrode. <S> I'm not sure how the formatting in this article got so ruined, but you can read more in this VeloNews Technical Q&A with Lennard Zinn . <A> One other thing to consider that lantius didn't mention is the possibility that using a seatpost mounted rack in even on a metal seatpost, may be contraindicated in some carbon frames. <S> I am not saying this IS a problem, only that it can be, and you should check with the frame manufacturer. <A> I solved this problem with using a rack which mounts through the rear hub. <S> It can't carry as much weight as a frame-mounted rack, but as others have pointed out - if I am hauling heavy stuff <S> then I use a different bike. <S> This rack works great for me. <S> Tubus makes some, and there are others. <S> Note that I haven't yet (knocking on wood) had to change a rear flat on this bike, and I expect it to be a pain (have to remove the quick release skewer to get the wheel off). <S> That is the only downside, in my opinion. <A> As well as preventing seizing of components, the use of fibre jointing compound (or fibre grip, as it is commercially known) will allow components to be tightened at a reduced torque. <S> Adherence to any specified torque value is critical, if cracking of delicate fibre parts is to be prevented.
|
The one thing we know about carbon bikes is that they are generally manufactured with tight tolerances regarding weight and leverage points, and, even with a metal post, your frame might not support the added weight and leverage that add an unsupported rack might produce. It's likely that Sheldon's concern was for galvanic corrosion between carbon fiber and aluminum.
|
warm up without bike Next weekend I'll participate in a relay triathlon (1100 mts. swim, 7 kms. run and 13 kms. MTB). I'll be doing the bike section, which is the last. Bike needs to be at the boxes area an hour before the start of the race. I guess I'll start riding about 40 minutes from the start of the race. That's around 100+ minutes since I leave the bike at the box. What can I do to warm up during this time or to start at full power without needing to warm up? I thought about riding a few kms. before parking the bike at the boxes, would it be effective after such a long break? Thanks in advance! <Q> If possible, borrow a second bike, and perhaps a trainer. <S> There is very little that you can do to effectively warm up in a cycling effective way, other than ride. <S> A light jog, and some stretching is the second best option. <S> It is a short enough ride for that to suffice, if it is your best available option. <A> Its only 13K, so you do not need to much of a warm up. <S> However, the purpose of a warm up is two fold. <S> One get your aerobic system going, and second to get exercise specific muscles warmed up. <S> For the first, you can go for a light jog (not in your bike shoes please!) <S> and for the second, it is best to ride to match the muscles, and running muscles are sufficiently different, that I would focus on a light jog, not too long (10-15 minutes) and not much more. <A> I did a MTB relay last year, and got 30 minutes riding followed by 2 hours of downtime. <S> You need to warm up for 10 to 15 minutes before your turn. <S> Some time on a training bike is good, even doing short 400m circuit laps off the official track, or on a spare bike on rollers. <S> HOWEVER don't be caught still on the trainer/rollers when your teammate arrives - have a spotter out and use radios or something to warn the next rider. <S> Use off-cycle teammates, one to grab and support the incoming rider, and another on teh other side to move the ankle transponder to the fresh rider. <S> Then go-go-go! <S> Get a seat push-off from the person moving the transponder to get up to speed. <S> Or relax and enjoy the social side <S> - don't let the racing bit spoil a nice team event..... <S> says no rider ever !
|
Jogging and stretching is a poor second to a bike warmup, but its better than sitting in a deck chair with a hot cuppa. Be on the bike ready to go as soon as the transponder gets to you.
|
Should I use a gel saddle or not? My girlfriend have just bought a gel saddle for her hybrid bike. She does day trips with it (30-50 kms) and a bit of commuting. Some say this saddle is useless and she should buy bike trousers instead. What do you think? <Q> Generally you will find, for getting started a gel seat may help. <S> As do padded shorts. <S> However, once you ride regularly, and build some muscle and tolerance around your sit bones, you will find it annoying. <S> So it is a good gateway drug to getting used to a saddle. <S> Generally people find that narrower and simpler seats are more comfortable, once you start riding regularly and build up your seat area. <A> Unfortunately, the gel tends to get displaced over time, so the comfy-ness tends to not last. <S> However, as geoffc pointed out, these saddles are good introductory saddles for new riders. <A> I think saddle choice is largely down to personal preference, if it works for her she should keep it. <A> There used to be the old TushCush/HydroSeat sold by Nat Calvert that was pretty good <S> (it was a bladder and leather cover for a standard seat), but he sold the business to someone else who ran it into the ground.
|
Gel saddles are quite comfortable when new. I think most of the current gel seats are worthless -- like too many bikes these days, built to sell, not to ride on.
|
How can I fix bad elevation data in a GPS log? Lately I have been doing my bike rides with a GPS logger, and its elevation recording is extremely erratic and thus unusable. Please see: http://gpsloglabs.com/share/d9393bc6c20b8b0debfe26234169be632eb019e0/ You can see from the altitude contour that it does some measurement, but it is too jerky, and thus my total climb is way too big. How can I work around this problem? Is there any service that will 'flatten' my trip to an accurate topographical map and correct the altitude data? <Q> Try http://www.gpsvisualizer.com . <S> In the parameters set "Add DEM elevation data" to "From best available source". <S> This will replace the recorded elevation with elevation data from a database, which should be more accurate. <S> Edit <S> : Try this other sub-page of the same site to upload your .gpx <S> and then download the fixed .gpx <S> http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/elevation <A> When you import a GPX track into Google Earth, it offers to adjust the elevation data to match their internal database of worldwide elevation. <S> From there, you can export it as a track again, to use as you wish. <S> Even with expensive setups the elevation still isn't anywhere near as accurate as the lat/lon. <A> Looks pretty typical for a non-WAAS GPS. <S> Height measurement is somewhat erratic for non-WAAS (or WAAS in RAIM failure mode) GPS devices. <A> The question is rather old but as I stumbled upon it, some thoughts: I cannot tell exactly but to me as a physicist this looks like the height curve has just a huge noise on it. <S> From your profile I would guess that you have some programming skills so you could build a nice little tool that tries to flatten the curve a bit for you without the need to upload it to some website where you don't know what they are using your data. <S> So here are some ideas: <S> The most simple thing would be to just parse through your GPS track data and do a moving mean value calculation which replaces every data point by the mean of lets <S> say the the data point and its neighbours or event next-nearest neighbours. <S> A more sophisticated approach was to do some assumptions: <S> the slope that you are able to ride on is somewhat limited and therefore only slopes smaller than a max_slope <S> should occur in your height profile. <S> The fraction <S> (height_(i+1)-height_i)/(tracklength_(i+1)-tracklenght_i) between the data points <S> i and i+1 is exactly the representation of this slope. <S> So you could restrict the averaging to data points where a threshold slope is exceeded. <S> Depending on the distance between your data points it is quite improbable that you have one single "dip" or "spike" in between them as you normally don't ride mogul piste like ways with bumps of several meters height in it. <S> Oh, this looks like a very nice programming project... <S> if I just had some more time ;-)
|
Thanks to the simple reality of how GPS works, elevation data is never going to be as accurate as lat/lon position.
|
What hydration system should I use for multiple activities? Looking for a hydration pack/system that I can use for cycling, running, snowboarding and (by removing the bladder and putting it into my travel pack) backpacking across Europe. My requirements are pretty simple: Small 2L capacity (or around that mark) Light Minimal - no extra storage or other bells and whistles are necessary Reasonably strong/good quality What do you recommend? At this stage I'm interested in this bag by Deuter. I will actually be using it for a lot more snow boarding than anything as it is now winter in Melbourne, so the smaller the better as I want it to go under my jacket (I know this is a QA for bike riders, but just thought it was worth the mention). <Q> If you're looking to go minimal footprint, with no storage, why not go no bag? <S> These definitely have downsides, but they fit under anything, with any type of clothing, or sport. <S> Check out the linked reviews. <A> I'd look at the Nathan line of packs. <S> You really want to get a pack that's designed for running, as you need something that will do a good job of controlling the bounce. <S> They have wide straps with multiple attachment points that help distribute the load and control the bounce. <S> If you want to use a hydration pack snowboarding you'll probably need to insulate the tube. <S> I know Camelbak sells an insulated tube for their bladders, it should work on the Nathan bladders as well. <S> This may be less of an issue if it's under your jacket. <S> http://www.nathansports.com/our-products/hydrationnutrition/race-vests <S> Here's the HPL #020 <A> I believe the hydration system you are looking for is called a water bottle . <S> It is small, light, minimal, and they can be as reasonably (or unreasonably) strong as you're willing to pay for. <A> I ended up going with a Viper 4 by Osprey , which is quite small (only enough extra room for keys/phone, and to attach helmet on the outside). <S> It comes with the best bladder/hose/bite valve system <S> I've seen. <S> Got it on special at Paddy Pallin in Melbourne for $70. <A> Although it only provides about 1 Litre capacity, you might want to consider something like a hydration belt . <S> I see people using them all the time for running, and they seem like they would work ok for biking. <S> Really, cages and bottles are cheap enough that on a bike, you should just go with water bottles. <S> Having something on your back really reduces your ability to dump excess heat. <S> Not only that, having so much weight up high can make it use a lot more energy if you have to get out of the saddle. <S> Any kind of movement of your upper body is going to have extra resistance.
|
Camelbak VeloBak Hydration Jersey or Camelbak Racebak Hydration Vest Downsides include water which must be cooled, or will heat to body temp. The Nathan packs are the best I've seen at this.
|
What's a good bike for daily use in New Orleans? A flat city with lots of potholes and bad roads Something under $500 that is relatively unbranded. <Q> Better yet, look at a 29'er. <S> Like this one .from <S> Kona, Single speed, rigid, fat tire MTB. <S> Run fat tire slicks, and it's a great commuter. <S> The lack of shifting works well on flat ground, with the right gear choice (very personal decision), and the fat large tires roll well and comfortably. <S> MTB durability means rough roads might as well not exist. <S> There are many bikes like this, and while i like the Unit 29'er linkd, I'm recommending the idea, not the particular bike. <S> As far as branding, that can be fixed with judicious use of tape, spray paint, and stickers. <A> If you put thin/ fast rolling city tires on there you'll be left with a quick bike that can handle some abuse and the upright geometry may make avoiding potholes and other obstacles easier. <S> This is what I ride. <A> For daily use on Toronto roads (occasional but not continuous pot holes) <S> I'm happy with a bike which has no suspension, strong wheels, and 700x32 tires (with tread but not studs) inflated to 80..95 psi. <S> Tires <S> that wide might (? <S> check this ?) <S> need disc brakes, which are relatively expensive: <S> so slightly thinner, XXX-28 tires might be cheaper because they can be used with cheaper brakes. <S> See also <S> What is the narrowest tire you would use for commuting?
|
I vote for a used hardtail mountain bike with 700c wheels and a rigid steel fork. I consider the 700c a poor mans 29er.
|
Mixing different front and rear tires My used bike came with different front and rear tires. It appears to have some kind of Kenda commuter tire in the front, and Continental Country Ride in the rear. They are both the same size (700x28). Is this perfectly acceptable or should a bike always have matching models (and/or size)? My main concerns from mismatching tires: Grip thresholds may be inconsistent Ride comfort? Wear rates (but rears seem to wear faster anyway) <Q> It's perfectly okay to run different sizes, brands, and types of tires on the front and rear. <S> As you note, rears will wear faster due to carrying more of the load. <S> The grip threshold is largely irrelevant, since the front and rear will be exposed to different forces and grip requirements. <S> The main concern is keeping within the range of a single tube size if possible, since otherwise you'd need to have twice the spares on hand. <S> At the extreme end, there are 69er and 96er mountain bikes that mix and match 29" (622) and 26" (559) wheels on the same bike as well as Terry women's bikes with 24 <S> " (520) front wheels and 700c (622) <S> rear. <S> By necessity those run very different tires front and rear. <A> Yep, basically no problem mixing tire types, widths, and even diameters. <S> The front and rear are exposed to vastly different forces and there may be good reasons for having different tires as a result. <S> On the front a narrow tire with light tread will permit turning with less effort, but on the back this isn't as much of a concern. <S> OTOH, the front tire provides about 3/4ths of your braking ability, so that's an argument for giving it a more substantial (or at least not worn out) tread. <S> In terms of sideways skids on slick/loose surfaces, a front tire skid is likely to result in a more out-of-control situation (ie, more road rash) than a rear tire skid, but it's harder to get the front skidding in the first place, so hard to say how tire style would affect this. <S> And (probably due mostly to the weight difference), punctures occur in rear tires 2-4 times more often than in front tires. <S> Of course, on a used bike the tires are apt to be different simply because they were not replaced in pairs. <S> I'd generally say this is of no concern so long as they are roughly equivalent. <S> If the front tire is much "heavier" than the back, though, my inclination would be to swap them. <A> As noted you do the braking on the front wheel, particularly if really braking when your centre of gravity moves forward over the front wheel. <S> Therefore, if you are going to have odd tyres, put the wider one up front. <S> This will give you better braking and cornering. <S> Tread matters little on-road for grip, even in the wet as bicycle tyres do not aquaplane. <S> The main point of tread on a road tyre is to indicate wear. <S> Too worn and the 'canvas' wears through <S> and you get punctures. <S> Odd tyres are to be expected, the back wears out quicker for mysterious reasons for which the physics has as yet to be disclosed on B-SE, therefore you should end up with odd tyres - if you don't then you are not riding hard enough.
|
The rear tire will carry more weight and generally wear faster, so that may be a consideration in picking different tires.
|
Can anyone suggest a way to mount my rack to prevent it impeding the rear brake? I have a topeak rear rack the mounting of which is interfering with the operation of the rear brake. Unfortunately, my frame (a 2009 Scott Sportster P4 ) only has mounting lugs on the outside of the seatstay meaning that the rack's mounting arms just touch the outside of metal sheath around the brake cable. The brakes still apply but the cable is not free to move as it should be. A pretty standard V-brake setup. Does anyone have any good ideas for a mounting solution that would enable me to mount the rack in such a way that the mounting arms bend in more quickly to avoid the brakes? I'm tempted to heat up the arms and bend them with a wrench - any concerns or recommendations? <Q> You shouldn't even need to heat up the arms. <S> Just bend them whichever way you'd like <S> ; it's easiest if you have access to a vice. <S> You might even look at having them make an 'X', if that pulls the mounting arm away from the brake. <S> By design, the horizontal stays should have a minimum amount of force on them - they handle keeping the rack from rotating forward and aft while the bulk of the weight is transmitted down the vertical stays. <A> The mounting arms are meant to be bent. <S> Bend them as needed to fit your bike. <S> If they can't be made to fit then likely a visit to a local hardware store (especially if staffed by some reasonably clever salesperson) will yield a solution. <S> Or your local bike shop folks may find a suitable bracket in their junk parts box. <A> Although not something that your bike workshop would do, you could make your 4-point rack a... 3 point rack...! <S> Crazy <S> huh? <S> Just leave off the bolt and bracket on the (left) noodle side. <S> Easy. <S> A Two minute job, no expenditure involvified. <S> Most racks are available in 3-point options, the idea being that 3-point clamps to the mudguard bridge. <S> Yours will be a special 3.5 point rack version. <S> It will work fine so long as you don't have more than 25Kg on the back and tighten up the bolts sensibly, making sure there are quality washers on there too (or should I say washer). <S> I know that answer isn't too good. <S> Let me post another... <A> The options might not be with just the rack, your brake could be the item to change. <S> 蠱 <S> Have you considered a 'flexible noodle'? <S> They are not a guaranteed find in your LBS misc. <S> workshop spares, but a good mechanic should keep a small stash of them out the back for situations like yours. <S> Here is a picture of what you are wanting to maybe consider: <S> That's better answer, no ? <S> As for bending the fixings, don't! <S> Because they have big slots in the middle they bend weirdly, making the slot bigger so the bolts don't necessarily attach properly, the look isn't that pro either.
|
You could also get p-clamps and attach the rack stays lower or higher as needed to clear the brake.
|
Why does my back tyre wear so much more quickly than the front? Identical tyres, identical rims, minimal braking on the back wheel, no skids, properly inflated at least once a fortnight to manufacturer's recommended pressure. Why does the back one wear out more quickerly than the front? <Q> Kerry Irons put together an impressive breakdown of tire wear data . <S> His read on it is the fact that the rear tire is the primary driving force and thus the main point of power dissipation is the reason for the increased wear: Force per unit area grinds off the rubber, so higher rider power and lower contact area increase the rate of wear. <S> This makes more sense than the weight ratio, when you consider the weight distribution is perhaps 20% higher on the rear while the ratio of wear is significantly larger. <A> The typical tire wear on a unicycle can provide some illumination here. <S> This is because on a standard unicycle (i.e. not a "giraffe" unicycle, with a chain), the same part of the tire is touching the ground each time you reach the same phase of the pedalling. <S> Much more wear occurs in the two places where the pedals are mostly level - i.e. at the point where the legs can give the strongest downstroke. <S> A second factor is that unicyclists tend to "idle" (i.e. rock back and forth on the spot, in order to remain stationary) more often (generally exclusively) with their dominant leg down. <S> So, it isn't surprising that one of the two sides wears more frequent than the other. <S> The result is that unicyclists need to, counter-intuitively, periodically rotate their tyre - move the tyre relative to the rim, so a different section is area of heaviest wear. <A> I suspect that "squirm" has something to do with it. <S> As you pedal, the rear tire is forced first left, then right, slightly out of line with the direction of travel. <S> (The front tire, OTOH, gets to pick its direction and force the rest of the bike to follow.)
|
Despite there only being one wheel, and the mass bearing down upon it being continuous, a unicycle tyre will wear down unevenly. It is clear that the acceleration being applied to the road is a significant cause of the wear.
|
How much should I spend on my helmet? I'm finally going to buy a bike next month. And a helmet. I'm wondering how much I should budget for buying a helmet. I'll be riding around New York City, so I want good visibility around me. And safety is a big concern for me as well. <Q> Testing of helmets shows that there is little difference in impact protection. <S> A better quality helmet, defined in this case as one that fits your head, is well ventilated, and looks good. <S> A well ventilated helmet prevents you from overheating while riding, especially at high speeds. <S> A helmet that fits stays put on your head during a crash. <S> And one that is comfortable and lightweight is less noticeable while you ride. <S> From a pure safety standpoint, buy a DOT/ANSI certified helmet, and you'll be fine. <S> If you want to enjoy riding, and not mind wearing the helmet, be willing to spend more. <S> $300 dollars is not out of line for a really high quality helmet, but that doesn't mean you need to spend that. <S> Find one that fits, ask your LBS to explain the ventilation differences between it and its more expensive cousins, and find one that fits in your budget. <S> Looks good can be important, too, but that's personal and subjective. <S> The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute submitted samples of six helmet models to a leading U.S. test lab: three in the $150+ range and three under $20. <S> The impact test results were virtually identical. <S> There were very few differences in performance among the helmets. <S> Our conclusion: when you pay more for a helmet you may get an easier fit, more vents and snazzier graphics. <S> But the basic impact protection of the cheap helmets we tested equaled the expensive ones. <S> The results are a testimony to the effectiveness of our legally-required CPSC helmet standard. <S> Although our sample was small, the testing indicates that the consumer can shop for a bicycle helmet in the US market without undue concern about the impact performance of the various models on sale, whatever the price level. <S> The most important advice is to find a helmet that fits you <S> well so that it will be positioned correctly when you hit. <S> We have a page up with details of the testing. <A> In many countries all helmets legally sold meet a certain minimum standard. <S> So there is no "too cheap" option, as the cheapest helmet you can buy will be considered safe enough. <S> In this case spending more gets you a lighter, better looking (subjectively) and more comfortable helmet. <S> The USA also has a mandatory standard. <S> For information about the standards and also plenty of other information and studies about the safety benefits of wearing helmets, see this wikipedia article <S> The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) created a standard called ANSI Z80.4 in 1984. <S> Later, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) created its own mandatory standard for all bicycle helmets sold in the United States, which took effect in March 1999. <A> Although safety is a big concern, I don't think that a helmet per se will keep you safe. <S> I wear a helmet (well, a hard hat): I'm not against helmets; but <S> the other things you do, e.g. choosing where and how and when to ride, would probably have a bigger effect on your safety. <S> I don't know that any helmet would impair visibility: it moves when your head does <S> (and, I expect, stays up on the crown of your head instead of slipping in front of your eyes). <S> I may be wrong <S> but I think that what you're buying with a more expensive helmet would be: looks better (if you care about the 'look') <S> fits better (e.g. more ways to adjust it) <S> more comfortable. <S> I bought a "Bern Brighton" hard hat because it was cheap and comfortable and <S> (I hoped) more likely to at least stay on, in an accident, than others in the store which fit less well. <S> Edit : Someone mentioned that some helmets come with visors, which can interfere with your visibility when you're in a "heads down" position. <S> Now I recall, I did notice some with a visor, often a detachable visor, and reflexively (note that I'm a novice buyer/user, not an expert/salesman) <S> avoided them: <S> I reckoned that instead of a visor I could wear sunglasses instead, if it came to that. <A> A more direct answer: <S> If you shop in a bike shop you'll probably have to shell out $50-75 for something that fits and suits your taste. <S> If you shop in a discount store you can likely find a serviceable helmet for $20-30, though it may not be vented as well, if that's a criterion for you. <S> Main criteria would be Fit/comfort (doesn't rattle on your head, straps can be adjusted to suit you) Venting (more important for longer rides and if you're apt to be really working at it) <S> Durability (eg, some sort of "skin" over the styrofoam body helps) <S> Visibility (depends on your riding position -- be sure to check this especially if you ride head-down on the drops) <S> Not looking too dorky <S> (for me this means no Pooh Bear decals and no tail fins)
|
Wearing a helmet may make the difference between being lucky versus unlucky, if you're in an accident.
|
Why does not the derailleur adjustment work the same way while riding? I suppose most of the people have noticed it. While adjusting both front and rear derailleurs, it will shift accordingly, when you have adjusted or are adjusting it, but when you test it by riding, the adjustment fail to perform the same way, Why does this happen ? How does the added weight affect the shifters? <Q> Frame flex under the added weight affects the relative position of derailleurs and shifters, which is reflected in the cable length. <S> Movements of the cable when changing gears are on the millimeter scale, so even lengthening of the cable by a fraction of a mm due to frame flex can have an effect. <A> On a good bike with a good chain and cogs and properly lubricated cables and derailers there should be no significant difference between shifting on a shop stand and shifting while riding, in terms of the indexing adjustments. <S> Where you may encounter a problem is when shifting under load while riding, especially with the front derailer. <S> The tension on the chain will make shifting more difficult, requiring a bit of "overshift", especially when moving to a larger cog. <S> Chain wear can also be a problem. <S> And even when the chain is replaced at regular intervals, the rear cluster will wear out after about 5 thousand miles and the front chainrings after 10 thousand or so, making shifting more difficult (and sometimes a bit more of an "adventure"). <A> Normally if everything is going right: you shouldn't have this problem. <S> I was having this problem: The bike shifted great on the stand but performed horribly under load. <S> The solution was the frame was failing near the bottom bracket, causing the frame to flex when I was pedaling. <S> I've also seen posts where a rear hub failure was the culprit.
|
The chain is the first part to wear out on a bike, and failing to replace the chain when worn (after 1000-2000 miles) will cause uneven wear on the cogs, resulting in increased difficulty when shifting, especially under load.
|
Are there any drivetrain components designed and sold to last longer? If a chain is only supposed to last 2000 miles, a rear cassette 5000 miles and a chainset only 10000 miles, then, at a modest 100 miles a week you are going to go through 2.5 chains a year, a new sprocket set every year and a new chainset every couple of years. Doing this near-constant refurbishment properly (and paying workshop rates) will mean paying for the bike twice-over in the first two years (or thereabouts). I have seen components advertised as lighter/stronger/funkier, but, as of yet, none have caught my eye due to their extended 'service life'. Are there any parts sold with 'service life' part of the USP? If not, why doesn't anyone want extended service life? Do none of us look past the thrill of having a new bike and look for something that will last? <Q> This doesn't help with the longevity of parts, but if you are doing 100 miles per week, you may want to learn to work on the bike yourself, and invest in your own tools. <S> Let's face it, at 100 miles per week, you'll probably be working on the bike at least a couple times a month (bearings, brake adjustments, flat repairs, etc). <S> So why not add in the tools to do your own drive train, and lower the cost down to parts alone? <S> For your drive train, you would need a good set of hex wrenches ($19.95), a chain breaker ($15.95), a cassette tool ($5.99), a chain whip ($21.95), and a crank puller ($13.95). <S> After tax, this would come out to ~$78 (according to JensonUSA.com), but would give you everything except parts you need to do the work. <S> I have a hard time imagining that this wouldn't pay for itself within the first year of regular maintenance. <A> Yes, but you pay for them. <S> My commuter bikes is set up specifically to do a lot of distance with little maintenance, and up-front cost was a secondary consideration. <S> Degrading gracefully was important too. <S> So I have a decent cartridge bottom bracket <S> , the cranks are pretty irrelevant (they all last ages), a decent CNC chainring (it's fairly thick and made of a hard alloy), reasonable quality wide chain and a Rohloff hub. <S> For the last 4-5Mm I've really needed to replace the cog on the hub <S> but I haven't got round to it. <S> It's quite pointy <S> and it's getting close to the stage where the teeth will actually wear through. <S> I also run cable disk brakes, and the ones I use were chose because you can adjust both pads, so as the pads wear it's easy to keep the brakes set up. <S> I also run Marathon/ Marathon Plus tyres, because they last reasonably well <S> and they tend not to get punctures (my velomobile has a punctured marathon plus on the back right now, and the tyre is only ~3Mm old. <S> Grrr). <S> Some of that stuff cost - obviously <S> the Rohloff was expensive, but the chainring was ~2x the cost of a stock chainring, the BB and chain were ~50% more expensive. <S> The tyres are definitely not cheap, they're expensive even by high-quality tyre standards. <A> I asked this question here (" How much maintenance? <S> ") <S> as I expect to be in a similar situation (100 miles/week). <S> To answer your question, a top-quality sealed/internal hub should make the drive train last longer: it's sealed and will last indefinitely (new oil once/year I think), and without dérailleurs the chain can be inside a chain guard. <S> Two more points: <S> My bike (new from a reputable LBS) includes 2 free (free of labour-cost at least, not of parts-cost) services/year for the first two years. <S> The whole thing (frame, wheels, accessories, hydraulic brakes) cost about $1600. <S> That compares with $1250 for the cost of a year of public transport: at that rate I could almost afford to buy a whole new bike every year and still come out ahead financially. <A> I am in the same situation, doing about 5000km a year just commuting <S> and I'm chewing through chains, chainrings and cassettes, and some brake pads of course. <S> I'm not interested in light-weight, I want durable! <S> I did get a single speed for this very purpose, to reduce the drivetrain maintenance costs. <S> That does work by having a 1/8" chain and a solid freewheel or sprocket and a solid chainring, however there is one hill I have to walk or run up in my commute, but <S> I just pretend I'm doing cyclo-cross. <S> I'm looking at getting an Alfine 11 which will give me some gearing, whilst still allowing the 1/8" chain, and durable chainring and sprocket. <S> They are about 1/4 the price of a Rohloff, but the Alfine 11 now uses an oil bath, like the Rohloff, and should be a big step up from Alfine 8, in reducing maintenance and durability, and with an increase in gear range. <S> The Rohloff is still the gold standard of course. <S> It seems the nature of the dérailleur requires a skinny chain that needs to flex and won't last that long. <S> @neilfein <S> I can't answer your comment because I don't have enough reputation, but this guy <S> swears by the Phil Wood hubs that are made specifically for touring.
|
I would also invest in a chain cleaner , as they can increase chain life depending on your usage. Even if you go to a belt-drive , which purportedly lasts longer than a chain, you have to have a single-speed or internal geared hub.
|
Good substitutes for WD-40 in emergency situation? I broke my bike in a poor location where I can only find poor rusted bikes. I am switching to one bike with rusted screws, I am trying to get things such as touring back rack and water-bottle holders to the new bike. I cannot find WD-40 here to take the screw out. The comment here speculates Kerosene and Naptha as the ingredients of WD-40. So how can I substitute the WD-40? How can I find some physical way to remove the rusted screws in the bike? Edit: I have solved the problem with time and Coca Cola in one screw. I let the screw to be 2 hours in Coca Cola and I got it off later. I am still unsure whether this is the best solution, at least it tastes good and it is easily available. More this kind of solutions? I have a multitool with a file, saw and knives. <Q> But the Coke trick works, supposedly because of the phosphoric acid. <S> Another one is to heat the part -- eg, get a piece of iron hot in a fire and then hold it against the fastener for a minute or two. <S> Works best if you can actually heat the female part of the connection, but tends to work even if you must heat the male screw. <S> Sometimes heating and then dousing with water will break a part free, if heating alone doesn't do it. <S> Of course, be careful of any plastic parts, and avoid overheating bearings. <A> Not so hard as to distort the fastener head where the tool will not work with it anymore. <S> You can make one out of an old screwdriver if needed. <S> Last but <S> not least, Vice Grips, they make nice miniature versions now, perfect for small fasteners. <S> The best tool you own is not in the toolbox, it is in your head. <A> You said emergency situation. <S> Just go straight for the drill! <S> Works every time and power tools are so much more thrilling to (ab)use. <S> The oxy-acetylene torch doesn't work so well on rack bolts - particularly if there are niceties such a paint to get in the way - but also comes in handy in emergency situations. <S> Also handy is a tap to put the thread back in and clear rust/corrosion out. <S> Some loc-tite for the new screws to stay in place also comes into its own. <S> It depends on how much time you have got, WD40 - although scorned as a lubricant - definitely is of use with seized parts that you don't really want to go-destructive on. <A> I like grease based chain lube. <S> The solvent helps penetration, the grease helps with movement. <S> I use TriFlow . <S> The advantage is that you can drip it in and leave it , and the grease will get left behind inside whatever you dripped it on. <S> This is, in fact, the exact thing it's designed to do - you drip it on the chain, and it leaves grease behind on the inside.
|
Sometimes using a flat ended punch with a hammer, on the head of the screw, will loosen it in a jiffy. Actually, WD40 is a poor penetrating oil -- Liquid Wrench, et al, are better. Brass punches are best but you can use steel if that is all you have.
|
Should I use a narrower saddle on a road bike than I would on my hybrid commuter? I ride a hybrid (Trek Fx 7.3) as a daily commuter and have found a 143mm saddle to be the right width for me. However I am looking into getting a road bike for long rides and am finding 130mm saddles seem a bit more comfortable on them. Since I am new to road bikes, drop bars, and the lower position I am having a hard time telling if the better fit is all in my head. Would it make sense that the more aggressive stance on a road bike would result in your sit bones effectively being closer together than the upright stand on my hybrid? <Q> Yes, a more aggressive stance requires a narrower saddle. <S> Your pelvic bone is a fairly complicated structure, but there's basically a triangle that you sit on with a saddle. <S> There's two bumps ("ischial protrusions") at the back end that take your weight if you're sitting with your back straight up (such as on a chair or the saddle of a cruiser or dutch bike). <S> The front point of the triangle is the "pubic symphisis" which you don't sit on. <S> Between there it's basically slightly curved like the bottom of a rocking chair. <S> Look here: <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray237.png <S> Here: <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray235.png <S> And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skeletpelvis-pubis.jpg <S> As you rotate your hips forward (for a more "aggressive" position), your hips should be rotating forward and your back staying relatively straight. <S> Because of that, the part of that ischial/pubis structure that you sit on is more towards the narrow front part and the saddle should be narrower. <S> This can also affect the desired tilt of the saddle. <S> Also, in general, if you're riding more aggressively, all that pedaling removes some of the weight from the saddle and makes any kind of rubbing against the saddle more of a problem, which are additional reasons aggressive road riders may want a narrower saddle. <A> There are some very good answers on here that go part way to explaining why there are something like 2000 saddles on the market. <S> You did not mention whether you dress up for your daily commute with padded cycling shorts, however, your hybrid bike is designed for more general use, i.e. jeans and T-shirt, not the padded shorts. <S> Hence it has a padded seat and a chainguard (to keep your jeans out of the chainset). <S> Meanwhile, the road-bike is designed for riding with the padded shorts (although you can probably get back from the pub on it with your jeans tucked into your socks perfectly fine, even if you have had a few and take the tow-path route back with no lights, ahem.) <S> You also did not mention what build you are. <S> We all have physical differences, some people have bigger bones, some people have more natural padding. <S> Taking the other (very high quality) answers into account, I would suggest going for the narrow seat and investing money in quality padded shorts. <S> Affordable-style shorts will not do, get the deluxe ones and make sure you follow the wash instructions to the letter. <S> It is also important to get the setup right. <S> You cannot go far wrong with putting the seat (any seat) so that the top is completely level and in the middle of the saddle rails. <S> Then, over time you can fine tune that setup, to make sure you are not repositioning yourself, continually slipping off the front and so forth. <S> Pointing exactly forward is also a detail to get right. <S> An expensive, top-end seat that is setup wrong will give more grief than a seat that is setup as just described. <S> (You should take this into account when choosing your dream-road-bike as some bike shops have nice bikes with seats tilting weirdly and this can put you off the bike as a whole.) <A> Likewise, the wider saddle provides more support when you're shifting positions frequently but is unnecessary when you ride in a fixed position. <A> Depending on your riding position on the road bike and the commuter bike, you will need up to 4cm wider seats on your commuter bike. <S> See my answer here for the details with pictures: Sitbone width recommendations from SQ Lab
|
A significant factor is that the narrower saddle results in less friction on the inside of the legs -- important when you're riding for hours in a relatively fixed position, but less so when riding for shorter periods or in conditions where you're shifting positions frequently. Ask a friend to take a picture of you sitting on the bike, and review the picture, to determine your sitting position.
|
Mountain bike tires for rocky, steep, dirt trails? I live in central Iowa and travel once a year to the Breck area (Breckenridge, CO) to do mountain biking. Since that is the Rocky Mountains, well they are rocky and steep. Very different terrain from the dirt top soil trails here in Iowa. Anyone have some tires they would recommend for the trails out in Colorado? Btw, I ride a 29er. <Q> It has been a while since I have been to Breckenridge, however, from what I remember of the terrain and trails <S> it is 'rocky'. <S> I am not sure that I would like to get caught out on punctures there <S> - this will matter whether you are going into true back-country or finding your way around on resort cycle paths. <S> For the front you can put the 2.2" and on the back the 2.0", and in 29-er. <S> Anyway, I am quite envious - I wish I had got my act together and had the dream to head off to Colorado for cycling this summer! <S> Enjoy, I am sure you will. <A> See the Schwalbe Rocket Ron . 29x2.25, good, fast rolling knobby with enough width to be stable in the rock garden, and comfy, good cornering feel, and good hook up. <S> It even sheds mud well. <S> i ride it in Pacific Northwest singletrack, including Whistler and Banff, which is fairly similar to Colorado, if not quite as dry. <A> I do want something durable and that will climb well on lose dry dirt, dead pine needles, and rocks. <S> My current tires (S-Works Fast Trak LK) just never felt like they would hook up last year. <S> I played with different tire pressures and nothing seemed to help. <S> Climbing "well" on loose dry dirt and dead pine needles (not to mention rocks) might be a tall order for a tire. <S> If you haven't already, perhaps adjusting your riding style might also help: see for example this answer . <A> As follow up I wanted to share the tires I wound up riding. <S> For the front tire I chose a Michelin "Wild Rac'r" 29 x 2.1. <S> Nice low profile lugs in the center for speed on the straights, but beefy side lugs for cornering. <S> Worked great on the rocky soil. <S> On the back I put a Specialized "The Captain" S-Works 29 x 2.0. <S> It has nicely spaced lugs that hook up wonderfully for rocky climbs, but is not a gigantic tire to keep the wheels rolling fast on level single track. <S> Considering the extreme rockiness and steepness of the trails in the Breckenridge, Colorado area I rode, these tires worked perfectly. <S> Pressure wise, I ran the front at 40 psi and the back at 35 psi. <S> Wild Rac'r <S> The Captain
|
My recommendation is for the Specialized 'lightweight' 'Armadillo' tyres ' Captain Elite ' - dual compound, nice and nobbly, good TPI casing, foldable - the wishlist boxes get ticked for where you are riding and what you plan to be doing (that'll mean no mud, then).
|
Will it be a problem to bike uphill with a rear pannier with books (~2lbs) I've been biking to work ~11 mi and my back hurts from carrying books. I was thinking of buying a pannier and putting my books in it. But I'm not sure if it'll be harder to bike, as I live in San Diego, so there are a few hilly/uphill parts (not like SF though!). Does anyone have experience biking uphill with full panniers? <Q> You will notice that your back will ache less and be less sweaty. <S> Depending on your bike, it may even balance better with the weight lower to the ground. <S> Biking up a hill with a few extra pounds won't make much of a difference; you only really notice a difference in climbing or handling when you're carrying groceries or camping equipment or passengers. <S> (Or if your bike is not suited to carrying cargo.) <S> I suggest you either get two panniers to distribute the weight, or get something like a trunk rack bag so you don't need more than one bag. <S> (You could even get a a basket and toss your existing backpack in it.) <S> You'll find more general info about the various cargo systems under the cargo tag , or in this article . <A> A pannier is the best way to carry weight on a bike. <S> It keeps the center of gravity low. <S> While a few people prefer backpacks, most will find a pannier (or two, to keep things balanced) makes for an easier ride (uphill, downhill, or on the level), though at the expense of eliminating that sexy wet spot on the back of your shirt. <S> You can also use a rack-top "caboose" pack, but it has a higher center of gravity and makes it much harder to swing your leg over the rear of the bike (if that's how you mount/dismount). <S> A "saddlebag", attached to the back of the seat, also has a high center of gravity and has limited capacity, but is just fine for a few items. <S> Slightly less ideal is a handlebar bag -- best used only for light stuff as weight there affects the bike's handling adversely. <S> For rear panniers you need to be slightly concerned with heel clearance, <S> For front panniers you likewise need to consider toe clearance. <S> For the most part, once you've figured out how to mount your panniers (ie, how far forward/back on the rack) and adjusted things accordingly you'll have no trouble with these issues, except perhaps on that short-wheelbase bike. <S> Note that there are a number of panniers designed to convert to backpacks (and back). <S> These are generally neither ideal as panniers nor ideal as backpacks, but they may be a good compromise for your use. <A> I have 2 side baskets on my rear rack, I use them to haul groceries sometimes, Even heavily loaded (20lbs or more) <S> I don't see a huge difference uphill <S> , I guess it depends on what shape you are in physically. <S> Tire pressure can affect pedal effort when carrying a load, I keep my 26x195 at 50-52psi. <A> This should be a lot easier for you. <S> The bike will have different handling characteristics though. <S> Getting used to this should not take too long, but cycling out of the saddle will feel a bit weird at the start. <S> Plus the front wheel will be lighter on the uphills and when stationary. <S> This isn't a problem, just something to be aware of. <S> With panniers containing A4 objects you can get a problem with heel clearance <S> so do make sure your panniers are going to be okay with carrying them and that they will fit in without too much void space at the bottom. <S> Another option to consider is a saddlebag of the old-fashioned 'Carradice' variety. <S> This will have enough space for your books and will not have any problem with the contents 'floating about' or getting in the way of your heels. <S> Plus the option will not require a rack. <A> It may be psychological <S> but i think you can deliver more force to the pedals with a backpack. <S> F=MA. <S> Backpacks are better if you jump a lot of kerbs or carry sensitive stuff like hard drives or soft fruit. <S> That said, I have had a pair of ortlieb panniers for over 10years and think they are great, still waterproof after much abuse . <S> Any system that gets the weight low is best. <S> I also have a well loved BOB trailer that has towed ridiculous amounts of shopping, hardware, other bikes and a chainsaw. <S> Like many thongs in life no single solution the best option all the time. <S> If you can justify buying one less car then you justify buying just about any bike related gear. <S> You can even defer gym membership, grocery shopping was one of my biggest workouts when i lived on top of a 15% hill.
|
Oddly, though, bike handling is generally better with weight in front panniers vs rear ones, though front panniers require an additional rack (which must be stiffly mounted) and good-quality (though small) panniers, so that the load doesn't bounce around -- a loose load on the front is not good to have, especially going downhill. but this isn't likely to be a big issue unless you have a very short wheelbase bike. Since the weight will be the same, you won't even notice the change in terms of climbing. Check the sidewall of your tire for maximum psi rating.
|
How can I adjust for uneven brake wear? Well, my problems with brakes have turned out to be not an issue with pad longevity at all -- see the following picture: Note how the one pad is excessively "toe-in" worn. Here's a picture of the brakes they came off of, with the parts labeled as far as I know them (with the new pads I just put on...): (Erm.. that should say "Centering Adjustment Screw" ... hooray for tpyos!) I don't see any way to change if the pads are toed in or toed out... how can I fix this (is it even possible?) ? <Q> There's two ways to adjust the toe in. <S> The metal pad holders that are the other half of the brake pad assembly should have some semispherical washers in them, allowing you a few degrees of adjustment. <S> Loosen the bolt that holds it on, jiggle it to free up all the pads, then squeeze the brake lever to pull the pad against the rim and get the alignment right. <S> Using a wee bit of cardboard or something between pad and rim at the back to set the toe in, of course. <S> Obviously it's much better to use the previous method, but if that's not an option, set an adjustable wrench so that it fits tightly onto the slotted part of the arm (just above the brake pad), and twist the arm to a better position. <S> Careful is the word - much better to have to tweak it three or four times than have to bend it back if you go too far. <A> Sorry, I wasn't going to post this as an answer, but I couldn't post the photo otherwise. <S> Credit goes to @Moz <S> There are adjustment washers. <S> I can see them in the picture. <S> Unless that isn't your bike? <S> They don't look like they offer adjustment, but they do. <S> Try tightening the brake pad fixing bolt just enough so that you can feel a little tension on the bolt. <S> Then grab both ends of the pad holder, and try moving it in the plane of the change you're having trouble with. <S> It should move, if a little stiffly. <S> I would leave the bending of the arm adjustment to a shop, unless you are very confident. <S> It's a legit technique, Park even makes a tool just for that, but it can cause permanent damage to the brake if done badly. <A> I suspect that the spherical washers are there, just frozen to the brake arms so they won't move (aluminum sticks to aluminum). <S> You can try completely disassembling one of them to examine the washers. <S> But the "uneven" wear you show in your first picture <S> is actually fairly even <S> -- I'd be happy with that. <S> And, aside from the first millimeter or so, "toe-in" won't affect brake pad wear substantially. <S> Keep in mind that pads are available in several different hardnesses, from soft and "grabby" to so rock-hard that you have to be a gorilla to squeeze the things. <S> Generally, the softer the pad, the faster it will wear. <A> it's the washers. <S> You have to make sure the concave washer is on the inside next to the brake pad.. <S> the screw hole in the brake pad has a little wiggle and allows you to align the pad so it is even with the rim. <S> A small washer goes on the outside with the screw.
|
If your pads are wearing out rapidly it's likely due to some other issue -- poor quality pads (or just the wrong ones for your use), rough rim surface, etc. The other method is to carefully bend the caliper/brake arm.
|
Using the outer lane of an inner-city one way system - where do I ride? In my nearest town centre there is a fearsome one-way system with three lanes of traffic. This cuts through the town and is unavoidable - you have to cross it to get anywhere. It is always busy but not at motorway speeds, even if it seems that way. At one point, to get to the cycle lane I must get to the outside of the outer lane. I have a few options to do this. I could stop off at the near-side, wait an age for the traffic to stop for the pedestrians, walk my bike across the road with the pedestrians and get on it again at the other side. Since I am a cyclist I do not want to do this, it is a bit lame. The alternative option is to get into the outermost lane and ride like I am a vehicle as wide as one of those tin boxes - 'vehicular cycling'. This I can do quite easily as I have enough in me to ride at a sensible, i.e. fast pace. I can then make it off onto the cycle lane without upsetting anyone, getting beeped at, hitting pedestrians or wasting time. However, sometimes I ride with a friend that lacks the outright speed and acceleration needed for the outside lane. Shouting ' don't dawdle ' isn't really going to work and I don't want to go-pedestrian just to cross the one-way system. We have tried going at the extreme outer edge so cars can pass - 'undertaking' - but this makes me feel uneasy. The car beeps are inevitable whatever we try on this section of the road, yet, when I ride the same section by myself with no company I never get any problems with any of the other road users. I don't want to ride-like-a-timid-coward when with my friend, I don't want to upset motorists, I don't want to get involved in an accident. I don't want to complain about my friend lacking pace. I don't want my friend to always have a nightmare of a ride - when it should not be. So how can I carry out this simple bit of cycling that suddenly seems intimidating when riding with someone? <Q> The way you're inclined to do it is the right way, but you're kind of stuck if your buddies aren't as comfortable in traffic, and you want to stick with them. <S> I rarely face this specific situation, but I've many times run into something similar when making a left turn across multiple lanes <S> -- I just get into the turn lane and make my turn, but other riders are reluctant to leave the right shoulder. <S> (Of course, in part your situation is a comment on the bicycle-unfriendliness of many urban road designs. <S> Designers (who obviously don't ride bikes) think the mere existence of a bike lane is "bike friendly", <S> when that's really the least of the issues.) <S> Few people would get upset if a truck did it.] <A> It took me a few months of everyday riding before I was willing to leave the right shoulder across multiple lanes to turn left, as suggested by Daniel's answer. <S> Walk across: you can afford to. <S> You're not being "a bit lame": you're being generous and friendly to your less experienced friend. <S> If you want to shout about dawdling then you're less relaxed that you'd like to be yourself. <S> Discuss it before-hand rather than during traffic. <S> Maybe do some interval training with/against your friend out of traffic (ride along together and then ... OK! <S> Sprint! <S> Go!) <S> to practice ... to practice changing gears for example, and for you each to learn how fast the other can go, to have shared understanding and realistic expectations (you may be thinking: "There's a gap in the traffic: I'm fast enough to merge into that interval" ... <S> you need to know for sure whether your friend is too, and more importantly your friend needs to know too). <A> If you were driving slow farm tractors, you'd be driving in the rh lane, then you would check behind, signal, move over one lane, check behind, signal, move to the lh lane, smile and thank everyone who slowed for a moment to let you get across. <S> Same on a bike, you don't have a duty to keep out of anyone's way. <S> If they beep, they have seen you. <S> Wave back and smile.
|
[I'd add that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a bit slower than other traffic and occupying a lane for a relatively brief period.
|
Can I use an inner tube that's too narrow for the tyre? I recently got a puncture and when I went to replace the inner tube I discovered that I'd bought the wrong size tube. My tyre is 700 x 40c, the tube is 700 x 28-35c. What is likely to happen if I use this tube? Will the tube explode when I attempt to inflate it? <Q> In my experience smaller ones go in fine and last as per normal (not that I have pushed this to extremes with a 700x20 in a 700x40 <S> but I only have 26x1.5 MTB tubes and they work fine in 26x2.00 tyres). <S> Allegedly putting a smaller tube in the tyre becomes a problem if and when you repair it, the patch doesn't necessarily stretch with the inner tube and it can come off. <A> You may be perfectly OK, or may experience several possible problems: <S> The area near the valve on the tube is the stiffest part, and does not expand as easily as the rest when over-inflated. <S> This may result in a slight depression in the tire near the valve that you will feel on every revolution (especially if you start thinking about it). <S> Not a significant reliability issue, but it can be a comfort issue. <S> As the tube expands in its width from over-inflation, it expands even more in its overall circumference. <S> The tube can, before it gets "locked in" to the sidewalls of the tire, expand enough that a portion of the tube telescopes on itself, in the short term creating a lump, and in the only slightly longer term creating a stress point that will result in a fairly sudden deflation of the tire. <S> And obviously, the tube is being placed under more stress than it's designed for, <S> and it's apt to simply fail, especially near the valve. <S> I wouldn't hesitate to use the (slightly) wrong size tube for a relatively brief period, as an emergency measure, but I wouldn't regard such a repair as trustworthy over the long haul. <A> Yes, you can, as long as you don't go more than one size smaller, or the differential is not too extreme. <S> A 1.25 in a 1.5 is fine. <S> A 1.25 in a 2.25 is likely to have issues with flats. <S> Your LBS will have tubes. <S> Are they that bad that you won't even buy tubes from them? <A> ANSWER: <S> I had this exact same situation. <S> I am converting a road bike to urban, and the largest size tire I could fit was a 700x28, the road bike has 700x23. <S> When I got the old tires off and pulled the tube it was sized 700x23-25. <S> I had changed the tires and reused the old tubes and thought a 10 mile(16 km) ride ought to be safe. <S> 5.2 miles (8.3km) <S> later I was calling my daughter for a pickup. <S> The front tire just went flat. <S> No bump, rock, pothole, nail...just went flat. <S> The rear tire stayed up the entire time, but I am changing its tube too and will keep that one in reserve. <S> I am thinking it was the valve stem. <A> Adding to the thoughts above: I had a puncture yesterday on my ride home and used way smaller tube (had the wrong size with me and got another from a fellow bicycle commuter; both tubes were for racing tyre size where mine is 700x33c). <S> First time I tried the tube immediately got damaged and deflated completely - even before I had the wheel back in the frame. <S> The second time it lasted about 100m.
|
yes smaller tubes can fill larger tyres, but they may fail quickly and unexpectedly. So, probably fine to go just one size down but not too much.
|
How to measure calories burned? How can I accurately measure the calories burned while using my bicycle? My bike computer tells me how many calories I have burned. But it has no cadence meter. The only measurements it has are my weight, distance, instantenous speed, and time (and all information it can derive from that). Using the GPS on my phone, and the software from Sports Tracker on the same route, I got wildly different results. The information on sports tracker yielded about 1.5 times more calories burned then on my bike computer. Now, the GPS has a little more information, like altitude, but the ride was mostly flat. To add to that, there was an elevation drop over the entire route, so I don't know why it would say I burned more calories. Do these devices use standard formulas, or do they just make stuff up? Is it even possible to accurately measure the calories burned? It seems that even if I had a cadence meter, there would still be a lot of variables. Wind speed would make a big difference. If you pedal with the wind at your back on a fixed gear, going 30 km/h, you are going to use a lot less energy pedaling the same bike at the same speed if you are going into the wind. Note that in both these cases your cadence would be the same, but your muscles would be working much harder in the case where you were working against the wind. Same could be said for things like hills, although this could be done with altitude, although I'm not sure how accurate you could get. Road conditions could also make a big difference, not to even get into the riding characteristics of the bike. <Q> Yes, it's possible to measure calories burned. <S> More accurate and more portable are the mechanical systems that attach to your bike - PowerTap is one example. <S> These measure torque and speed at some point and work out power from that, often with corrections for various factors (input vs output power being the most obvious). <S> Less accurate but possibly more useful to you for training are the systems that attempt to work out the biological power input. <S> They work by measuring the difference between inhaled and exhaled oxygen or carbon dioxide, and generally use terms like VO2 Max . <S> The apparatus for this is not even vaguely portable, so from those numbers they derive a relationship between your heart rate and your moving average power output (the response is not instantaneous), and on from there to your total energy output. <S> The cheap systems you see advertised will either measure bicycle speed and from that attempt to guess your power output, or measure your heart rate and guess likewise. <S> Obviously the "what sort of bike do you have" and "what sort of hreat rate response do you have" questions are at best vague approximations to the truth and will vary over time. <S> But the measurements are dramatically cheaper to make so they're consequently more popular. <S> A few years ago a friend looked at various mechanical systems and decided that PowerTab was the only system that was usefully accurate for him. <S> We did break a couple of the cheap systems while trying to improve their accuracy, but that was acceptable because as sold they were useless to us. <S> The VO2 systems are the definitive training aid because they tell you more than just average power output, and the other outputs are actually more useful than power output. <S> , it fits you better or you have got stronger, we just care that the combination is more efficient). <A> Most applications that claim to measure calories burned use a simple equation of your body weight, the time spent at the activity and a (very approximate) number of calories burned per time unit of the activity. <S> I suspect that's where the different results come from. <S> To get a better estimate of how much energy you have used I'd suggest a power meter . <S> They give you an accurate measure of how much energy you have used. <S> This can then be converted into calories burned, albeit with an estimation of your efficiency in converting calories to power on the bike. <S> Power tap have a range of products that display calories burned. <A> I doubt that it's possible to accurately measure calories to better than, say, 20% error (as compared to a laboratory measurement). <S> Among other things, two people doing the exact same amount of work can burn significantly different amounts of calories. <S> Your options are to approximate an ergometer or to use some proxy for effort such as heart rate or respiration measures. <S> The ergometer is conceptually simple -- measure instantaneous force and speed, multiply the two to get power, then integrate that over time to get total energy. <S> Then relate that energy to calories burned, presumably using a formula for the "average person". <S> But force on a bike changes dramatically with every few degrees change in pedal position, so the signal will be exceptionally "jumpy" and hard to process with good accuracy. <S> Plus, as stated, it does not directly relate to caloric effort. <S> The proxy techniques, of course are even less accurate, since they presume that physiological measurements can be related to caloric effort in some predictable fashion. <A> Get a good heart rate monitor (I use a Garmin 305 - http://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Forerunner-Receiver-Heart-Monitor/dp/B000CSWCQA ) which takes into account your heart rate, altitude, weight, etc.
|
Number of calories burned is proportional to the heart rate. To do so accurately you need some sort of power measurement device. Mechanical systems are the easy, every day measurement that gives you your overall progress, or for us, lets you evaluate the vehicle performance as well (to some extent we don't care whether you are five seconds faster at the same power output because the vehicle is more efficent
|
What is the carbon footprint of a new bike? When you look at the complete journey from bauxite to bicycle via China, a big container ship and the bicycle showroom, there probably is quite a lot of CO2 emissions involved in making a new bicycle. Are their any easily quotable figures for this? Are there any handy equivalent metrics, e.g. equivalent to x miles in a family saloon or equivalent to x hundred packets of Walkers Crisps (at 80g per pack)? I would like to know a generally agreed figure as I have found myself being stumped in conversation with motorists that (after conversation has moved onto their planet trashing ways) have the cheek and audacity to criticise cyclists. What happens is that they go ad-hominem, 'pointing out' that buying a new bicycle is 'bad for the environment', particularly one made on the other side of the planet. Rather than have no defence I would like to be able to say 'yeah but that is only equivalent to x hundred of your gas-guzzling miles/hours 'sat' in traffic.' Has anyone done a carbon audit for a bicycle yet? If so, are there any particularly low-carbon bikes out there? Note: I mention the Walkers Crisps in passing - no I don't want to know that cycling has a huge footprint if the fuel (food) is caviar/fancy-mini-corn from Zambia/lamb from New Zealand/fish from the Arctic (or even a nice pack of Prawn Cocktail crisps prepared with sunflower oil grown in Eastern Europe). Just the carbon footprint from whatever bike brands have bothered to measure it, not the on-going fuel costs (food). <Q> I don't have numbers on hand. <S> But if you're after a cogent argument, I would point out that the car they drive has a far larger manufacturing footprint, even assuming it is manufactured in the local economy, which is rare. <S> If it is, then was the raw steel manufactured there or shipped in? <S> For that argument of theirs to be effective, they must start with the idea that their car popped out of thin air. <S> Even assuming that the manufacturing footprint is identical, the car continues to build that carbon debt, while the bicycle mostly ceases to charge that card after the manufacturing is done. <S> Of course there will be minor maintenance items, and consumables like tires and tubes, but the car has those, too. <S> So the car will use far more resources over the course of it's useful life. <S> Also, whether you believe that global warming is real and important, or not, it will affect your finances far more to drive a car than to ride a bike. <A> Has anyone done a carbon audit for a bicycle yet? <S> I have been unable to find any figures from other manufacturers. <S> The Brompton is a steel-framed folding bike, so that figure may not be particularly representative. <S> If so, are there any particularly low-carbon bikes out there? <S> Bike Bamboo make bike frames from bamboo and claim a "Reduced Carbon Footprint", however they don't back this claim up with any specific figures. <A> A simple answer from iBikeTO (2.11MJ/km over the lifecycle) and another from the Public Transport Users Association (0.8Mj <S> /km) <S> here in Victoria. <S> Both are IMO unrealistically low. <S> Brad Templeton has some numbers for the USA but focusses entirely on energy per mile, not purchase cost. <S> For instance, this overview , this table and from this one <S> I grabbed the following: Type of material Thermal energy (MJ/kg)Cement 5.85Lime 5.63LP <S> 2.33Steel <S> 42.0Aluminium <S> 236.8Glass <S> 25.8 Note that Aluminium is the outlier - five times more energy than the next highest material. <S> For carbon fibre, the only numbers I found are in this paper and are in the range 5-30MJ/kg. <S> But this is only a tiny part of the answer. <S> The manufacturing energy for a bicycle is likely to be much higher than the embodied energy of the materials, and then you have the common scenario of a 10kg bicycle being shipped in a 5kg cardboard box with 1kg of plastic packaging material in it. <S> I would be tempted to add those costs to whatever numbers I was using. <S> Also, carbon/energy footprint is not the end of the argument. <S> The elements used for alloying and doping can contribute more of the toxic load than the bulk materials, especially in a steel bike. <S> Chrome and molybdynem, for example, are ugly things to work with but compared to the rare earth elements in a modern battery they are materials of rare beneficence. <A> This information is never gathered correctly, corporations really don't want you to know the actual numbers, otherwise it would have a very negative impact on manufacturing. <S> I own an older 91 GMC pickup truck, some greenies see me as a polluter, but I say I am not, I have owned the truck for 13 years, purchased used, keep it tuned and emissions test passes every year. <S> I plan on keeping it another 5 years or more. <S> I have a relative that buys a new car every year, sometimes after 9 months, who pollutes less in 13 years, me or my relative? <S> There was a recent study, (can't find it right now) about notebook computers <S> , they found that manufacturing one will consume more energy than the laptop will consume while using it for its life expectancy. <S> I know this does not quite compare to bicycles, but you see that global manufacturing has a high carbon footprint. <S> Raw Materials come from all around the world to other countries that refine them into other base products, ship them worldwide to other countries to make final product used in manufacturing, then they ship the final material around the world to manufacturers to make the final product, then they ship the final product around the world to sell. <S> You drive to the store to purchase it or UPS delivers it. <S> Re-use, keep and maintain, and do without is what I have always done. <S> 90% of the stuff we own, we don't need and rarely use. <S> And yes, both my Bicycles are used. <S> Upgrades and accessoried are used when I can find them. <A> Assuming 113kg of carbon for manufacture of a bike this equates to 414kg of CO2. <S> A car with an MPG of 40 emits 272g of CO2 per mile. <S> This mean you would need to do 1500 miles on the bike to break even. <A> http://www.technologystudent.com/enerflsh/foot1.html found this. <S> comparison is 2 versus 1440 3 mile commute car versus bike
|
The easy numbers are for embodied energy of materials, and those you'll probably find in the building industry rather than manufacturing. No matter how you look at it, a bicycle doesn't burn fuel to function and a car does. I managed to find one on the Brompton website - "Manufacturing a Brompton bicycle creates 113kg of carbon ". The toxic load of carbon fibre is quite high, which is a cost both to the people who work with it and the people who have the waste dumped on them.
|
Is there 28 hole front/rear drum brake hub No time research this now, so has there ever been made a 28 hole front or rear drum brake hub? I know that Sachs and Sturmey-Archer have done a lot of drum brakes. Neither to my knowledge have such a hub in production currently. The reason for asking this is that I have 2010 version of Kona Band Wagon and I'd like to move to using drum brakes, but also retain the current rims that are 28 hole rims. <Q> I've seen 36 and 48 hole brakes, but not 28. <S> 28 strikes me as an unlikely number because hub gears/brakes are not usually made for especially lightweight bikes. <S> Harris Cyclery only have 32 hole and 36 hole in their parts list, and I can't really make enough sense of the Shimano web site to really be clear on the options. <S> Note that Shimano make "roller brakes" rather than drums, and those clip onto the side of the hub. <S> Sturmey Archer drums <S> all seem to be 36H. If you are willing to really work at building the wheel you could cross-lace a 36H hub into a 28H rim, but you wouldn't get an especially strong wheel and it would take a lot of work <S> (I expect you'd have to do it experimentally and that really means having a range of spokes sizes available on a "pay for what you use" basis). <A> Yes there have been 28 hole rear drum brake hub by STURMEY ARCHER. <S> you can only get used, which means you have to rebuild it yourself. <S> Plenty of them on ebay such as this one http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220912258562&ssPageName=ADME:B:BOC:US:1123 <A> This depends on where you live, however, in the UK the only widely available hub brakes are the Shimano Nexus series. <S> These are 36 hole and can be retro-fitted to an existing bike designed for rim brakes. <S> Given that you will be needing spokes as well as the hubs, consider getting some rims that will work with your hub brakes, i.e. not needing the surface for the rim-brake. <S> Have fun building them up or pay the small fee that a professional wheel builder will charge. <S> They may not be what you are looking for - with performance benefit in the wet but not with the feel that you are used to. <S> Generally 36H is a good idea for wheels that have the stopping gubbins in the centre as the forces are different to that of a rim-brake wheel - you are decelerating the centre and exposing the spokes to more force. <S> By building a new set of wheels you will be able to keep the old wheels - or find a friend to take ownership of them - and not have a bunch of left over hubs 'n' spokes kicking around. <A> I have what looks to be a virtually new one as part of a 16" x 1.75" rim ... <S> I'm actually trying to "acquire" a 20" x 1.75" 36H version if anyone is interested in an exchange.
|
Shimano actually made a 28H drum brake (model number looks to be Y.L 802-60 shimano m system rotatex). Visit a good shop and go out on a bike that does have Shimano Nexus - try before you buy.
|
What kind of bicycles do they ride in the Tour de France? I've been looking at a lot of the coverage of the Tour de France. All of the attention is on the cyclists, and no attention whatsoever on the cycles. Even in photographs or videos, they are so far away, or the bikes are moving by so fast, you can't tell what they are riding. I know I definitely can't afford whatever kind of bike they are using, and it would be horribly impractical for me to ride one since I'm commuting, not racing. I'm just very curious as to what is the top of the line in terms of bikes. When I look at high end bikes in shops or online I can't tell if they are actually superior or if they are just loaded with expensive gimmicks. What frames, brakes, seats, gears, tires, etc. are the world's top competitors using? <Q> The focus is on the riders, because the bikes are just not so different from one another. <S> The UCI (international cyclists' union) tightly regulates what shape and weight the bike must be, and what technical solutions are acceptable, so the sponsoring manufacturers can only compete on relatively minor features such as aerodynamic tubing or frame stiffness. <S> These are of no practical importance to an everyday cyclist. <S> A typical racing top-level bike nowadays will have an aluminum or carbon fiber frame, with increasing focus on aerodynamics over weight (because it's relatively easy to achieve the UCI minimum weight of 6.7kg regardless) <S> always a carbon fiber fork either super light or aerodynamic wheels, depending on the type of rider and needs of the particular stage <S> either Campagnolo Super Record, Shimano Dura Ace, or SRAM Red component set, depending on who's the sponsor <A> The Trek Madone 6 Series is pretty typical... <S> US teams have ridden these for numbers of Tours and other famous stage races as well. <S> You can buy essentially the same bike; it's a top of the line carbon frame with the top-of-the-line components installed. <S> Many of the "team" bikes are made by other manufacturers and simply painted with appropriate team colors. <S> Bikes are of course built up to the individual rider's specifications so that fit is perfect. <A> Check out this site, they have detailed articles and photos of actual pro bikes. <S> There are even a few bikes from this year's TDF already up there. <S> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech <A> One thing I didn't know is that today's top pro riders (especially UCI pro teams) are often "billboards" of the bike industry as a whole. <S> They are supplied by companies with framesets, groupsets, wheels and others. <S> Not necessarily do they believe their bikes are the fastest available, nor even fit them the best. <S> Is Trek, Specialized, Pinarello or Canyon selected because of their performance? <S> No. <S> Those are used because those companies ask riders to 'advertise' their bikes. <S> As such, most of their bikes aren't custom-made, just as the same ones commercially available in your local shops. <S> Perhaps with the exclusive painting, but even those 'pro color' models are (if limitedly) released to us. <S> I've been collecting information on bikes of the all Grand Tour winners, but as for Tour de France, here's the list of the past 15 years. <S> Technically speaking, 1999-2005 should have no winner, but still for reference. <S> | Framesets & Manufacturer | Groupset & Manufacturer |----+------------+------------------+------------+-------------+2014|Specialized |Tarmac S-WORKS | Campagnolo |Super <S> Record |2013|Pinarello <S> |Dogma <S> 65.1 THINK2 <S> | Shimano |Dura-Ace <S> |2012|Pinarello |Dogma 65.1 THINK2 <S> | Shimano |Dura-Ace <S> |2011|BMC <S> |SLR01 | Shimano |Dura-Ace |2010|Specialized |Tarmac <S> S-WORKS <S> | SRAM <S> |Red |2009|Trek <S> |Red <S> |2008|Cervelo <S> |R3-SL | Shimano |Dura-Ace <S> |2007|Trek <S> |Madone 5.2 | Shimano |Dura-Ace <S> | 2006|Pinarello <S> |Dogma-FPX | Campagnolo <S> |Record <S> |2005|Trek |Madone SSLx | Shimano |Dura-Ace | 2004|Trek |Madone SL | Shimano |Dura-Ace <S> | 2003|Trek <S> |5900 | Shimano |Dura-Ace | 2002|Trek <S> |5900 | Shimano |Dura-Ace <S> | 2001|Trek <S> |5900 | Shimano |Dura-Ace | <S> 2000|Trek <S> |5900 | Shimano |Dura-Ace | 1999|Trek <S> |5500 | Shimano |Dura-Ace | <S> Some random notes... <S> The first carbon winner bike appears in 1986, and since then the material of racing bicycles have been gradually replaced by carbons. <S> Although now bikes are well recognized as their 'bike names' and 'manufacturers', such notion was less apparent until around 1980s. <S> We can still know what companies manufactured those bikes (e.g. Gitane or Peugeot) or what companies manfactured tubes of framesets (e.g. Reynolds or TVT), but I think who made them also did matter at that time, while most stuff are now mass-created in Asia. <S> The list is pretty Shimano-dominated, but it's actually where they finally started doing so. <A> This year Bradley Wiggins used the Pinarello Dogma 2 (frame only)- which costs just under £4k. <S> Found this cool article on what bikes the Olympic gold medalists use that you might find useful... http://www.theranktank.com/blog/2012/08/deciding-which-bike-to-get-look-at-what-our-olympians-ride-/ <A> Team NetApp has an article about their Bike sponsor Simplon for Giro d'Italia: <S> The best german professional road race team Team NetApp rides race-ready prototypes of SIMPLON’s new aero-roadbike NEXIO during the Giro d’Italia. <S> Conceptually the NEXIO combines the best of both worlds in the present professional bike yard of the team. <S> It shares top class aerodynamics of SIMPLON’s MR.T time trail machine as welll as exceptional lightness and stiffness of the more traditionally shaped PAVO roadbike. <S> Source: http://www.teamnetapp.com/en/news/detailview/news/team-netapp-rides-simplons-new-nexio-aero-roadbike-at-the-giro-ditalia-2012/
|
For many years, it was no secret that many of the team bikes were Lightspeed frames fitted with top-level Campy components and simply painted appropriately. |Madone 6 | SRAM
|
Is a sprung saddle the answer to the saddle problems on my commuter bike? The current saddle on my bike is getting past it use-by date, so I will shopping around for a new one. I use my bike for commuting to work, about 40-45 mins, 50% on seal roads and the rest on forest trails. My current saddle is a non-sprung version with a high density foam padding. My bike is a Giant Cypress from a few year back. Here is the 2011 version but it is pretty much the same. I have seen saddles that are spring loaded and are tempted to go for them. However, I fear that I will be bouncing too much as I ride along. My current saddle is not spring loaded but I I get a very small amount a numbness around the crotch area. <Q> I used to despise the antiquated look of sprung saddles - then I got one on my retro-bike. <S> Despite all of my preconceived opinions I immediately took to the sprung seat. <S> Clearly not for the road-racer, the sprung saddle has its place in regular riding, where roads are not exactly smooth. <S> Given the choice of a couple of springs in the seat or a Kona-tractor-style-rear-suspension setup, the couple-of-springs has elegance in how it delivers comfort. <S> Energy lost through compressing the springs is actually returned with marginable 'pedal bob'. <S> The weight of the springs is negligible, your back wheel will thank you for them, even though only you and not the bike is being suspended. <S> Given the roads you describe I would definitely recommend a sprung saddle. <A> Another option is a shock seat post. <A> A more modern solution is a shock <S> absorbing seatpost such asNitroPro Gas Suspension Seatpost (center of the saddle should be on center or forward of the seat post to avoid issues)or Cane Creek Thudbuster (the long-travel version that would match the NitroPro performance <S> takes few CM more vertical room so if you need the seat in low position this could make it too high) <S> Disclaimer: I haven't tried either but I am contemplating ordering the first for my hardtail, no front suspension city e-bike, I love going fast but the roads here make it a pain without seat suspension and vibration absorbtion for both seat and hands. <A> Never liked them myself, too much movement for me. <S> Its a preference, and performance of that type of seat may be affected by the weight of the rider.
|
You would not drive those roads without the weight being suspended, on the bike your legs are the suspension, it would be nice to give them a break after a hard day's work, so why not go with the sprung seat.
|
How do you prevent your lights switching on in your bag? Since it's mostly light here these days, and I don't want to leave my lights on my bike to disappear into someone else's schwag bag, I've been carrying my lights in my bag just in case, but not using them very often. I've started to have problems with them turning on and draining the battery while they've been in my bag. Do you have any ideas how I can prevent this type of problem? The main light that is causing me problems is a Topeak front light, but that's not the only light. I also have small back lights and one of them has had the a similar problem. In general these lights are great and this doesn't happen very often, but it's sufficient of a pain that I'd rather it never happened. http://www.wiggle.co.uk/topeak-whitelite-ii-front-light/ <Q> Get a box to put them in, remove the batteries or get something else. <S> The NiteRider UltraFazer 3.0 LED ( available at Wiggle ) has the lock-out switch to prevent accidental turning ons. <S> This is a relatively rare feature which is crazy given that lights are invariably carried in bags. <S> Although that is a new feature to the model. <S> You can send them back for a refund if you get the old model with no quibbling needed. <S> You should always carry two front (and rear) lights anyway. <S> As for the back, the basic Cateye and Smart ones seem to survive the bag experience. <S> This is because the switch is placed close to the bracket and is not what gets squashed first. <S> Again, two rear lights, one mounted on your bag is a very good idea. <S> The Cateye models deserve the IgNobel award for bike lights because you have to hold the switch down for an age of seconds for them to turn off, but for turning them on just a quick dab will do. <S> Then you have to flick through a dozen flashing modes to get something sensible. <S> They should have it the other way <S> round - a three second push to turn them on, straight to the sensible flashing mode and a single push to turn them to full beam and another press to turn them off. <S> Anyway, the UltraFazer is affordable lighting - not the brightest, but waterproof, good side-lighting and a sensible switch. <S> Also worth checking at your preferred online retailer are the 'Exposure' range. <S> These have the twist option rather than a switch to turn them on and off. <S> These lights are also available in the better-appointed LBS and, given their price, you may want to look before you buy. <A> You could take the battery out? <A> On one set of lights, I rolled up some paper, and then fixed the paper roll round the switch. <S> This stop the switch being pressed by anything that was larger than the switch. <S> However this is too much effort for lights that are used every day. <A> Don't put them in the bag. <S> Ride with them, even though it is light out. <S> There is no downside to having extra visibility on the road, and in many locations it is a legal requirement to have at least the red rear light if you are on publicly traveled roads. <S> Where I live, the white front is also required. <S> Edit <S> : Decided this was worth an answer on its own. <S> Of course, as was pointed out to me, this only applies if you're riding the bike. <S> Still need to remove them for anti-theft, etc...
|
My spare set of lights had some thin plastic sheet put at the end of the battery that I removed when I needed to use them.
|
Is this aluminum "rust" in my frame? I found an aluminum bike in the trash and it seems like it has been exposed to the rain, especially because some of the metal is slightly rusty. The frame is a different thing, because altough it is made in aluminum, it has worm-like bright shapes, with a small relief (when I pass my fingers it isn't as smooth as the rest of the frame). This: So, my questions: Is this "rust"? (I know aluminum doesn't have corrosion like steel does, but this is IMO somekind of corrosion). Is this a damaged in a point that it is dangerous to use it again? Can I solve it? (I tried sanding a small bit and it takes care of it, of course the shine is gone in those bits). <Q> Yep, "raw" aluminum develops a layer of corrosion fairly rapidly. <S> Thankfully, unlike with iron/steel, the corrosion is "tight" and eventually develops to a thickness where additional corrosion is prevented (in normal circumstances). <S> The corrosion can be prevented by either coating the aluminum with a lacquer-like coating or "anodizing" it. <S> Anodizing is a process where the aluminum is dipped in an electrolyte solution and a current is run through it, to develop a layer of "super corrosion" that is smooth and fairly hard <S> /scratch resistant. <S> I'm guessing the bike was lacquered and the coating is breaking down. <S> Once one little spot of breakdown appears, the corrosion below will push up the adjacent areas, creating a growing spot that turns into the "worms" you see. <S> There is no structural problem as a result of this -- it's purely cosmetic. <S> This would indicate that the aluminum is "crystalizing" in the weld, and fractures, if not already present, are imminent. <A> Looks like filiform corrosion to me, which is a typical form of corrosion found on lacquered aluminium (and other metals). <S> In my opinion, the scratches are too organic looking to be just scrachtes (with a layer of oxide forming in the scratch of the lacquer). <S> It is indeed a superficial form of corrosion. <A> This is surface oxidation. <S> Scratches can appear worse than they are. <S> There are no safety concerns here. <S> As for tidying up the appearance, you might want to look at what motorists do with their wheels. <S> Aluminium wheels on cars oxidise really badly <S> if they are neat 'alloy', hence all of them are painted to look like aluminium. <S> Many concoctions are provided for the motorist wanting to tidy up the appearance of the wheels after they have scraped a kerb too many. <S> Remember to park so your frame does not get scratched, put end-caps on your cables and patches of tape where they rub the frame. <S> In that way you should have a tidy frame. <S> For now another option is to put a sticker on the frame over the offending area(s). <A> I have seen this exact thing before on the surface of aluminium car mag wheels that were stored , covered up in a damp environment for up to 2 years. <S> 'It definitely seemed to be due to a reaction with water and salt. <S> The surface had been damaged at depth and was not restorable- <S> it seemed, without remachining the finish again by taking a small layer. <S> It looked just like prehistoric bacterium fossils. <A> It appears to be minor surface corrosion. <S> It isn't (usually) structurally damaging or unsafe for use, unless it also gets much worse than you see there. <S> Polish it away with an aluminum polishing compound and a rag, if you want the best appearance after. <S> Otherwise light sanding is fine.
|
Freshly polished aluminium loses its sheen almost instantly, most shiny aluminium products have a layer of lacquer to mitigate against that. From that picture, it could also simply be scratches, but I assume not if you can sand it away. This type of corrosion starts at a scratch or other little defect in the lacquerfilm, and then makes its way underneath the lacquered surface as though it is making a mole tunnel. The thing to be concerned about would be if there were any spots (particularly around the joints) where a salt-like crust was forming. You can leave it and the oxidised surface will not 'get any worse' or any deeper.
|
What hand signals are there for communicating with others when cycling in a group? Recently I took a hit from behind. Fortunately it was just my friend's bike rather than one of those large-boxes-for-one-person. I was partly to blame because I failed to indicate that we were slowing down. (However, as I understand the Highway Code, if you run into something that has the right to be in your right of way then you are to blame, so the incident wasn't really my fault but my friend's.) Generally I rely on road-positioning to signal my intention, but I do stick my arms out for left and right if the situation deserves it. What other signals are there that I can use to show that I am slowing down, that there are hazards to avoid, etc.? Are there any conventions, either in the Highway Code, as used in the peloton or in other cycling clubs that I could benefit from adopting? I am also interested in best practice for signals that I can use with other road users, e.g. to let someone in a large-box-for-one-person know that I understand that it is their right of way - the equivalent of a flash of the headlights as it were. I personally refrain from using single-finger gestures and banging on the tops of tin-boxes, however, it would be good to know what I can use to show my disgust/outrage in a way that is 'fair'. If there are no online references, here would be as good a place as any to establish a list of 'to be universally understood' gestures and signals that can be used by cyclists. <Q> Yeah, what Stephen says is about all I know <S> (though I don't run with the racing crowd). <S> Pointing at road debris is commonly done, but probably useless, since it doesn't allow time to react -- I prefer to just yell "Trash!", especially now that I have a bad arm and the signaling is more difficult. <S> And, of course, there's the shouted "Car back!" <S> signal given from the rear (no possible hand signal here) when a vehicle is overtaking a group of bikes, and "On your left/right!" shouted when overtaking another bike. <S> (I'm sure that some cycling groups have additional agreed-upon signals, but I don't know of any others that would be generally recognized in the US.) <S> For motorists, I use the basic hand signals -- left arm extended for left turn, right arm extended for right turn. <S> I occasionally use the "slow" signal (described above) when needed to signal that a motorist needs to use caution (because, eg, of cyclists ahead that he may not be able to see), and I've used it once or twice when occupying a full lane to signal that I'm going to retain occupancy (such as when negotiating a single-lane bypass through a construction site). <S> I also sometimes use the left (US) hand <S> extended, palm down, with a repeated downward motion to signal "slow down", when there are cyclists or some other hazard ahead. <S> When following others at all closely, cyclists need to learn to watch the feet, rear derailer, and rear brake caliper of the cyclist ahead. <S> These signal speed changes, and careful observation will clue in the cyclist behind even when the cyclist ahead fails to somehow explicitly signal. <A> Experienced riders hold their hand behind their back to indicate that they will be slowing down or stopping. <S> Saying "slowing" or "stopping" is also used as a secondary indicator, especially if you have to react quickly and can't afford to take a hand off the bars. <A> Most of what my cycling community is similar, with a few variations. <S> Slowing is signaled by an open hand behind the back. <S> If the hand makes a fist, it means we are stopping. <S> We point out dangers like potholes or dead animals with finger. <S> Sand, glass, or gratings get a hand waved toward them like a brush. <S> If we go through a stop sign without stopping the front will call "rolling". <S> If there is a parked car that could be dangerous, either due to a possible open door, or we are riding 2x2, the right arm is waved behind the back in a sweep back. <S> When I'm concerned that they aren't paying attention, I put my palm towards them, the universal symbol to stop. <S> Lastly, if you make the right hand turn like in the pictures, roadies will mock you endless, simply point right... <A> Here is a diagram of commonly used universal hand signals for Slow/stop, and right turn/left turn. <S> I suggest we make this a Community Wiki question, and use as a reference page. <A> In the UK, the Highway Code describes a standard signal for indicating that you intend to slow down: Extending your right arm and waving it up and down . <S> Unfortunately, it's difficult to perform this and brake at the same time <S> so it's not great for urgent, unexpected stops. <S> Additionally, despite it being in the highway code, it's uncommon enough that many road users don't recognise it. <A> Cycle , the CTC magazine , had a panel 'Sign language for cyclists' (as well as another on warning shouts) in the article <S> 'Group Dynamics' on pages <S> 34–37 of the February/March 2011 issue . <S> Unfortunately it's only accessible to subscribers though. <A> I am also interested in best practice for signals that I can use with other road users, e.g. to let someone in a large-box-for-one-person know that I understand that it is their right of way - the equivalent of a flash of the headlights as it were. <S> The following aren't official or best practice, necessarily, but my experience is that drivers seem to behave as if they understand them. <S> Big gestures, like these , except that mine are meant to be seen as a motion (by one car) instead of static (by several cars). <S> To wave someone past me at a 4-way stop I use a hand gesture like shooing a fly away from in front of my face (the 'Australian salute') ... with a limp wrist, so it ends with my forearm vertical and my hand pointing in the direction of travel. <S> Wearing gloves might add to the effect/visibility/authority of the gesture. <S> To be explicit that I'm not going anywhere until after they do, e.g. for a bus or a dump truck, I sit up, hands off the handle-bars; and put one hand or two on my hips; and wait. <S> I also do this when I'm stopped in a bike lane and looking behind me (so that everyone knows that I'm stopped), waiting to cross through lanes of traffic.
|
Using the hand signal (left arm (US) extended with elbow bent downward at about a 45 degree angle and with open palm facing backwards) for slowing is a bit more useful than pointing at road debris, but shouting "Slowing!" or "Stopping!" is still a better signal -- easier to accomplish, and more likely to get the attention of the rider behind. With cars, I tend to point where I'm going and look them in the eye. For road debris or obstacles, you should hold your arm out to the side and point down at the road to where the debris will be relative to your bicycle. I like a sweeping gesture with the whole arm, as if opening a door; or a beckoning.
|
Can I put 700c tires on rims made for 27 x 1.25"? It's getting hard to find any selection for my old Avanti 12 speed. it currently uses 27 x 1.25 inch tires. Can I put 700c tires without needing to buy new rims? <Q> No!!! <S> I tried this when I was knee-high to a grasshopper <S> and it so-did-not-work! <S> I actually managed to get a Michelin Select 700 x 28c tyre on the 27" wheel but <S> the inner-tube was so pinched and pierced that no amount of that gunk you can spray into tubes <S> could save it. <S> I did get the size wrong but after many hours of struggle 'hoped' to get a low-profile tyre on my front wheel. <S> The bead diameter of the 27 inch wheel is 630 mm, the bead diameter of a 700c is 622 mm (I properly learned those measurements that day). <S> 8mm is a big difference, believe me! <S> If your LBS does stock 27" tyres, do not part with your cash until you have read 630 on the sidewall. <S> If they do not stock them, ask them to get them in. <S> This will save you the postage of mail order. <S> Their suppliers will carry them and they should be able to get them in for next week if you ask nicely and put down a deposit. <S> Schwalbe have a good intro and list of sizes: <S> http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/size_markings <S> The 27" size for your bike will be 630, 609 is the size for older bikes with 'rod' brakes and no sidewalls to the rim. <A> No, a 28" tire is 700c generally, but a 27" tire will not fit. <S> Tubes, on the other hand, will work just fine. <A> I spend hours try to pull it in, and end up puncture inner tube... not worth the trouble, definitely get 27 tire... not worth the time <A> i actually have a 700c tire on a 27'' rim but the tire bead wont sit properly. <S> it sits slightly off center so the tire is high in one spot and low in the other. <S> it makes for little bit bumpy ride. <A> Don't say it can't be done. <S> I have a 700 C tire on the back 27 inch rim of my old 12 speed, <S> couldn't easily obtain the correct tire. <S> It was a struggle to get it on and the bead is down next to the spokes, but <S> I have it inflated to about 70 psi <S> and it rides just fine. <S> I had to be careful to not poke a hole in the tube when getting it on the rim. <S> You can't really tell it is the wrong tire unless you look closely and see that the sidewall is partly down inside the rim. <S> One fringe benefit I haven't needed yet, if it goes flat I can ride on the flat without worrying about the tire coming off the rim while I'm riding... <S> Now how I'll get the tire off the rim if I have to fix a flat, that admitttedly won't be easy.
|
700 c tire will is too small to put on 27" rim... There are specifications for wheel sizes and tyre sizes - ETRTO. Normal 700c inner tubes will go in a 27" wheel with no problems.
|
How to fix problem with mountain bike chain falling off gears? The chain on my girlfriend's bike came off the front gear today, it looks like the back gear changing mechanism isn't handling back-pedaling properly, whenever she pedals backwards the chain slacks rather than feeding through. The chain doesn't seem to be taut enough and has at one point gone round the front gear and caught in the front gear changing mechanism. Any idea what might be wrong? I'm sorry if I've got my terminology completely wrong here. It's a 21 speed mountain bike if that helps. EDIT I've looked up the terminology now and it seems like there might be a problem with the rear derailer? It doesn't seem to be keeping the chain taut at the top and is just getting pulled almost to its limit towards the front of the bike. <Q> Yeah, first clean the rear derailer well. <S> Simplest way to do this is to lean the bike against a wall (outside, where you can make a mess), slide some newspapers up behind the derailer and drape them down the the wheel (to keep from dripping all over the tire), then spray the derailer well with WD-40, using an old toothbrush to clean it up a bit. <S> Afterwards, wipe the derailer dry, then oil it up well with a heavy oil (preferably bike chain oil). <S> If the bike has more than maybe 2000 miles on it then likely the chain is worn out, and possibly the rear sprockets have developed a "hook". <S> A bike shop can check for this with a special gauge, and replace the chain if it's too badly worn. <S> (If "hook" has developed a new chain will help a bit, but the rear sprockets may need to be replaced.) <S> Regardless, likely the rear derailer is out of adjustment. <S> It's not very complicated to adjust, but it takes a touch of mechanical ability to understand which way to turn things. <S> But mainly it's a matter of adjusting the cable tightness, which is usually done by turning a knob on the cable near the shift lever or elsewhere along the cable route. <S> The other odd possibilities for this problem are that spring has broken in the derailer (or sometimes the spring has just "jumped" off the tang where it's supposed to be hooked), or some jackleg replaced the chain and didn't get the length right. <A> If you have crashed or if your bike has fallen over, you may have bent the derailleur hanger, the part that attaches the derailleur to your frame. <S> If this is the case, it cannot be fixed simply by adjustment of the derailleur. <S> The remedy for a bent derailleur hanger is either to bend it back in place with a derailleur hanger alignment gauge or buy a new derailleur hanger. <S> Make sure the limits are set correctly for your front and rear derailleurs in addition to making sure the cable length is proper. <S> This is done by tightening or loosening the screws on your derailleur that are marked L and H (for low and high, respectively). <S> Sheldon Brown has a good article about adjusting derailleurs that explains this more in depth. <S> If the chain itself is the source of your problems, it may need to be cleaned and/or lubricated. <S> If the chain is gummed up, I recommend using a citrus degreaser that you can buy at your local hardware store instead of WD-40 as a solvent because WD-40 leaves a film when it dries and citrus degreaser does not. <S> Then lubricate your chain: <S> Alternatively, if you are riding in normal conditions, chain oil is your best bet. <A> I just had this problem on my town bike. <S> Its my old swiss bike and its been suffering a lot of small problems recently due to cycling in -10 degree temperatures. <S> The most recent was the chain constantly falling off every time I stopped pedalling or back pedalled. <S> So to successfully stop I was having to pull the brakes while still gently pedalling until I stopped, or just put the chain back on every time I free wheeled or stopped. <S> The main cause of this is cycling here in the snow in Zurich city. <S> I managed to fix the problem by just turning the bike upside down getting an old tooth brush and light bike oil and just brushing the gears and oiling the mechanisms until it started running smoothly, making sure I was pushing the pedals in the reverse direction a lot and starting and stopping quickly. <S> It seems to be working fine now. <S> Thanks for the tips everyone.
|
Depending on how much you ride, you should lubricate your chain every few rides to every few weeks so your chain doesn't seize or wear itself down. If you are riding in dusty, dry areas, consider using a dry lubricant such as teflon that will not pick up dust like an oil lubricant will. The snow itself is not great for the bike but apparently the generous amounts of salt they put on the roads was the real cause of the trouble.
|
What caused diagonal cuts in the sidewalls of my tire? I noticed some strange damage on my rear tire, where there appear to be diagonally cuts going around the entire wheel. I have no idea what might have caused this damage. I first saw it a few months ago, but didn't think anything of it because I had just replaced my tires with these relatively fancy Panaracer kevlar tires so I figured they should hold up for at least a year. Anyway, just a few days ago I felt my rear tire bumping and when I looked at it, I could see the tube is starting to bulge out slightly through the cracks in the tire sidewall. The front tire is completely fine, but it's starting to look like I have to replace the back tire. So my questions are, has anybody else dealt with this issue before? Any ideas what might have caused this damage? Am I indeed correct that the tire needs to be replaced? The first picture has the most severe scarring, the second picture shows how it extends around the entire wheel. <Q> Yes, you are right that the tire must be replaced. <S> No, the tires are not defective. <S> This type of cross hatching is caused by age and weather deterioration. <S> In this case the tire appears much older than that. <S> It is generally seen most obviously on tires which have tan side walls, as this one does. <S> The tires with black side walls do the same thing, but it isn't as visible or as quick to happen. <S> I realize you said that you'd replaced them about a year ago. <S> That could be climate affecting tire life, or it could be that they were old stock on the LBS shelf for some time before you bought them. <S> If you see crosshatching, or your tire feels papery and dry, rather than like rubber on the side wall, replace them. <S> A blowout at speed is a dangerous thing, and a year of use is an acceptable lifetime. <S> FTR, this tire is either a Panaracer Pasela , or Pasela TG. <S> In it's narrowest form, a 700x23c they recommend a 100psi maximum. <S> If this is as it appears, a 26 x 1.25 or 1.5, that pressure recommendation drops to 60 psi. <S> Could possibly be a 700x38c which would be a max pressure of 90 psi. <A> Looks to me like <S> the tire's been run flat. <S> If not that then I'd say the tire's defective -- that the factory left out a layer of cord or some such. <S> What pressure have you been running (and how much do you weigh)? <A> Judging by those pictures, I would replace the tire immediately. <S> Depending on the tire, and what you're doing with it, a year may or may not be an unreasonable length of time for a tire to wear out. <S> Others with more experience will probably have something to say on that. <A> I have had several rear tyres fail this way (most recently a Schwalbe racing ralph) <S> Oddly the tyre "cuts" perfectly align with the spokes in a diagnonal away from each spoke. <S> I ride a lot of canal paths so the crusty dry dust makes these patterns on the sidewall even when the tyre is brand new. <S> I am wondering whether the spokes cause a vortex that carries dust triggering abrasion of the tyre wall until eventually it fails <S> and you get bulges? <S> I am going to try moving the tyre 1/4 of an inch around the rim every time a get a puncture to see if I can even out the abrasion. <S> I always run the rear tyre at 50 or 60 PSI <S> so "under inflation" cannot be the cause. <S> I also run the front much lower and have never experience this on a front tyre
|
First of all, you're right about replacing the tire--if you have any cracks in the sidewall and/or a bulging tube, a tire MUST be replaced. The tire is either at least 3-5 years old, or has been stored in a climate which speeds dry rotting. A tire has a shelf life of 3-4 years, even if not ridden. It appears like diagonal cuts because the weave of the cloth start breaking threads, and they are woven diagonally.
|
Are there any 'anti-car' bicycle companies or shops? In the UK it would be a brave company that took the 'anti-car' stance when it comes to selling bicycles. Furthermore, most cycle shops, distributors and others connected with the trade are personally quite pro-car (the mechanic fixing bikes to pay for his car which he needs to get to his job fixing bikes is the classic, the accountant of one distributor driving a Porsche takes the biscuit). Then there are the customers, generally most of them are pro-car (even if necessary evil) and you cannot alienate them, can you? Are there any companies in the bike business - large or small - that are quite open with harsh opinions about the motorcar? Or have there been, only for the business model to fail? Is deference to motoring a reality that cannot be escaped? <Q> Well, there's the Cars-R-Coffins website, but i don't know of any shops that are actively anti-car. <S> It's pretty counter productive, and even if you push the green dream pretty hard, it's generally recognized that positive input is better than negativity. <S> For example: Most people respond better to, "I ride my bike because it's good, cheap transportation, and environmentally sound." than they do to, "Stop killing the planet with your 6 mpg Hummer H2, you inconsiderate #$@%! <S> *... <S> " There are advocacy organizations that will push the line pretty hard, but retailers and wholesalers have to maintain balance a bit better than that. <S> FTR, I don't think you are insensitive to this, i just think it's an answer that you pretty much stated in your question. <A> Certainly there are many (mostly urban) bike shops that push the concept of cycling to replace auto usage. <S> Perhaps if you check the "hippie" (what would be a good modern term?) <S> bike shops in a few large towns you'll find one or two nearly as extreme as you describe. <S> Certainly not the rule, though. <A> At the end of they day most bicycle shops have to make a living <S> so I guess they will happily sell a bike to anyone. <S> Maybe there are some lucky shops who have enough business from cycling fanatics and can afford to alienate drivers, but this attitude is not going to encourage anyone out of their cars..... <S> Peace man.
|
Well, I surely think bike shops should encourage cycling, its in their best interests, its also in their best interests to sell bikes to motorists.
|
Sun protection while touring I'm preparing for a mini tour in the greek islands this August and I'm getting concerned about sun protection. I'm considering not using a helmet (as I'll reach 30 km/h max). Last year I was wearing a "buff" that protected me from sweat, but did not protect me from minor sunburn. Would a hat be a solution, but of what type (considering strong winds)? <Q> As for your neck, I've always used sunscreen during sunny rides. <S> Get a bottle that can fit in your saddlebag or backpack, and apply it liberally and as often as necessary. <S> Sunscreen will protect you from the sun without impeding your ability to move, and it will not be affected by strong winds. <A> Definitely do something to protect the back of the neck, and your ears (even with a helmet). <S> The other area that it seems often "surprises" you is the backs of your lower legs (though this may be peculiar to the higher latitudes I frequent). <S> You of course need a sleeved jersey or sun lotion on your arms, and either knee-length pants or sun lotion on the tops of your thighs. <S> [I'll add that I've several times been on tours with a guy who has "sun allergy", and he does remarkably well in a full-length Tyvek suit. <S> On hot days when you'd expect him to suffocate, he churns merrily along.] <A> Wear sunscreen. <S> Make sure it has UVA and UVB protection, check the SPF and the UVA star rating (higher numbers means more protection). <S> Make sure you apply enough sunscreen and reapply it often enough. <S> There's some fairly detailed information on sunscreen here that you might find useful. <A> Anything wrong with the traditional cycling cap ? <A> Solar light cap Oasis or Kayak models do well for sun coverage, while additionally providing evening light power (for the touring).
|
I recommend wearing a helmet and something like a cycling cap or something similar to an Under Armour skull cap that can absorb sweat and protect your head from the sun.
|
How long should it take to rebuild a wheel? I'm planning to replace the hub on my front wheel, from a QR to a 20mm. How much labor, skill, equipment, etc. does that need, and how much time should I expect a pro to charge for, to do the rebuild? <Q> I think if you are willing to spend a few hours, it's worth doing yourself. <S> Depending on the flange size of the new hub, though, you may need to buy new spokes. <S> You can determine the length of the spokes you will need using a spoke length calculator . <S> You will need a spoke wrench, a flat-head screwdriver, some vaseline, and the use of a truing stand. <S> Here's what you'll have to do: <S> Remove the tire, innertube, and rim tape from the wheel. <S> Using a spoke wrench, loosen and remove the nipples. <S> If you are using the same spokes, remove the spokes from the old hub. <S> Lace the wheel, making ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the valve will be in the right place. <S> Check out Sheldon Brown's step-by-step wheelbuilding page for the procedure of lacing a 3x (three-cross) wheel. <S> You will want to use a little bit of vaseline on the threads of each spoke so you can tighten the nipples more easily. <S> Go to a nearby bicycle <S> cooperative (you can google bicycle co-op near nameofyourtown) to use a truing stand, and use the truing stand to adjust the wheel. <S> Make sure the wheel is dished properly and that you have proper tension on the spokes. <S> If you are not interested in making your own wheel, I recommend just buying a new wheel with the hub you want. <S> It may be cheaper than getting your lbs to rebuild your wheel with your new hub. <A> I made a call around to 3 local reputable shops. <S> The labor charges are estimated at $40 to $60. <S> Any parts needed add to the cost. <S> This is localized to Portland, OR where there are numerous bike shops. <S> so anywhere from a couple of hours to several hours. <A> 2-3 hours of shop time. <S> In Park City, I'd expect 100-150 US dollars. <S> 150 would be on the high side. <S> – <S> zenbike 15 hours ago <S> Of course it can be done faster, and likely will be, but this is a standard time to expect. <S> Your shop rates may vary, but the time should be consistent around the globe. <A> OK not the question as stated but What hub? <S> Most newer hubs have conversion kits. <S> Is it cost effective? <S> Like a Stans Crest that is a decent wheel the full wheel with hub is $600 and the rim is $100. <S> Don't mean to advertise Stan's and I am not associated with Stan's. <S> Just using Stan's as an example. <S> I just now noticed this is an old question. <S> I would not even have answered if I had realized that.
|
Because spokes stretch a little and settle in after you start riding, be prepared to true the wheel after the first couple rides. Now, if you do this yourself...the time it will take will depend on your experience... Unless you have a high end rim it is probably not cost effective if you are paying a shop. The time for this job by a pro is estimated at 2 - 3 hours. I'm sure the price will vary depending on the location; but the time involved should be about the same.
|
In which orientation should a front wheel be installed? A front wheel with a quick release mechanism can be installed in two orientations: the lever on the left, or the lever on the right. Does it matter in which orientation it's installed? If so, would any problems result from installing it the wrong way? <Q> In my experience, a front rim is symmetrical, and it doesn't matter which direction it's in. <S> Unlike the rear wheel, where there's a drivetrain side and a non-drivetrain side, the only place where the quick-release handle can be. <S> However, there are some other considerations to keep in mind: <S> Tires will sometimes have a tread direction . <S> This is usually marked on the tread itself, in the form of an arrow with "direction of rotation" indicated. <S> If you put a rim on a backwards from how you installed the tire, that could be swapped by mistake. <S> In addition, it makes sense to have the quick releases for both wheels on the same side. <S> Disc brakes may introduce other considerations; other answers on this page address this. <S> Outside of that, it mechanically makes no difference what side the quick-release is on. <A> Generally the QR lever on the rear tire is on the left, so as to not interfere with the derailer. <S> It makes (a little) sense to put the QR lever of the front tire on the same side (at least if you have any OCD tendencies). <S> (And if the tire direction is wrong you can always remove the skewer and insert it from the other side -- <S> the axle itself is perfectly symmetrical.) <A> Actually, there can be difference, if you are using disc brakes . <S> For practical reasons, you should put the release on opposite side to the brake rotor to avoid accidentaly touching it. <S> First, it may be still hot from braking, when you need to swap the tire, second, your hands can have oil (or your body oil mixed with sweat) on them and that can be bad for the rotor surface and brake pads. <S> On the road bikes it is considered to be a tradition to put them on the left, non drive side (front and back). <A> If I understand the question, I am pretty sure that bicycle tires are heteroflexible , and their orientation, which side, same side, opposite side, does not really matter. <S> However, I have been told it's best to mount them so that the lever itself points to the back of the bicycle, so it does not get trapped in anything and pop open. <A> I think that it is really important for the logo on the front hub to be the right way up when looking at the bike from the front. <S> The lever should also be folder to point upwards in parallel with the fork blade. <S> The tyre should be pointing in the direction marked forward on the sidewall. <S> Having one of these points wrong distresses me deeply. <S> Particularly if the tyre has to be taken off and turned around so it aligns with the logo on the hub. <A> That is so because, THEORETICALLY, some skewer levers could be turned beyond their closed position (parallel to the fork blade), and its tip could block the disk, causing a fall. <S> Practically speaking, I have never seen any skewer, be it in my bike or others', in such a position. <S> Besides, since Shimano skewer is assymmetrical, it is much harder to get a good position if you mount it on the side opposite to the disc. <S> As of skewer orientation, I prefer closing it "upwards", so the closed lever is parallel to the fork blade, pointing up, with just enough room to wrap the fingers around it, and never too tight. <A> I was just told by my LBS that both my front tire AND wheel we're on backwards. <S> My tire (Vredestein Triforzza) has a slight diagonal sipe (but no arrow on the sidewall). <S> My wheel's decal was upside down. <S> I said "OK, but the wheel is symmetrical so what difference does it make?". <S> The mechanic said the cones in the hub are designed to rotate in one direction and may loosen over time if the wheel is installed backwards. <S> I was experiencing speed wobble. <S> I hope this fixes it. <A> Put the quick release on your stronger arm side based on where you are stood/sat when you put it up/take it off. <S> Then you are more likely to have an easy on/off. <S> I change over my car tires due to more wear on one side than the other <S> but I don't get this as much on the bike.
|
But it basically doesn't matter, so long as the tire has no preferred rotation direction (and you don't have something like disk brakes that demands a certain orientation). I make sure when putting a tire on the rim to set it up so, if both release handles are on the same side, the front tire is in the direction of rotation. The q-r lever should be on the left because it then does not have any possibility to entangle with the q-r lever of the bike in front. I have read on a Shimano disc-brake manual that you should leave the skewer to the opposite side of the disc.
|
What are optimal fabrics for cycling clothing? The title says it all. However, should I vary the fabric through the year? Should I go with lycra in the summer and wool in the winter? And maybe, should I wear cotton? I do 2 types of riding. Commuting and endurance cycling. There are optimal fabrics for cycling and for athletic gear in general. What should I look for regarding cycling clothing? October - April = Typically wet and cool/cold. We don't get much frigid weather, but it does occur for short periods. May - September = Usually warm and dry. We don't get a lot 90+F temps, but do at times. Out on the coast it can be cool and damp this time of year. East of the Cascades, hot to very hot and dry. Can this be converted to a community wiki? It has become apparent that the optimal fabric is personal choice and climate determined. Personally, I prefer merino wool and lycra/synthetics; but others find cotton to be their optimal choice. <Q> Wool, particularly Merino wool, is tough to beat. <S> It's partially hydrophilic, cooling you by wicking sweat away from the skin while also retaining warmth when wet. <S> It's lightweight, soft, and has natural mild antibacterial and antifungal properties that reduce the amount of funky odors. <S> The main downside compared to synthetic fabrics is probably cost, especially for cycling-specific apparel. <A> Lycra is an amazing clothing fabric for any weather above 55°F. <S> It sheds heat quickly, wicks moisture away, and evaporates that moisture extremely quickly. <S> I recently finished a 12 hour, 190mi ride in 90 <S> °F temperatures completely comfortable and dry. <S> I challenge anyone to find a clothing material that can come close to lycra's effectiveness in that regard. <S> It's also an excellent in the rain, as long as temperature is not a factor. <S> Again, moisture evaporates surprisingly quickly, so as soon as the rain stops, you're dry again. <S> The only time I wouldn't wear only lycra is during the cold, especially if it's raining as well. <S> I still wear it under more protective clothing, though. <A> I am a cotton man year round, I guess it depends on where you live and just how stylish you wish to look. <A> Cotton.... <S> Gets wet, stays wet... <S> There's a wide variety of cycling gear for a variety of situations. <S> Depends primarily on the weather. <S> In warm, weather, a simple jersey and cycling shorts pretty well does it. <S> Good lycra shorts breathe, provide protection, and improve upper-leg circulation as well. <S> Jerseys have evolved over 100 years. <S> They are utterly functional and well-suited to the task. <S> You don't have to buy expensive "team" gear; I have 20 dollar Nashbar jerseys I bought 30 years ago. <S> As it gets colder and/or more inclement, you need more gear. <S> Depends on how cold you want to go. <A> I no longer cycle 12 months/year, limiting my cycling to weather that's reasonably comfortable with nothing heavier than a light long-sleeve jersey and lightweight tights (possibly augmented by a "sauna suit" when it seems a better option to get wet from the inside rather than the outside). <S> Socks are always Coolmax. <S> Glove liners under my fingerless cycling gloves in cooler weather. <S> Most of the time I just wear a lightweight cotton tee shirt and standard "spandex" cycling shorts. <S> I used to cycle in jogging shorts but decided as I got older <S> I needed a bit better padding. <S> Back when I was cycling in the winter I'd use, depending on the temp, Goretex jacket and pants, long underwear (standard Sears issue), windproof undershorts, heavier Coolmax socks, rubber booties. <S> Ski mittens over glove liners on my hands. <S> Never could find a balaclava that fit my beard <S> and I don't do scarves, so <S> the face was always a problem. <S> (This is Minnesota, with most of the cycling being back and forth to work 10-25 miles one way on country roads.) <S> [I'll add that I never quite got into the ice bike thing -- <S> didn't use studs and could only cycle on days that the roads were clear.] <A> I've only worn cotton. <S> -5C <S> .. <S> +10C: <S> Bike shoes, jeans, cotton shirt. <S> Outer-wear: <S> poly zipped waistcoat, gortex rain jacket or lightly quilted (not duvet) <S> snow jacket, bike gloves, ski mitts carried in pannier. <S> Below freezing you don't get wet. <S> It doesn't snow hard enough to get your pants soaked. <S> A snow jacket will keep your body dry. <S> A simple jacket will keep you warm (except in strong winds, when you wouldn't be out) at temperatures down to -8C, even when you're biking slowly because of snow. <S> Being warm outside in winter is one of the things about biking that feels super-human. <S> Ski gloves and a long-sleeved poly fleecy under your waterproof quilted snow jacket and on top of your shirt-sleeved cotton shirt, in temperatures below freezing including snow storms. <S> +15 .. <S> +30C: <S> Bike shoes, cotton 'cargo shorts', cotton shirt. <S> My main complaint (2000 miles in 4 months) is that I'm wearing through the seats of my various cotton jeans and shorts, at an accelerated rate. <S> So: the above is for cold and dry, cold and icy, cool and dry, and hot and dry. <S> For cold and wet <S> I have a goretex anorak which remains wind-proof when wet and which <S> , if zipped, will keep my body warm in above-zero temperatures for as long as I keep biking. <S> For hot and wet <S> I asked a question: Summer rain jacket recommendations <A> Breathability is the key. <S> So I prefer polyester and when its cold, hiking underwear, a soft-cell jacket (or a fleece for short rides), mitten gloves and soft cell trourers when its too cold. <S> Cotton no way, wool not recomended
|
Cycling gear should breathe, it should "wick" perspiration away from the skin, and outer garments should provide some wind protection.
|
How long does it take to replace bottom bracket bearings? How long does it take to replace bottom bracket bearings? Is there anything that can make the procedure take more or less time? How does the type of mechanism affect repair time? <Q> There are three main categories of bottom bracket, adjustable type, cartridge-style, and external-bearing. <S> Cartridge-style bottom brackets are not serviceable, the replacement requires replacing the entire bottom bracket assembly. <S> Removing the cranks and installing the new bottom bracket is a pretty straightforward task, and should take less than 20-30 minutes. <S> Adjustable-type can require a little bit of time to get the tension right, plus they are typically more difficult to remove due to the fidgetiness of lockring spanners and the fact that the fixed-cup is typically seized hard into the frame. <S> I'd allot ~45 minutes to an hour for that task. <S> Depending on the brand of cranks. <S> External-bearing splits the difference - some have more steps than cartridge bottom brackets, some are equally simple. <S> Note that in all cases, using the correct tools is important. <A> Lots of cranks are cartridges, even when the wheel bearings are loose balls. <S> Otherwise, it's a relatively simple process to pull apart the bottom bracket. <S> Then clean things up and pack in the new bearings and grease. <S> (This is where I can't guess, since with my tremor it takes 4 times as long to count out the bearings as it would someone else.) <S> Another 5-10 minutes to put the cup and lockring back properly adjusted, put the cranks on, and torque things up. <S> A cartridge replacement would be about the same, only it skips that middle part. <A> Best case is in a workshop, surrounded by all required tools, with a showroom full of every conceivable 'Shimano' spare next door, this is a ten minute job. <S> That is with pressure on (customer getting while-you-wait service for some reason) and a simple swap-over of new parts. <S> This used to be a fairly common procedure in the early days of mountain-biking before cartridge bottom-brackets became available. <S> Inevitably this would be nearer half an hour if time is taken into account for customer service, i.e. extracting money from customer's wallet, allowing them time to decide whether or not they wanted the XT bottom bracket and so on. <S> I would not be surprised if it took seconds rather than minutes (or even hours) to put the original bottom bracket in. <S> So the best-case workshop time is slow. <S> As for one's own bike, even with extensive workshop experience, give it a whole weekend. <S> And maybe the next. <S> First you have to get the parts off with tools that you have lost somewhere. <S> This means a major clear up. <S> Then the tools (if they fit) don't work too well as something on the bike has corroded. <S> A sit down with a cup of tea (maybe watching the Grand Prix) <S> later, they still don't come off, but perhaps enough bits come out for a visit to the bike shop to get the right spares. <S> It being a busy weekend it can take a long time to be served and with parking, another hour goes by. <S> Finally, after much physical effort the parts come out. <S> Then it suddenly makes sense to tidy all the components and frame to pristine, as-new condition. <S> Obviously this is needed, isn't it? <S> Then you find that you read the axle length correctly but the one in the box differs from what it says on the box. <S> Another trip to the bike shop. <S> Because your bike is different, a special order has to be made, or you are forced to buy the deluxe version, perhaps with a whole new chainset. <S> Finally it takes five minutes to put the part in, another twenty minutes of ride to make sure the front gears are working properly, another ten minutes of tweaking and another quick polish of the bike, perhaps taking time to touch up the paint from where it got brutalised earlier.
|
Probably takes less than 5 minutes to get the cranks off and the cup out, unless something's stuck.
|
Bottom bracket making noise, should it be fixed now or can I wait until regular maintenance? My bike has been ridden 4 months / 2000 miles and is no longer completely quiet. About a month ago I noticed a whispering noise like a wire brush sliding across a cymbal. It happens on the power-down-stroke, in any/every gear, so I think it must be the 'bottom bracket' or something close to that. A noise (creaking) is now happening on both strokes (both feet). No one mentioned bearings when I asked How much does bike price correspond with maintenance needs? A co-worker said it needs fixing when the pedals are 'loose' (which they aren't). Can it wait another 2 months / 1000 miles or so until its first regularly-scheduled twice-annual in-LBS service? Or is it a case of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and I should ask someone to maintain it a.s.a.p. before it gets (irreparably) worse? Do they even need maintenance, or are they just replaced sometimes? <Q> There are several possible causes of noises you can get from your bottom bracket. <S> Bad bottom-bracket bearings <S> Bad pedal bearings <S> Loose crank arms <S> Loose bottom-bracket cartridge Loose chainrings <S> Of these the loose crank arm (which may be silent or may be accompanied by a creak on each stroke) is probably the one needing the most immediate attention, since riding even 10 miles with a loose crank arm is enough to destroy the crank arm and crank shaft. <S> So you should either check that the crank arms are tight yourself (by torquing the fixing bolts appropriately) or <S> have a bike shop do it. <S> After that, I've experienced most of the above, but probably the bad (or simply dirty) <S> pedal bearings more than anything else. <S> And I've had new, sealed pedals develop noises in as little as 200 miles (though the set I have now have been fine for probably 8000 miles, knock wood). <S> I did have <S> the bottom bracket cartridge on my current bike start making noise after about 5000 miles (more of an occasional click than grinding). <S> On disassembly the (Shimano) cartridge was found to be badly rusted (even though the bike is only left out in the rain when commuting). <S> Replaced it with a SS Phil Woods unit. <S> The BB bearings went out on my old Nishiki after a few thousand miles, and on inspection it appeared that the cups had been poorly machined to begin with. <S> (This was maybe 18 years ago.) <S> Replaced the loose bearings with a Performance cartridge. <S> But note that 2000 miles is about the expected life of a chain, and yours is probably due for replacement. <A> Quoted from the Park Tool site : <S> There is a fairly simple test to determine if the bottom bracket bearing is worn out. <S> Shift the chain to the inner most rear sprockets front and rear. <S> Drop the chain off the smallest front ring, and arrange it so it will not strike the chainrings. <S> Spin the crank while holding the bike with one hand. <S> If you feel an obvious rumbling or grinding feeling, the bearing are worn out and the unit should be replaced. <S> Very worn bottom brackets will actually make a grinding noise. <S> I'd fix it now if you're getting these symptoms. <S> Grinding is a sign of bicycle arthritis and is easily solved with new bearings. <S> Bearings wear out and can lead to damage if not replaced. <A> If your bottom bracket is going, then there will probably be some play in it - you can easily check for this by holding one pedal in each hand and pushing/pulling to pivot the cranks around the bottom bracket. <S> First try pulling both pedals away from the frame then push them both towards the frame - if you feel any movement then your bottom bracket probably needs replacing. <S> You can do the same test on your pedals, which are another common source of noise from that part of the bike. <S> Start with the pedal horizontal and twist left and right, keeping the pedal horizontal. <S> I find pedals commonly have a little bit of play so judging it is a bit more down to experience, but too much movement means time for new pedals. <S> Neither of these tests can prove that the part is working perfectly, but finding play is a good sign that the parts are on the way out. <A> Don't assume that it's the BB. <S> When you press down on the pedals, you're actually putting stress on many different parts of the bike, and any one of them could be making noise. <S> Try lubing the chain, and see if the noise goes away.
|
Pedal bearings seem to pick up dirt faster than any other bearing on the bike (especially when offroad or riding on packed gravel), and unless they are well sealed may need regular disassembly and regreasing. A bike with only 2000 miles on it should not need any bearing service, unless it's been seriously exposed to bad weather or other severe conditions. Your description of the sound makes me think of the chain.
|
Is a 16 grams CO2 cartridge enough to inflate a 29" mountainbike I used to ride a 26" mtb, but now I'm switching to a 29er. Since the volume of the tire increases, I was wondering is one 16 gram CO 2 cartridge enough to inflate the tire? Notes: The tire will be between 2.1 and 2.25 wide. Since I'm big (110 kg) I need more pressure than a lower-weight rider. <Q> Yes. <S> One 16 gram cartridge is enough to fill an average 29" tire. <S> I just tested in my Schwalbe Rocket Ron 29x2.25, and from empty it gets to about 38 psi. <S> I run tubeless, so normal pressure at my 110kg weight is around 35-38psi. <S> With a tubed setup, 38psi might be a touch low, but plenty to get you back in off the trail. <A> I found this chart <S> which lists tyre pressure for various sizes of tyres and cartridges. <S> It doesn't list 29 inch tyres, but with a little bit of maths and physics (and a little bit of hand-waving) <S> The chart says 40 psi for a 26 inch tyre, so you'd be looking at about 36 psi for a 29 inch tyre. <S> Which is a bit on the low side. <S> [Edited to include the link posted by @Grumpus27] <A> Adding an inline answer to hold the image that I think was referenced.
|
I calculate that the pressure in a 29 inch tyre is going to be about 10% lower than a 26 inch tyre.
|
What are the possible upgrades for a 40-year-old Bottecchia 10 Speed? I have a 40 year old Bottecchia (entry level model) that I took for ride yesterday after letting it sit for 20 years. Just inflated the tires and oiled the chain and off I went. The tires and brake pads obviously need to be replaced and I was thinking of getting some cross tires for some dirt road and short trip riding, but yesterday's ride reminded me how bad the old derailleurs were and the huge gap between gears. Some components had been upgraded (wheels, cotterless crank) but I'm wondering what gear clusters I can use without changing wheels. I'm also open to other ideas ... other than making it a fixie. <Q> Bottechia frames from that period use an italian threaded bottom bracket. <S> I assume also down tube friction shifters? <S> The simple answer is that you can upgrade the bike all the way to current standards, if you are willing to spend the money. <S> But it is not what most would consider to be cost effective to do so. <S> Changing your chain requires changing your derailleurs, both of them, preferably, although you might get away with leaving the front derailleur. <S> If you spend the money to go that far, a whole new bike kit, which should be possible to make work on the frame, isn't that different in price, depending on your choices. <S> A SRAM Apex Kit should cost around $1500 dollars, including new basic wheels, and current standard wide range gearing. <S> But if you want to keep the original wheels, you will be very limited in how far you can change things. <A> Back 40 years ago there was the whole French/Italian/English divide in bike standards, so it's really a crap shoot. <S> You might find that the rear hub takes "standard" old-style freewheels, but you're limited to 5-speed unless you put in a longer axle (not out of the question) or find a "compact" 6/7 speed freewheel (likely scarce as hen's teeth). <S> I suppose you could put in a new BB cartridge and have 3 chainrings, but the BB standards were the least "standard" of anything back then. <A> The bike I use out of my stable of 5 road bikes & 1 recumbent tricycle for touring (mostly 5 day trips) is a rebuilt 1975 Raleigh super course. <S> This came as a 10 gear bicycle which I immediately put on a triple crank. <S> It now has 21 gears. <S> 16 years ago when Shimano cluster cogs were on their way out <S> I bought enough in the proper tooth sizes to last me 20-30 years (chainrings are still available) so I can not really advise what to do. <S> The shop in Madison, WI. <S> is out of cogs. <S> Harris Cyclery (which is for me a local shop) still lists on their website a few freewheels. <S> My tricycle is my only pedal powered vehicle that is completely up to date with 9 speed cluster & hyperglide. <S> I learned to friction shift in the late 60s. <S> With indexed handlebar end controls I feel I have the best system, brifters are expensive & not necessary. <S> As far bottom brackets are concerned until Phil Wood sold his company <S> I had an open account there which made his products more affordable. <S> I always used Phil bottom brackets. <S> I have 4 of his, 1 conventional one & the swiss mountain drive for my 54 gear tricycle <A> As Jacek says...My main ride is a 1972 Cilo/Swiss roadster with a Columbus frame. <S> Nice frame, nice Shimano 600 components.... <S> But sub-par with other bits. <S> Nasty steel crank, nasty Malliard wheels, Sort-of-OK Weinemann brakes. <S> I have... <S> Spread the frame to accept a contemporary Shimano 7-speed wheel. <S> (looking for a nice 8-speed) Replaced the front wheel similarly. <S> Replaced the crank with a contemporary 39-52 aluminum item. <S> So now, I have a nice, smooth-riding vintage steel-framed bike. <S> Use it almost daily.
|
Upgrading the rear freewheel beyond a 7 speed cluster isn't likely to work, without new wheels, and if you only upgrade to a 7-speed freewheel, you will need to change your chain to match. Replaced the rather beat-up brake levers with Shimano items.
|
Rim tape doesn't quite meet, but covers all spoke holes - OK? The ends of my rim tape are about 1mm apart, but the spoke holes are covered. Is this ok, or should I pull it off and start with a fresh roll? Here's a picture. <Q> This is usually ok. <S> as long as it has strong enough adhesive to stay in place. <S> It's better to overlap it, of course, but as long as the spoke holes are covered it should be ok. <S> A bigger issue is that usually, when the tape comes up short, it means that roll was designed for a 26" wheel, and is going on a 700c rim. <S> If that is the case, make sure the tape is not too wide, because if it is, it prevents the bead of the tire from seating, by filling some of the space in the beadlock on the rim. <A> If you are at all concerned that there's some rough in that small gap, a small peice of duct tape to bridge the gap <S> would probably suffice (when isn't duct tape the answer?). <S> I wouldn't waste a roll of tape for the sake of a single millimetre! <A> Should be OK. <S> I wouldn't advise duck tape, as it will tend to make a mess, and will eventually dry up and move around anyway. <S> Hockey tape would work fine to fill the gap, if you feel the need.
|
You should be fine - the primary purpose of rim tape is to protect from the spoke holes. If it curls up on to the side walls of the rim at all, that is not a good option. There are different widths for 26" tape, so even if it is 26", it can still be the correct width.
|
Redmond bikers: Can you ride all year long? I'll move to Redmond, WA in a couple months and since I was about to buy a bike, I have a few questions to see if I still should. Is it possible to ride all year long for both commute/recreation (I like XC and trail)? I'll probably be living just a few miles away from work. Is it too cold on winter? I've been there a couple times, and know Redmond's breeze/rain (and the fact that its there 200+ days a year).. does it make it to cold to ride? I used to ride a lot, but haven't done so in a long while, and I recently started wanting to ride a LOT! Would it be worth to buy a bike here (im in Guadalajara, Mexico) or should I wait the few months and buy a bike over there? I was thinking on a Rockhopper Comp 29er Int (which has pretty much the same specs as the american RockHopper 29er Pro , which i can get here for about 1500 with a paint job that I absolutely loved (similar to the one in the link but with green instead of gold). Thanks! EDIT: As per suggestion I add that by too cold I mean your throat hurting when breathing, stiffiness on joints (specially hand, even with gloves), ice burn, not being able to ride without goggles, etc. oh and a little bit of water is ok, but not getting to the office completely soaked <Q> ...just speaking up for the Local Bike Shop - if you are moving to Redmond permanently then it may make sense to have a bike with a warranty and the support of the LBS for when <S> /if it goes wrong. <S> Also consider the mudguards situation - I know they are unfashionable <S> but they are handy for the commute. <S> Since Specialized bikes are designed for sunny California where nobody could ever imagine needing mudguards, you may want to also post a question on what people recommend. <S> You will only be cold if you get clothing that is not up to the job. <S> You know the drill - baselayers, as many layers as you need on top and a breathable jacket. <S> Overshoes and neoprene gloves optional... <A> Yes, Redmond is a great biking community - there is the Burke Gilman trail which goes around Lake Washington at 40 miles. <S> Just get brakes that work well wet. <A> I live in Portland, Oregon, and formerly Seattle. <S> It actually is seldom "frigid", but often cool/coldish and wet. <S> The rain is more significant than the cold; so you want to be prepared to deal with rain on a regular basis. <S> (In fact some trails in parks and other public lands close in the mud season.) <S> Riding on roads, commuting, paved routes is fine as long as you have the right set-up in terms of clothing and the bike itself. <S> To your edit about the cold...it's rarely that cold West of the Cascades in the Pacific NW. <S> But, there are cold snaps lasting a week or two when Arctic air moves in. <S> I don't have an opinion about your bike choice, but matthew does have a good point about warranty and service by an LBS. <S> And the Seattle area is home to quite a few reputable bike shops. <A> Yes you absolutely can commute bike year round. <S> Even at it's worst the Puget Sound's weather is relatively mild. <S> Though there are many cloudy and rainy days, the majority of them are a light drizzle and 40 degrees Fahrenheit. <S> A good rainjacket, wool socks, and fenders on your bike are basically adequate. <S> XC and trail riding is also definitely possible year round, but have to love mud. <S> So much mud. <A> With the exception of the occasional snowstorm, and I mean very occasional, you should have little trouble commuting by bike year round in Redmond. <S> In addition, the few times there are weather issues, the Public Transportation system is quite thorough. <S> Because the snowy weather is so rare, the city often shuts down completely when it snows, especially on the west side of Seattle. <S> So often, when the weather is bad, you won't be expected to work, unless you are in a "vital personnel" position. <S> In addition, the asnwers above included this info too. " <S> "...but Matthew does have a good point about warranty and service by an LBS. <S> And the Seattle area is home to quite a few reputable bike shops." <S> There are great shops, in fact. <S> And, if as I suspect you're going to work for Microsoft, they will pitch in on your purchase if you buy in the US. <S> Used to be a $300 bonus, might have changed in the last 2 years. <A> Since you mentioned you don't want to get to the office <S> all wet - I'll assume you don't have shower facilities or don't want to regularly shift your shower to close to work (many commuters ride as it and only shower once they reach a gym or club close to the workplace) <S> This makes the choice of bike much less important - you won't be hammering the miles so anything with good fenders, a chain guard and racks will not slow you down much at a slower speed (11 to 14 mph). <S> I know it sounds obvious, but do stop by several bike shops and ask who to talk to in town about bike commuting. <S> Commuters are ideal customers as they will over time spend far more than recreational riders - a steady diet of maintenance, consumables and upgrades is far better for businesses than the occasional big splurge on a frame. <S> These professionals are there to help you find the joy of powering your commute. <S> Make use of them :-) <S> Do buy your bike in town - they will stock more appropriate bikes and you will be feeding the local ecosystem with good will with your investment there. <S> Don't turn down a cheap bike - but I would avoid buying one before you move.
|
Biking builds body heat, so you won't be cold - even when it's wet once you get the right clothes. Bike shops will quickly steer you to the ones that have the experience to let you know exactly what clothing works, and where to spend your money based on the local conditions. As for trail and cross-country riding, because of all the rain, you'll be slogging through mud a lot during the rainy season. The Pacific NW climate is similar between here and Redmond and I ride year round.
|
What's the loss of effective output, with a worn chain? I was just bought a new fine ultegra chain for 10 speed road race bike. This is actually the first new chain for this not so old bike. I am a fan of statistics, measuring power with a power unit on my time trial bike, and so on. Let's focus on this worn chain. It ran for about 1000km, so worn you nearly can do a 270-360 degree bow with it. How much effect are you losing between a completely new chain and a worn but (which is the point of comparison) accurately cleaned and re-oiled chain? I mean, look at a cleaned oiled chain, fitting well with the current sprockets and not skipping cogs. Where is the power going away against a new firm, chain? How do I measure? Can I proof any other important winnings? And (which I may have to point out) together with which kind of use.. I mean, the differences in a low-efficient 200km tour may be negligible compared to a 30km Time Trial where one may average 350 watt in 40 minutes. <Q> This extensive IHPVA article about chain drive efficiency shows a model of how you might empirically test the losses, and describes the efficiencies of a new chain. <S> Their test suggests that lubrication and chainline matter very little, while chain tension is of significant importance. <A> However, a more severly worn chain (usually at 2-3 times the distance you have on yours) will begin to cause abnormal wear on the sprockets, ultimately damaging them to the point where sprocket replacement is required. <S> And of course, beyond a certain point the chain will skip and shift poorly. <S> However, if you were to measure very carefully you probably could detect some slight additional friction due to the increasingly poor fit between chain and cog tooth. <S> The teeth are very carefully designed to engage the chain evenly, and a worn chain will cause additional friction as the chain slides onto the drive sprocket or off the driven sprocket. <A> The only significant loss of efficiency comes at the point wear the wear causes the chain to skip, in terms of power efficiency. <S> In addition, efficiency(time) lost to poor shifts and delays of that sort are a risk. <S> But until the point where damage is affecting your ride is beyond the point where the chain has begun damaging the cassette and chain rings, and so your loss of financial efficiency comes much earlier.
|
From a practical standpoint I suspect you're losing very little efficiency with a moderately worn chain.
|
Do tube protectors increase rolling resistance or just add weight? I have been experiencing a lot of flats lately (proportional to the increase in time/distance I have been doing), so I am thinking of adding a tube protector (e.g., one of these ) to each tire. Will this alter rolling resistance or just add weight to the wheel? I'm not sure what goes into rolling resistance aside from tire material and pressure. I expect a slight slow-down, but I'm not sure what to expect. I'm willing to trade slower speed for the time fixing flats. <Q> It likely depends a lot on your tire pressure. <S> For lower pressure tires, the liner must flex and, to a degree, slide against the tire and tube with every revolution, increasing internally dissipated energy and hence rolling resistance. <S> But the effect would be slight. <S> A better solution is to use Kevlar (or equivalent) belted tires. <S> These have about 10x the puncture resistance of standard tires, have negligible effect on rolling resistance, and are much easier to deal with than the separate liner. <S> But of course they're 30-50% more expensive, and hard to find in certain sizes. <S> (NB: Don't confuse "Kevlar belted" tires with "Kevlar bead" tires -- <S> Kevlar bead is used in folding tires, some of which are Kevlar belted and some not. <S> And I personally find folding tires a PITA to install the first time -- though some people love them.) <A> I looked around the internet to find any evidence of the effects of tire liners on speed, but couldn't find any. <S> I was considering using them while touring. <S> So, I did my own test. <S> My bike is a mid-range steel framed tourer with Schwalbe 26" x 1 3/8 Delta Cruisers. <S> The tubes are Bontrager. <S> I installed the liners as per instructions and took the bike out for a spin. <S> It was like riding through treacle. <S> I wasn't carrying panniers and luggage, but it felt the same. <S> I thought I had fitted them ok and therefore was at a loss as to how these really light nylon liners could have the effect of a fully loaded bike, but worse. <S> So, the next day, I thought I'll try again - <S> maybe it's just me. <S> I'll take the bike on a training route I use a lot. <S> Here are the results: 24 kms., 16.1 kph average, 1 hour 30 min. <S> And I didn't enjoy it. <S> My bike had turned into a turkey overnight. <S> Next morning, I headed out again on the exact same route (no traffic lights, country roads, no hills) without the liners, same tire pressures. <S> What a pleasure - lovely ride, responsive, gliding. <S> Results: 24 kms., 20.3 kph average, 1 hour <S> 12 min. <S> That's a 25% difference in speed and time. <S> And I would need a flat every 20 kms. <S> to make up the difference. <S> Hard to believe, isn't it? <S> When I examined the liners they had turned black,, on both sides, from bright orange, which I assume was from the tire and tube rubbing on it. <S> It had also stuck to the tube in one or two places, necessitating me to peel it off. <S> I will never be using them again. <S> It would be interesting to hear of any other people's research into tire liner use. <S> Is this just a one off? <S> What about thick tubes and reinforced tires? <S> How do they affect performance? <A> I've been using tire liners, 700-23 / 120 psi, on my bike for about 3 months now and have noticed an increased rolling resistance. <S> It isn't much, about 1 mph. <S> But it is there since I put the liners in. <S> That being said, its much better than the flats I was getting every other ride. <A> Increasing rotational weight has a significant effect on acceleration and making the bike feel a bit more sluggish. <S> Rolling resistance is a function of tire casing deflection, not so much added weight. <S> Supposedly adding one ounce of weight at the rims is like adding 7 ounces of frame weight. <S> I prefer to run stans sealant in my tubes as opposed to liners. <S> Liners do work, I recommend the Rhinodillo brand. <A> yes, it will increase rotational weight and slow you down just a bit. <S> But if you experience flats often, this minor slow down will be better than flat repairs road side. <S> I use tire liners on my daily riding, training and commuting routes. <S> Then if i race or do a semi-competitive event, take them out for a nice feeling of being lighter and faster.
|
For high-pressure tires the liner just adds to the stiffness of the tire and might actually reduce rolling resistance slightly.
|
What is the impact of changing to a smaller chainring? My road bike has a Campagnolo Veloce gearset. It's running 53 and 39 tooth chainrings. I have a 13-25 10sp cassette. I find that a lot of the time when I'm cruising, I'm on the big chainring and in the 3rd or 4th largest gears on the back. There is a fairly significant chain angle. Because of this, the chain is a bit noisy and I'm sure it's stressing the drivetrain a little. Also, when I need to drop down a gear I quickly need to drop onto the small chainring which necessitates significant adjustments on the rear. I'm thinking of changing the 53 chainring to a 50t. I am happy to lose a little top end speed. According to my theory, dropping a 53t to a 50t will reduce my gear ratio by 1.06 (53/50). Which would be the equivalent of switching from a 17t on the back to an 18t. Assuming this is correct, it's not going to have a very big impact, but it might be enough to make it worthwhile. I know there is an option of using a 3 chainring crankset, but I think that will be a bit too expensive and still won't solve the core issue of getting the right sized large chainring. The other option is to change the cassette but I can't see many that would really make much of a difference. If I could get a 15-25 that'd probably be about right. My questions are: Will the change mean I need to change or adjust the front derailler, the rear derailler or the chain? Will there be any other impacts I haven't thought of? Any other ideas to solve the problem? EDIT: I can't seem to find a 135mm BCD 50t chainring. I asked my LBS and they said no go. ChainreactionCycles don't have the combination I want . Can I get a 50t 135mm BCD campag chainring? If not, what can I use as an alternative? EDIT: I've found that BBB make a campag compatible chainring that looks like a good option EDIT: As indicated here the BBB chainring doesn't fit. Looks like a proper compact crankset is my only option now. <Q> I would consider changing your crankset to a true compact, 50t/34t, and running an 11/25 rear cassette. <S> Campy actually made a specific derailleur for running a compact front, because they said that the 50t doesn't work well with the standard front derailleur (that may be a function of the tooth differential, so it may not apply if you leave the 39t in place). <S> (Edit: It does appear that my data on the campy front derailleur may be outdated. <S> Their 10 speed Chorus and Record had an individualized front derailleur, but current product appears more universal.) <S> The 50t x 11t combo is a 119.6in gear, compared to 107.2inches for the 53t x 13t you're running now. <S> It will give you a slightly faster gear than current, a better climbing range, and slightly crisper shifting. <S> Downside is you have to buy the crank set and cassette, not just a chain ring. <S> Check out UBI gearcalculator for more info on how gearing changes will affect you. <S> Hope that helps. <A> Since you may need a big gear to power down big hills, let's look at the effect in gear inches of changing from 53 to 50. <S> 53/13 <S> *27=110 <S> 50/13 <S> *27=104 <S> (27 is arbitrary figure for comparison) <S> So you will be losing 6 'gear inches' at the top end. <S> Your next sprocket is presumably a 14 tooth, 53/14 <S> *27=102 <S> If you went for a 49 then 49/13*27=102 <S> Therefore, you could go smaller still, with 49, to effectively lose only one big gear. <S> Going smaller saves weight, which we like. <S> When your rear cassette is due for replacement <S> you could get the 14-28 one (with a new chain). <S> This will drop your big gear down to 49/14*27 94.5 - some mountain bikes can manage that. <S> If you lack top-end gears then you could put your 53T back on. <S> Hopefully you have got a good cadence already, and, unless you have huge hills to power down, loss of some of the big gears should not be a problem. <S> As noted by @Daniel R Hicks you will need to adjust the front derailleur to be 1-3mm above the outer chain ring teeth, outer cage parallel with the chain-ring and cable adjusted accordingly. <S> Although it is very 'macho' to have big chain ring and miniscule sprockets, realism is helpful, think whether you really need to have the biggest gear and go for it. <A> However, reducing by only 3 teeth is not likely to affect derailer adjustment, and at most you'd remove one double link from the chain -- not really worth bothering with. <S> If you were to go the other way -- put on a larger ring -- then you'd more likely have to make adjustments.
|
If you reduced the size of the large ring substantially it would probably be "recommended" that you to adjust the front derailer and shorten the chain (though from a mechanical limits/clearance point of view adjustment wouldn't be required). The amount of teeth on the chain rings and sprockets is always going to be a compromise of weight, reliability and range.
|
combining friction shifting with indexed components I would like to combine friction shifting and a 7 speed freewheel with current Campy Chorus derailleurs. It seems to me that the way that friction shifting works would allow this combination, since all that happens is that tension on the cable adjusted manually to get the derailleur to move between chainrings, right? Is there any feature of indexed operation that makes this unlikely? <Q> In part it comes down to how much fine muscle control you have, and in part it has to do with the quality of the shifter and how it's mounted. <A> Assuming that the friction shifters have enough cable pull range to move the derailleur across the full range of gears, there is no problem with this whatsoever. <S> It is occasionally a problem if you try to run older shifters with new 9 and 10 speed cogsets, but there are not usually any ssues if you are looking at a 7 speed range. <S> Hope that helps. <A> All correct. <S> The DRs don't care if the shifters are indexed or not. <S> As long as the travel can be accommodated, no problem.
|
Yeah, the only real problem is maintaining fine enough control of the motion, both in actively moving the lever, and in avoiding "creep" between shifts.
|
Mysterious case: chain falling off large chainring, how to fix? On my commuter bike I decided to rid myself of the small inner chain ring (which is almost never used) and front dérailleur (now redundant). However, I have come across an unusual problem. Whilst cycling the chain is coming off of the outer chain ring and falling onto the crank arm. This usually coincides with a shift of the rear dérailleur onto a smaller sprocket, although notably not onto the highest gearing - it has happened shifting from the 5th to 6th scrocket on the 12-27 cassette for example. Furthermore, I am not exerting abnormal force on the crank, just sitting and riding as normal. This just happens out of the blue and as you can imagine is quite disconcerting/dangerous. I have considered and checked the following so far: Chain length - tension is good so no obvious problems there... Chain dirty - it most certainly is not, it has only seen 200 miles and its lubed up a treat ;-) Chain ring to cassette alignment - Hollowtech II BB and Ultegra 53T 6600 crank in 68mm shell, standard setup afaict, no obvious problems there... Lack of front-dérailleur - I removed this since there is only one chain ring - could this be a factor that prevented me noticing the problem before (surely not...) Chain ring worn - the chain ring looks in pretty good shape to me I experimented briefly, turning the crank and applying a very slight outward pull (away from frame) on the chain and it promptly fell off onto the crank. Frankly, I was surprised how such a small misalignment could cause the chain the fall off... My question: Has anyone else encountered this problem before? Any comments on the things I have checked (why I may be mistaken in my assessment of the problem)? Other possible causes I have missed would be gratefully received - this is spoiling an otherwise nice bike and I really do not want to go back to using the double crank configuration if possible. <Q> Yeah. <S> A modern double chainring is ramped and pinned, in order to be more easily shifted from one ring to the next. <S> Simply put, the chainring "wants" to pass off the chain to the next cog. <S> Without a derailleur to keep it in place, the lateral pull of the chain shifting across the rear, combined with some road jostling, can make the chain fall off the front. <S> A couple solutions: install a singlespeed chainring without ramps or pins, with "straight" teeth. <S> use an outer chainring guard and inner "dog tooth" chain keeper combine the two (which is the best solution). <S> The free and easy way to keep it on while looking at other solutions is to reinstall the front derailler and adjust the limit screws so it keeps the chain in place. <S> Racers often use a single-chainring setup for the sake of reliability, and either or a dual chainguard or chainguard-and-chain watcher setup for just such reasons (also because they keep picking the bike up and putting it down whilst running and jumping over stuff), so you get stuff like this: http://www.bikeman.com/CC-SRAMS300CX.html . <A> My bike slip has badly worn components and the chain slips off the front when I am in the big cogs at the back. <S> I know this problem is a combination of chain wear plus alignment between the sprockets and chainring. <S> For single chain-ring bikes this is a common occurrence and normally you can get one of these to go on the seat-tube to prevent it from happening: <S> Your bike sounds like it has different chain-alignment to mine, yet the the symptom is the same. <S> A new chain will almost certainly rectify the situation. <S> To check the chain wear, see how far you can pull it at the point on the chainring nearest the front of the bike. <S> There should only be a millimetre or two of movement, if it is a lot more than that then you know it need replacing. <A> How many miles on the chainring? <S> In addition, the rear derailer tension arm may be sticking a bit and not maintaining good tension (though from the looks of your bike in that picture the derailer is probably shiny clean). <S> But I suspect the missing derailer is a big part of it. <S> When the chain "jumps" onto a new cog it whips around quite a bit, and the front derailer would help contain things. <S> Have you tried cranking it and shifting while it's on a service stand, so you can observe the derailer action in detail? <A> Back in the seventies and eighties it wasn't uncommon to remove the inner chainring from bikes used on flat time trials to save weight. <S> Often the chain length was set intentionally on the long side to reduce friction, which had the undesirable side effect of making it easier to rop the chain. <S> At the same time it was generally considered to be a good idea to NOT remove the front derailler and to use it as a chain keeper. <S> I believe this is mentioned in the Eddy B. book. <S> I think you need to put the front derailleur back on your bike as a chain keeper. <S> You probably don't need the shifter/cable, etc. <S> just use the limit screws to keep it in a position where it doesn't rub the chain. <A> You do not mention how many cogs you have on your cassette. <S> The reason I ask is your chain line will be affected by removing the inner chain ring as it will be permanently moved when on the big ring. <S> I feel that this will give you some cross gear issues when you travel up and down the cassette. <S> The chain line for a double chain ring is measured from the bike centre line to the middle of the two chain rings when bolted together. <S> A single chain ring and crank with a shorter Hollowtech 11 bottom bracket spindle should solve the problem. <S> Hope that helps. <A> I have a <S> built myself a single chainring bik e <S> and I'm just having this problem. <S> Bike ran fine for the first month now the chain jumps off the chainring when on the smaller sprockets. <S> I had a dodgy link in the chain which was giving too much flex <S> so I replaced that <S> and it seems to run better <S> so chain your chain <S> but the problem is still there. <S> In response to another persons suggestion of putting a single speed chainring on, that probably won't work because single speed chains and chainrings are thicker and so are incompatible.
|
A worn chainring could be part of the problem. This is a pretty common concern with cyclocross.
|
What kind of handlebar should go on a fixie to sell it? I've seen fixies with mtb handlebars, sawed-off mtb handlebars, drop bars, and bullhorns. The fixie I built has drop bars, but I'm wondering if I should change that if I want to sell it. <Q> Handlebar type and shape is largely a matter of personal preference - especially on trendy fixed-gear and single speed bikes. <S> If you change the handlebar there is a likely possibility that you will also have to change the brake handle. <S> That's a lot of needless expense. <A> All the styles have purpose, even if it's just that it looks cool. <S> If you're selling it, let it be. <S> The new owner will have their own ideas about what works for them, and may just change it back. <S> It also requires changing more than just the bar, and can get quite pricey. <A> That bike looks great as it is. <S> Keep as is, if you do have a flat bar kicking around in the garage it will not do any harm to mention that you also have that for sale e.g. for a tenner and are prepared to swap the bars over for free. <S> Fixies are supposed to be like single-speed track bikes and the drop-bar is part and parcel of the look if it is to be kept 'pure'. <S> You do have to think of your market, you will be looking for a customer wanting the 'track-bike inspired faux messenger' look above a practical means of transport. <S> You might want to keep the seat for your next rig. <S> If you are to change anything see if you can pick up a red seat out of your LBS workshop's bin of spare parts or get a red seat cover for the seat that is on there. <S> That will complete the look.
|
The handlebar on your fixie should be the one you want to ride. Let the buyer swap it out if they want something different. I would sell it as is.
|
Should a chain be replaced even if it's not stretched? This question suggests using a tool or ruler to assess chain stretch to determine when to replace a chain. I have one such tool (Park Tool CC-3), and it tells me that my chain is not stretched even to the 0.75 level (is that %?). My chain has at least 2,000 miles (~3,200 km) on it, so I am wondering if it should replace it just as a matter of practice (i.e., preventive care). I try to take care of the chain: wipe it down after rides, lubricate regularly ( good advice here ), etc. So is it inconceivable that the chain is still in good shape after this many miles? Is there any other reason to replace the chain other than elongation, assuming it otherwise appears to be okay? <Q> The 2000 miles is an estimate of when the chain will stretch. <S> Your chain may last longer than that. <S> As far as replacing it goes, I think it depends on your financial situation. <S> If you can easily afford a new chain, I recommend buying one. <S> If your budget makes buying a new chain difficult, you'll be all right to keep riding. <A> If the tool doesn't show it to be stretched, and it's not rusted and there are no stiff links or other obvious problems, then there's no need to replace it. <S> It is a good idea to always keep a spare chain or two on hand, though, especially if you have an "odd" chain (eg, a 5-speed chain in these days where everyone else is running 10-speed chains). <S> It's amazing how often a shop will try to sell you the wrong chain (or tube or tire) because they don't have the right one on hand. <A> First, chain wear tools are notoriously inaccurate because they rely on very specific conditions, including proper placement in the chain, and a user who is educated on how to use them. <S> They can be used accurately, but commonly are not. <S> Here is an excellent discussion of chain wear and how to measure it accurately. <S> Second, Shimano recommends 800-1000 miles on a chain as the point to start looking at replacing it. <S> Third, yes, it is possible that the chain is still in good shape after 3200km if you are a lightweight rider, who tends toward spinning rather than heavy gear use, and who maintains the bike well. <S> There is no downside to replacing it early, and you've gotten your use out of it. <S> Assuming it will not hurt you financially, of course.
|
A replaced chain means that you don't have to worry about your current chain stretching beyond the limit and damaging your bike. Just check the chain stretch every so often to determine when it's getting near absolutely necessary to buy a chain. Last, if you're worried about it, replace it.
|
Is it really going to damage a bike to wash it with a hose? I was chatting to the guys at my LBS the other day about how they get my bike so clean when I take it in for a service. They said they use compressed air to clean it. They warned I shouldn't use any high pressure water because it can get into the sealed bearings and cause damage. I also noted on the user manual for Campag cranks (right at the end) that you should "Never spray your bicycle with water under pressure". How much of an issue is this? Rinsing the bike with the hose is such a convenient way to wash off loose grit and then the soap after washing. How do you clean your bikes? <Q> Yes, pressurized water can damage your bicycle, specifically by washing the grease out of bearing areas. <S> Note, this is pressurized water. <S> Using a garden hose with a shower type sprayer is unlikely to cause damage. <S> Low pressure, so that it doesn't break the seals, is the point. <S> (I avoid the risk, anyway, because I can't afford to be wrong, and how much pressure is OK depends on the strength of the seals on your particular bike.) <S> A car wash, or any other pressure washer, is pretty much guaranteed to do damage. <S> Washing by hand, with a bucket, a car wash brush, a toothbrush or gear brush, and some non-detergent based soap is the safest way, and with a little practice and preparation, can be done in half an hour. <S> Some detergent based soaps react to aluminum, and can cause serious damage to an aluminum frame or parts over time. <S> Other than that <S> , it's just elbow grease. <A> Use the garden hose without sprayer, just using your thumb to spray. <S> Avoid spraying hard/long at bearing areas. <S> Or just let the bike be dirty. <S> That doesn't hurt it either. <S> (Compressed air can damage a bike too, if used improperly, by driving dirt into the bearings.) <A> I'd wash my bike with a water jet spray as long as you dont point it towards the sealed bearings. <S> I did that to most of my bikes and they still last. <S> As a point to ponder, water does not destroy your bearings, its the dust and dirt that does the thing. <S> As long as there is grease, then your bearings will last. <S> Water jet is a better way to clean tight areas such as chains and gears. <S> Remember to always relube and lube and lube them after each wash. <S> Another thing to consider is that detergents arent good for your bearings too. <S> Once they get in the seals, it wont be possible to wash them out. <S> These detergents will decrease the efficiency of your grease for your bearings, worse like dirt and dust. <S> After each wash, I'll use compressed air to quickly dry the chains and gears as well. <S> And bear in mind that you MUST NOT point the pressurized air to the bearings or seal. <S> With that in mind, then you will have a wise, fast and amply safe enough method to clean your bike. <S> Just to be more safe, go get some knowledge on how to assemble/disassemble your bike. <S> When you aren't confident enough with the seals, dissemble it and regrease it. <S> ;) <A> I always wash my bikes with high pressure water jet (kärscher). <S> It is excellent for cleaning chains and gears without the hassle of taking them off and rinsing through diesel. <S> The only thing I clean is chain and gears ;) <S> The only very important point is to never aim the water jet at the wrong places (ie, bearings). <S> There are not so many bearings on a bike <S> so it's not too difficult. <A> I just paid £232 to replace various on my bike: headset, cassette, cables, etc. <S> etc... I couldn't work it out, I regularly clean my bike and here I was, being told to do exactly that. <S> I discussed this with one of the chaps in the shop. <S> He asked how I washed my bike. <S> I went into detail, then he asked "Do you pressure wash?" <S> "Yes, vigorously!" <S> Was my answer answer, "Don't!" <S> I have learned an expensive lesson, and I know that the parts I had replace (apart from changing bar tape) was due to the washing. <S> You live and you learn. <S> I think I need another lifetime!!! <A> I always heard that using a hose was bad. <S> I can't understand why. <S> Recently I worked for Trek World Racing for the Windham World Cup event. <S> It must not damage their bikes considering their success. <S> I just don't understand the conflicting information here. <S> Many other companies did the same: Giant, Specialized, Rocky Mountain etc.
|
But pressurized water may force through the sealed bearings and push away all your grease out of it, making it dry all round. Using a garden hose without a sprayer is unlikely to do damage. Make sure you use an aluminum safe soap. You can make things easier by using a repair stand to hold the bike, and removing some parts, if you have the tools and knowledge, but that's a bonus. They wash every bike, DH and XC with a pressure washer every day. And when you do spray at a bearing, do it obliquely, not straight into the bearing.
|
What make/brand is this bike marked "Challenger" and "Resistance"? I'm trying to find what kind of brand/make my bike is so I can find more information about it. It might help me determine if I should buy a new bike. All I can tell from looking around my bike are the words 'Challenger' and 'Resistance'. It's a hand-me-down mountain bike, I haven't got a manual or receipt for the bike so I suspect there must be some way of finding out otherwise. I've searched for 'Challenger Resistance' on the web and the best result I received was from an auction on eBay of an identical bike. Here's what my bike looks like: I'd like to know how to identify bikes. I think that would be more valuable then If someone told me what brand I have. <Q> The brand and model are usually part of the decals on the frame. <S> My bike, for example, says Scott on the downtube, and CR1 Pro on the toptube near the headset. <S> It is Swiss made, and the model stands for comfort road 1, and Pro tells you what parts were on it originally. <S> If there are no decals, an experienced mechanic or shop owner can usually identify most common frames. <S> Your bike is very basic, at best, and most people would not consider it safe for use on off road trails. <S> I would recommend looking for a shop quality mountain bike. <S> You will enjoy riding more, and that is what it's all about. <S> Feel free to ask if you need more information. <A> That is a 'Bicycle Shaped Object' with any-old name plastered on the frame. <S> It is 'off-brand'. <S> Years ago it was possible to identify bikes by the quality of the welds, shapes of the lugs, shapes of the dropouts and choice of components. <S> However, with 'Bicycle Shaped Objects' this is sadly not possible. <S> There are probably countless variants of this exact same item with different labels on at your local supermarket, in Halfords and other places that should not really be in the bicycle business. <S> I would not worry too much about the brand, just enjoy riding! <A> Based on this picture, it looks like it was most likely purchased at a department store. <S> IMO the main criteria for determining this would be function and comfort. <A> An excellent resource is Bikepedia.com, they have listings for a wide range of bikes. <S> It is very useful when looking at used bike ads as they may list stock components and suggested retail price new. <S> The newer the bike is the more information they seem to have. <S> It is useful when looking at used bikes to determine age by what years components were offered and with what colors. <S> This helps with questions like I bought it in 2007 <S> but Ithink it's 2005. <A> I used to have this bike, in fact it was my first <S> , My dad bought it at a local bicycle store . <S> It read challenger and was blue and yellow, it looks exactly like yours, same frame, same forks <S> and I can tell same dimensions, I knew it inside out . <S> It was made by Raleigh, was called concept diabolo. <A> Bicycles of this type are churned out by the many thousands and simply "branded" to various distributors. <S> They are invariably very cheaply made; often with all-steel components and the lowest-possible level of brakes,shifters, and other components. <S> They are as alike as peas in a pod otherwise. <S> Other than doing the normal sort of maintenance, lubing the chain, keeping fasteners tight... <S> There's very little that needs to be done to them, and if some major part fails they are simply not worth repairing. <S> Around the university where I work, you see bikes identical to yours branded as "Pacific", "Next", "Magna", and various others. <A> The basic problem is that an assembly line in China is spewing forth bicycles of the same design, then, at the end of the line, one gets Brand A decals, the next gets Brand B, the third Brand C. <S> Unfortunately, the quality, fit, and finish of the bike is unique to that assembly line (and the particular model being built), and the factory next door is producing an entirely different bike, of different quality, as will this factory a month from now. <S> So the quality of this bike is no indication of the quality (or fit) of a different bike bearing the same "maker's" badge. <S> Your more reputable distributors and rebadgers will take some effort to assure that the bikes meet some minimal quality standards, but it's not like buying a more expensive "brand" bike where the brand people have overseen (to at least a minimal degree) <S> the design and construction of the bike.
|
The usual method of identifying a bike is what you've done. Some of the brands will be "no-name" brands, some will be "house" brands for your larger department stores, and some will be recognizable bike brands - "Raleigh", "Schwinn", et al. I am not sure how knowing the brand will help you decide whether or not you will get a new bike.
|
Things to consider when choosing a recumbent Google's Sergey Brin asked for recommendations on buying a recumbent. What factors should he consider when evaluating alternatives? I'm thinking of getting a recumbent road bike even though +Dylan Casey will laugh at me. I would like to get a nice mix of performance, comfort and safety. So, probably 20'ish pounds, not too upright, not too flat, good visibility, maybe an optional fairing, ... <Q> Although this should be a given, ride the bike before you buy it. <S> Not for 5 minutes in a parking lot, but for a real, decent ride. <S> That is also a reason to buy your recumbent from a specialty shop. <S> Credit for the following goes to @Don Kirby above <S> , I'm including it here as well for completeness in one answer. <S> If he wants to edit, and add the above paragraph, or similar, I'll delete this answer. <S> Think about wheel base and where you want the steering. <S> Wheelbase: <S> I hear that long wheel base is more stable and faster, but I chose short wheel base <S> so I could load it on the bus rack sometimes. <S> Steering: <S> Above seat steering is more common <S> and I think it's easier to learn, but I chose below seat steering because it seemed like a more relaxed position for my arms. <S> Bonus: <S> I found that during a crash, below seat steering means that your completely above the bike <S> and you don't get tangled up with it as you go down. <S> I found myself sliding along the ground, all by myself. <A> I hear that long wheel base is more stable and faster, but I chose short wheel base <S> so I could load it on the bus rack sometimes. <S> Above-seat steering is more common, and I think it's easier to learn, but I chose below-seat steering because it seemed like a more relaxed position for my arms. <S> As a bonus, I found that during a crash, below-seat steering means that you're completely above the bike <S> and you don't get tangled up with it as you go down. <S> I found myself sliding along the ground, all by myself. <A> I recently bought a "Day 6" semi recumbent. <S> It's more upright then most recumbents. <S> The handlebars are about shoulder height to reduce wrist fatigue. <S> It also has a back rest where I can push off from, to push harder against the pedals. <S> I bought it because I have a disease where pedalling in a horizontal position is best. <S> Would like a recumbent that I would lay down flatter. <S> I'm worried about how difficult balancing is in the horizontal position. <S> Especially when starting and stopping.
|
My personal recommendation is to think about wheel base and where you want the steering. Any shop specializing in 'bents will understand that if you are making your first recumbent purchase, it's a leap of faith, and will be accommodating.
|
Bicycle Socks for Road Rides There are so many styles of socks. Plus there are always debates on the best looking socks for group road rides. White, black, short, tall, logos, etc..... Some old school road purists say that black socks are for mtb only. How do go about picking the best style? Is there any reason to prefer one style over another? Are there other properties of socks that matter? <Q> I strongly recommend socks that can breathe easily and that absorb and wick away sweat. <S> That means probably not cotton athletic socks you'd get in bulk at a warehouse store. <S> Personal preference determines the coloration and logos, and if you're worried about style, get socks that match your kit and your shoes. <S> Also if your alma mater has a cycling team, contact them and see if you can buy team socks. <S> You'll be able to show school pride wherever you're riding, and they'll be quality. <A> And don't worry about the rest -- they are socks after all. <A> Traditionally socks when road racing were white, so as to aid visibility (white things moving up and down). <S> My local governing body had a rule when I first started racing as an amateur (perhaps they still do) <S> that socks had to be white (and knicks completely black!). <S> I have taken to using tennis style anklet socks, particularly in summer <S> ( rules are made to be broken ). <S> In winter I use a local wool/nylon sock called "Explorers" that help to keep my feet warmer for longer and still come in reasonably bright colours. <A> I wear only CoolMax socks. <S> I find they do a good job of keeping my feet dry and non-sweaty, and they don't tend to mat -- they maintain some "loft" and padding ability, even after hours of riding. <S> They also wear like iron. <S> The only down-side is that they get dingy looking fairly quickly. <S> I prefer the low-rise style (just above the ankle), but that's in part because I have a mild sensory processing disorder and find high-rise socks uncomfortable in all contexts. <S> Color doesn't matter to me -- I generally go for muted colors because I'm color blind and can't tell what color combo looks good and what doesn't. <A> I like the Castelli Rosso Corsa 6. <S> they are thin, light feeling, durable, and generally have good graphic style. <S> Graphics are always personal taste, of course. <S> They are a 6cm ankle. <S> Just high enough to be certain they will not slip down, but not tall socks. <S> They also come in a 10cm height. <S> Socks, in the end, are just socks, but every detail matters. <S> I prefer the white, with black accents. <S> Our club socks are also a custom version of this sock. <S> It is very popular here.
|
Find socks that you like the look of, that are comfortable for you , and fit in your price range. I still feel that when possible, go for white.
|
How do I remove a pedal from a crank with a crossed thread? I've part stripped, and ultimately crossed the thread on my crank and can't remove my pedal now. This was done whilst riding and then trying to remove the pedal from the damaged crank. I figure the crank is toast but I want to remove the pedal without damaging it. Does anyone have any simple way to do that? My best theory at the moment is to use a hack saw to cut through and then either use a chisel to widen the gap or to then make another cut to free the pedal completely. The main reason I haven't just done that is that I'm worried about damaging the pedals threads. I want to continue using this set of pedals. Here is a picture of the pedal, it wobbles about in the crank but I haven't managed to pull it out. I tried pulling the pedal while someone undid the pedal but the thread appears to be too screwed up. <Q> I'm guessing the pedal is toast too, but if I wanted to try to save it <S> (and it refused to come out with simply a wrench and a hammer -- counter-clockwise on the right, clockwise on the left) <S> I'd get out my trusty Dremel and make a slot or two in the crank, parallel to the pedal shaft. <S> (It won't hurt if you nick the pedal threads a little bit.) <S> Then drive a small cold chisel into the slots to spread them a bit. <S> (I do wonder how you managed to cross-thread <S> the pedal <S> and then ride on it.) <A> EDIT: <S> I re-read <S> and you mean the pedal! <S> not the crank, sorry for the confusion... <S> The pedal is probably ruined, and I doubt you can re-use it, a damaged thread is unrecoverable, but depending on the pedal, you can unscrue parts of it to salvage. <S> Below is my mistaken answer about removing a crank: <S> This happened to me recently, and my solution was to hammer the crank (knowing that it will become useless, <S> — it was anyway, since the threads were destroyed). <S> The way I did it was to place the crank (the part that connects to the bottom bracket) on top of a vice and then hammer it hard <S> (I mean hard , a soft blow won't work). <S> Hammer as much as you can until it gets out. <S> The objective is to deform the crank so that it comes out. <S> From my experience, a metal crank is harder to remove, whereas an aluminum one is easier. <S> Also, (I can't really tell from the image you posted) <S> if the crack has a plastic surrounding it, remove it, because hammering with the plastic cover won't have the same effect as without it! <S> On one of my attempts, I sawed the crank hoping to make it fragile enough for it to come out, but trust me, it doesn't really work and this will most definitely ruin the bottom bracket... Finally, and if none of the previous worked, you can remove the bottom bracket (BB) from the frame (depending on the BB type, the old ones can be removed), you can use a pipe wide enough to fit around the BB, and hammer the pipe so it loosens the crank. <S> This one is the toughest method <S> and I've one crank that will be subjected to this method when I return from my holidays. <A> If that isn't working, since it sounds as if you have tried that, then cutting is likely your best bet. <S> But the thread on the pedal is very likely damaged as well. <S> I'm not sure I'd trust using them in a new crank. <A> Late answer, but I'd try some heat. <S> Get the crank off the bike and into a metal vise so the pedal dangles downward. <S> Apply some easing-oil to the visible threads on top. <S> Fit a pedal spanner and try undoing the pedal like normal first - a bench vise is a great tool. <S> Prepare a bucket of water in case things go badly. <S> Then apply a butane torch or a hot air blowgun liberally to the crank eye, playing it around and not directly on the pedal's axle. <S> Avoid <S> plastic parts like reflectors.(A hairdryer probably lacks the heat to help much.) <S> Expect the few drops of easing oil to burn - that will help. <S> Once it warmed up, turn off the gas or power off and put the hot aside. <S> Then apply undoing pressure with your pedal spanner. <S> Once it moves undo it a couple turns then leave it to cool. <S> If your pedal drops out the bottom onto the floor just leave it there to cool. <S> Remember hot stuff burns, and hot stuff also looks exactly like cold stuff.
|
Your best option is to put pressure on the back of the pedal spindle and try to thread it out. The main problem with this method is that it may ruin the bottom bracket.
|
Why can't Yellow Jersey change hands on last day of Tour De France? I've often read / seen on TV that the race is won by the end of the penultimate day. For example, this article in the Guardian describes this year's (2011) eventual winner as the champion elect in an article on the close of the penultimate day. The final day seems to be left to the sprinters. Why is this? Surely if the top two riders are very close the guy in second place can go for it. <Q> Tradition, and the layout of the final stage. <S> Cadel Evans rode a good part of the 2011 final stage, once in Paris, with champagne in hand. <S> So unless they are within seconds, as in the 1989 Greg Lemond win by 8 seconds over Laurent Fignon, the last stage will rarely play a part in the GC standings. <S> As is stated in the description of the stage on the letour.fr page today: <S> Every other time, it has been a road stage that has been decided in a bunch sprint, except on four occasions. <S> Those exceptions were the victories taken by Alain Meslet in 1977, Bernard Hinault in 1979, Eddy Seigneur in 1994 and Alexandre Vinokourov in 2005. <S> It is incredibly hard to get a telling gap on this stage when breakaway riders are always within sight of the peloton.” <S> If you know that a breakaway will not gain you minutes, why risk the ire of the other riders, and your public by messing with the traditions of the race? <S> One of the things that has always brought an audience back to this race above all others are the traditions of fair play and honorable conduct that are embodied by traditions like the one that allows a crashed race leader to regain his time by the other riders, before the race continues. <S> These unwritten traditions are not rules, but they make this race special. <S> Combine the two, and you will rarely see a major change on the last day. <S> It can, and does happen. <S> Just not often. <A> For most of the past 40 years the Tour has ended with what is essentially a parade along the Champs Elysees (1989 being a big exception!) <S> The modern tour is largely determined by climbing/time trials and with the final day being largely flat there simply isn't a good opportunity for a 2nd place rider to take back enough time. <S> This is especially true in the past ~25 years as race radios have made it easier for riders to stay informed of what's happening on the course. <S> It would be equal to a team scoring multiple touchdowns in the last 30 seconds of the Super Bowl. <A> Unlikely to occur, but of course a crash or medical withdrawal could result in the yellow jersey changing hands on the final day.
|
Tradition holds that the last stage is a victory parade for the GC contender, and the yellow jersey. In addition, the layout of the stage, a 95 km flat ride finishing with multiple laps around the Champs Elysees, and culminating in a bunch sprint, rarely allows the opportunity for any major time to be gained. It could in theory happen but it's highly unlikely.
|
Why do racing cyclists wobble when furiously pedalling? In all pro-cycling races, they start wobbling towards the finish line instead of biking steadily (e.g., in this video: http://youtu.be/wJE69beIIoI ). Why do they do that? Note: I have no experience with racing or a bike with handles curved to the front, so maybe a stupid question. <Q> Not a stupid question. <S> The simple answer is that they are throwing every ounce of leverage, weight, and power into the pedals and that much movement side to side is the visible result of trying that hard to move forward. <S> If you could stay absolutely still, and input the same amount of force to the pedal, then more of that energy would go to moving forward, but you can't. <S> It's a matter of balance and leverage. <A> They quite simply must sway the bike back and forth because of the mechanical reality of the situation. <S> It's not even really a conscious act — if the rider didn't do this, the bike would fall out from under them. <S> These riders are applying extreme power to each pedal. <S> Since the pedals are not centered laterally, applying a large force to the right pedal (for instance) will, physically speaking, apply a rotational force that pushes the top of the bike to the right and the bottom of the bike to the left. <S> Without this counterbalancing motion, they would quite literally kick the wheel to the side out from under them. <S> By swaying the bike in the opposite direction, they increase the amount of force that can be applied to the pedals without crashing. <S> Luckily, it's an intuitive motion that happens completely automatically to any rider in that situation. <S> For a quick mental picture, imagine somebody swaying in the same direction as the pedal being pushed. <S> For instance, somebody leaning the bike to the right while they apply a large force to the right pedal. <S> The rotational force would rotate the bicycle clockwise, lifting the wheel off the ground. <S> Not something you want to happen, especially at sprinting speeds. <A> I've (anecdotally) noticed this effect is much more pronounced on road bikes with drop bars than other styles of bikes. <S> It is quite difficult to prevent on a road bike when standing and pedaling hard; although it has little impact on performance or speed. <S> In my opinion the wobble is mostly a side-effect of holding tightly to the bars while standing and pedaling. <S> When you're really crushing the pedals you use your arms to essentially pull yourself down onto the bike and to maximize power to the pedals (if you weren't holding on firmly you would be lifting yourself above the bike rather than pushing the pedals around). <S> Add to that most of your body weight being rocked from side to side and the bike begins to get that lean effect. <S> Overall it is quite difficult to prevent, and preventing the wobble would likely cost more in terms of speed than just compensating for it. <A> When I first began to bunch ride with the boys we would have a sprint here and there. <S> I would hold the handlebars firmly so that the bike was as stable as possible. <S> One of the guys pointed out that this actually takes effort on my part and wastes energy. <S> Also the wobbling is designed to occur such that the downstroke on the pedal occurs when that pedal is directly under the rider and hence delivers the maximum power to the stroke. <A> @STW has the right idea, but I think it's worth noting that to the extent possible, you're trying to hold your upper body still, and (especially when sprinting) <S> you "wobble" the bike under you to maximize power. <S> In other words, most of the "wobbling" involved is less of an accidental side effect than something they actually work at. <S> Conversely, when you see somebody whose upper body is moving a lot, while the bike stays relatively upright, it's a pretty good sign that they're running out of energy. <S> There are some other (also intentional) reasons as well. <S> First, working your way through a tight peloton can be tough, especially close to the finish. <S> Most of the riders are staying as close together as they can to get maximum drafting. <S> Worse, unless they happen to be your team-mate, the people right next to you will often try to "squeeze" you to intimidate you enough to slow you down a tiny bit. <S> Here you're literally "throwing your weight around" to make it harder for others to squeeze you in. <S> Likewise, the "smoother" you ride, the easier it is for somebody to draft off of you. <S> Earlier in a race (like in a breakaway) you'll see people do relatively quick sideways movements of the bike to help drop people drafting off of them. <S> In the final sprint, you usually can't afford to do that, but you're still doing the best you can to make drafting difficult, as long as you don't slow your self down (much) in the process. <S> Finally, if you're riding smoothly, it's fairly easy for somebody to stay close beside you and stay in your draft almost until they're in front of you. <S> By moving around as much as possible, you force them to pull farther to the side before they can pass safely, which means they lose your draft and have to do more of their own work to pass.
|
When pushing the pedals and pulling the handlebars it's quite difficult to prevent the bars from being turned slightly side-to-side, which results in part of the wobble. The more you're moving sideways, the harder it is for them to get/stay in your draft.
|
Shimano Revo Shift Gives No Clicks I have a problem with my shifter. My bike is using Shimano Revo Shift(gripshift) RS-35 (see my picture). The one shifting the front derailer (the left shifter) does not click when I turn it but it can still shift the cable. How do I repair it? I don't even know how do open up the shifter in the first place. <Q> From the picture, it looks like you have a friction shifter rather than an indexed shifter. <S> Indexed shifters click, and friction shifters move smoothly. <S> For a rear derailleur, you would almost always want indexed shifting because the cogs are so close together. <S> For a crankset with 3 chainrings, friction shifting can be handy for fine-tuning the position of the front derailleur. <A> Opening it is simple. <S> Remove the grip, grasp the portion of the shifter that turns to shift, and rotate it back like you are shifting, while pulling it towards the center of the bar. <S> Putting it back together is not simple, and will likely not happen without assistance. <S> Ask your LBS to show you the procedure if you want to learn. <S> If not, ask them to fix it. <S> It will like require replacing the pawl spring (snoopy spring) inside it, which creates the click, and holds the shifter to a particular gear. <S> It may require replacing the shifter body, depending on what is broken inside. <S> Shimano Installation guide Shimano tech docs for RevoShift 3 speed <S> Other styles of RevoShift Tech Docs <S> The third link takes you to a tech doc page. <S> It's java, so I can't link to the search directly. <S> Type RevoShift in the search box. <A> Likely the pawl has gotten gummed up, but can't help you with disassembly. <S> (It's not unheard of for the LBS repair guy to just spray lube into the shifter in this case, to try to free it up.) <S> But try this link: http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/shift-levers-shifters <A> Friction shifters have no clicks.
|
If there's chain rub, simply move the shifter a little.
|
Are 2-way bike lanes safe? For this question, I'm referring to bike lanes of the type shown here: To me they seem like a really bad idea. Firstly, one of the lanes is going against traffic. In this instance, the cars turning left at the intersection have to look behind them to see if bikes are coming from behind. Also, it seems that it would be really difficult to pass another cyclist if the path was busy, since the only way to move around another cyclist is to go into the opposite lane, against the traffic of the other bikes. The only advantage I can see over regular bike paths is that for the most part you are cut off from the cars. However, I've never had a problem with cars using "regular" bike lanes. Are there any studies as to how well these lanes work? Does anybody have any experience with these kids of bike lanes? How do you like them compared to other types of bike lanes? Part of my concern is shown in this video (skip to 2:50) . The lanes seem to move really slowly, and there seems to be a lot of people in the wrong lane completely. It seems like it would be nice for people taking a leisurely Sunday ride with the kids, but if your actually trying to commute and get somewhere in at a reasonable speed, it seems like it would be impossible. <Q> Studies done by the school of Health at Harvard, and published in Injury Prevention, are showing these to be safer. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coverage-in-the-media/bicycling-safety-cycle-tracks-lusk/index.html <A> Bike lanes like this work well in London city centre. <S> Being separated from the traffic is a major bonus. <S> In a number of places they use separate traffic lights for the bike lane so the cars aren't crossing the lane when the bikes are on the junction. <S> In other places, there are no right turn, or no left turn junctions to protect the bike lane (common in a city centre due to the number of one way streets). <S> Given the number of junctions in London, the number of traffic lights, pedestrians etc, it just isn't safe to travel above about 12mph anyway <S> and these lanes are perfectly safe for passing the oncoming bikes and the occasional overtake at these speeds. <S> In general the stretches I use which are laid out like this are relatively short. <S> The biggest issue is actually the pedestrians who aren't expecting the bikes to come from both directions. <S> Judicious use of the bell is needed to warn them. <S> This has got better with familiarity, and it is only the occasional tourist who seems unsure, but the tourists tend to be more wary and aren't sure which side of the road we drive on anyway! <A> The seperated bike lanes in Vancouver seem to work well over here. <S> Essentially separated from cars, your only potential contact with a car is at an intersection <S> I do agree that the lanes are sometimes narrow, and maintaining momentum behind a slower cyclist going uphill may be difficult. <S> I don't ride on them during rush hour, but they don't seem crowded enough to cause cyclists to overtake dangerously or otherwise ride irresponsibly.
|
In my limited riding on these lanes, here are the some advantages that I have observed: Bikes get a separate set of traffic lights Cars have a controlled right turn signal, so minimal chance of a car turning right into a cyclist
|
Road bike that is gentle on body, but can go in some dirt I found out that a racing type road bike is hard to shift as hurts the arthritis in my fingers. And even the frame is harder on the hips. I need something more gentle, but fast enough to keep up with road riders. I now ride a Trek Utopia on and off road and I do ride it hard. Can't keep up with road rider, but can fly on the dirt! <Q> If what you want is a true road bike, but without the pain, consider getting a Specialized Roubaix or a Scott CR1 . <S> These are both excellent road bikes with a slightly more upright riding position, and a carbon fiber frame that is engineered with comfort and distance in mind, while maintaining the speed and agility of a road machine. <S> This is the nicest (and most expensive) of the Specialized Roubaix line up. <S> I'm pointing out this one in particular, in spite of the cost, because it uses electronic shifting . <S> The battery powered shifters and derailleurs are only currently available on Shimano's highest end group. <S> But that will be changing next year, when they release the Ultegra Di2 kit, and they will remove the pain from shifting for you. <S> A light touch with one finger produces the fastest, smoothest, and crispest shifts I've ever seen, and I think will eliminate the pain of shifting for you. <S> The Di2 kits also have the unique ability to have 2 sets of shifters operate the same derailleurs. <S> Which means you can put a set of buttons on the flat part of the bar, as well as having the more traditional STI brake lever shaped set, with no loss regardless of the position you are riding in. <S> The bike is amazingly light, and agile. <S> But the best part is the smooth ride, and the comfort. <S> It is a Centurion's bike. <S> The Scott CR1 SL is a similar design, my preference, actually. <S> But they don't currently offer it with Di2 Electronic shifting . <S> Again, it's on the horizon for next year. <S> These bikes are in no way intended for dirt, but no bike which is intended for dirt, even a cyclocross bike, is geared to stay in the pack with a true road machiine. <S> You're better off keeping your current hybrid machine for when you go offroad, and buying a true road bike for the days on pavement with your buddies. <A> I recommend that you get more than one bicycle. <S> In that way you can keep the Trek for the trails and go out on something quicker when going on the roads with your 'roadie' friends. <S> Giant produce an excellent range of 'fitness' bikes that have the road frame, compact geometry and a flat bar. <S> This last detail is important as retro-fitting a flat bar to a bike with drops is very expensive. <S> Here is the link to the carbon-fibre 'Rapid Advanced': <S> http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-gb/bikes/model/rapid.advanced/7843/45451/ Note that the ALUXX version will also be a very tidy bike, however, if you can treat yourself to carbon fibre then do so. <S> The stem on this model is something you can sort out in the shop, even put some riser bars on there if you can. <S> The shop should help you with making these changes for minimal cost if you are buying a premium machine such as the Rapid Advanced. <S> Regarding seat-comfort, consider investing in quality shorts, i.e. the ones that cost a small fortune. <S> They are more comfy than any seat/suspension option and worth their weight in gold. <A> These bikes can be considered hybrids with drop-bars in many ways, and will let you get close to the speed of a road-bike while being able to handle single-tracks, light sand and gravel, and other terrain <S> a road bike couldn't touch. <S> Another option would be a more road-oriented hybrid. <S> Your Utopia is more towards the mountain-bike side of the spectrum, and the front shock and disk brakes add quite a bit of weight. <S> I'd recommend that if you're happy with the Utopia you should look at the Trek Fx line of hybrids. <S> They're much faster than the Utopia, but extremely versatile. <S> They won't be as fast as a road bike, but should be quite a bit faster than your Utopia. <S> Regarding your difficulty shifting, it sounds like it would be good for you to go to a bike shop and try test-riding a variety of bikes with different shifter styles. <A> Bike manufacturers are starting to design bikes built for dirt road riding - check out the dirt road bikes from Salsa or Kona. <S> They typically have a touring setup - wide wheelbase, lower to the ground, upright position - and may have disc brakes. <S> 1.5" tires. <S> Gearing on the low end is close to 1:1 with a 50/32 compact up front and 30 large ring in back.
|
Cyclocross bikes are typically geared for this situation--they are essentially a road bike intended to handle some dirt, and typically are fitted with somewhat knobby tires (similar to your Fischer hybrid) and a lower gear range. Some shifters (such as STI's) require strength of your index and middle finger; however flat-bar shifters often use your thumb for the harder shifting.
|
Does anyone have experience with Bottom Bracket Tap/Facing sets? I'm interested in recommending my boss get the workshop in which I work a bottom bracket tap and facing set. As it's quite an investment it's important to me to know what you're getting for your money. Does anyone have any experience in this area? I'm a bit of a bike snob so have always leaned towards Park Tool on these matters; apparently Cyclus also make a very good unit. Appreciate any experience or feedback you fine people have. <Q> Bottom Bracket Taps and Facing tools are an expensive and highly specialized tool. <S> As a workshop, owning them and knowing when and how to use them properly, is one of the key signs of a professional shop. <S> Many new frames are moving to design without threads, but these tools will continue to be valuable for years to come. <S> These are the brands I'm familiar with, and recommend: <S> The Park Tool set is quality, and durable. <S> The Campagnolo set has been the quality standard for shop use for 30 years at least. <S> I know of one shop that's had theirs in continuous use for at least that long. <S> You do pay for it, and the Campy tap set is a separate tool. <S> The Cylus Tap sets are excellent as well, although durability is yet to be proven. <S> They are a more complicated machine, which allows a speedier, and very well done, job to be performed. <S> It also allows for more things to break on their system. <S> This is an impression I have only. <S> I have not seen one fail. <S> It does require a separate tool for english and italian BB's, and the parts are not interchangeable. <S> The VAR tool set is the original, the one that Park Tool based their original design on. <S> It's simple, durable, and classic. <S> The design allows purchase of an Italian thread set to be used with the English handles, and vice versa. <S> Hozan Tools makes an excellent tap set, but not facer currently. <S> All of these tools are excellent quality and have reasonable likelihood of replacement taps and facing cutters being available through the years. <S> Campagnolo, and Park Tool are fairly certain to stand the test of time, and I'd recommend on of those two. <A> It depends on what type of shop you are. <S> When it did come out it would typically be for one of the early cr-mo mtb frames where the bottom bracket was just a tube, i.e. not investment cast, although it would come out for those too, e.g. age old Raleigh bikes. <S> I do know of a high-end shop where they seem to use the tool on pretty much every high-end frameset build. <S> (As if the likes of Look etc. don't bother to thread the b/b...) <S> Clearly they are getting a better return on the tool than I was. <S> The tool I used appeared to be of the Hozan flavour, it pre-dated my employment and had one of the handles bent. <S> Availability is going to be a problem in Australia, I would just get what one of your favourite distributors can do for you at a favourable price. <S> If it turns out to be unfit for purpose then you can return it. <S> I would be very surprised if there were any on the market that were sub-standard, i.e. less than bulletproof. <A> I like the Park bottom bracket cutting tools - very nice tool set. <S> And since Park tool is a Minnesota company, I really have to recommend them to you...... <S> I have no experience with Var, Campagnolo, or Cylus bottom bracket cutting tools. <S> But I do own and work with other sorts of tools from these brands, and they seem fine to me. <S> Maybe the most important question is what is the cost of these brands in your country?
|
For a set of taps and facing blades that will be durable, and also are likely to maintain compatibility with future similar tool sets from Park, it's hard to go wrong there. In my workshop experience getting the bottom-bracket re-threading tools was not an every day occurrence.
|
Is it safe to ride on a cracked rim? Doing my monthly inspection & clean of my wheels last night and I was shocked to see a crack around one the spokes as they enter rim. It is a rear wheel (Shimano R600 I think). I had obviously been riding on it for a little while, so I was wondering if there was any urgency in getting the rim replaced, or can I wait until my next visit to my LBS ? I currently do only around 100km per week. <Q> if the crack is at the spoke bed, and hasn't spread to the side of the rim yet, it's probably not going to explode immediately <S> You didn't say when you next planned to visit the LBS, but I'd recommend taking care of it within a week or two at the most. <A> A crack in the rim is something which needs to be dealt with fairly immediately. <S> It isn't likely to fail catastrophically, but is it worth the risk of the damage to your body, or more importantly, to the rest of your components? <S> There is really no downside to getting it done sooner, and potentially significant downsides to waiting if you keep riding it. <A> Can't find a close-up picture of that wheel on the net, to get an idea of its construction. <S> Without seeing the crack, and its relation to the wheel design, it's hard to tell how serious it might be (or even whether it's structural vs cosmetic). <S> A good bike shop mechanic should be able to look at it, though, and tell you if it's a valid concern. <S> As Matt indicated, the most likely danger is that the spoke will pull through and give you the equivalent of a busted spoke. <S> (Can we say "busted" here, or will the literary police get on our tail?) <S> Anyway, that's an inconvenience but unlikely to result in a crash. <S> The odds of the crack migrating through to the side of the rim such that a section of the sidewall might separate (or the brake pad grab violently) is pretty small, but real. <S> You should check the crack after every ride, at least (and maybe after every 20 miles or so while riding), to make sure it's not spreading. <S> If the crack spreads over onto the sidewall at all you should stop using the rim ASAP. <S> (Remember that rims can be easily replaced -- there's no need to buy an entire new wheel if the hub is in good condition.)
|
(if it's on the sidewall, tire pressure can cause it to burst, which will almost definitely make you crash).However, there's a good chance that the spoke will eventually pull through the rim, and there's also the fact that once aluminum starts to fatigue and crack, the damage tends to spread relatively quickly, which means the rim could fail on you entirely, probably without any additional warning. I'd get to the shop within a few days and avoid riding it very much, at least, until you do.
|
Electra Shifter (Revoshift) is hard to turn My wife has a hard time turning the Revoshift grip on her Electra Townie 7D due to arthritis issues in her hands. Is there a way to help with this issue? <Q> This would mean getting both a trigger shifter and a grip because I think your current grip is designed for the Revoshift shifter. <S> The part I'd recommend for this use is the shimano acera 7-speed trigger shifter, which costs about $15, if you're in the US. <S> If you're not mechanically inclined, bring it to your LBS to install. <S> This will save you the effort, and you eliminate the chance of irritating your wife for breaking her bike. <A> Replace the cable - both inner and outer - and you may get silky smooth shifting again. <S> This could do the trick. <S> As @thajigisup says, go to a shop and find the shifter that works best for her. ' <S> Old fashioned' top-mount levers might not be in the shop but they are definitely a consideration. <S> More generally I am very disappointed by the exceptionally conservative bike trade that only allows mainstream sports-fad products of zero innovation level to get into showrooms. <S> Shimano have created several groupsets with electric push button gears for the recreational market and even tried to get a fully automatic gear system accepted by those manufacturers that are stuck in tradition dictated by the UCI governing body for cycle sport. <S> Fair play to Electra for creating some bikes with geometry that suits non-racers, however, they could do with focusing a bit more on functionality, to make bikes that do suit those who do have small hands with arthritis like my own mum. <S> Maybe get something that will work for now, e.g. new cable plus track-mitts might provide the easy-leverage. <S> Research the cool electric components that Shimano do offer, beg your distributor to get them or source them from the Netherlands (one of the few markets for such parts). <S> Then, maybe for Christmas or a birthday, deck your wife's bike out with ultimate luxury electric gearing. <S> You will enjoy the project and be able to share your experience of putting it all together with others that don't suit the tired race only geometry offered by most of the trade. <S> Everyone on these forums is going to end up with arthritis or worse one day, pioneer the technology for the rest of us <S> so we get better than a choice of zimmer frames in our old age. <A> I'd say get any cheap thumb shifter. <S> Much easier to operate than grip+twist shifter. <S> Click down is very easy. <S> Shift up requires a firm push with the thumb. <S> My daughter when learning to shift gears had a big problem. <S> She's a tough cookie but more delicate hands than average and the twist shifts were just too stiff. <S> You don't notice this with big strong adult hands. <S> Also make sure gear cable is well oiled and moves smoothly and derailleurs cleaned and oiled for smooth operation.
|
I recommend getting a rear Shimano trigger shifter. We replaced her twist shift with cheap thumb shift and it made a huge difference. If you are mechanically inclined, it's pretty easy to do the work yourself, and it's a lot of fun when you get it working. After a while all shifters get a bit harder to work due to the cables drying out of lubrication, getting dirt in them and the cable strands oxidising.
|
isn't a fixie without a full chain guard a safety hazard? Yes, I know it would totally ruin the clean lines and the uncluttered, (well maybe just a discreet front brake), looks, but I've never seen this question asked, much less answered. A chain guard does more than protect the chain from wear. While fingers are unlikely, I could see sticks and brush, or a piece of clothing getting stuck. When that happens without freewheel the entire mass of the rider and bike times velocity squared would be utilized to crush the obstruction. Am I exaggerating the risks or is there something fundamental I'm misunderstanding? <Q> You're not exaggerating the risk as far as what would happen to the object that managed to get jammed in to a fixie drivetrain at speed. <S> You are perhaps exaggerating the risk of that happening, though. <S> I don't see many objects managing that feat, without serious planning on someones' part, and unless it's flesh and bone, or something that was hard enough that the chainring wouldn't cut through it, then there would be minimal harm. <S> If a stick gets caught in the chain ring, it will get cut in half. <S> So what if it does? <S> Nothing will happen to the rider, and even the chance of damage to the bike is minimal. <S> Same thing with brush. <S> And since fixies are rarely ridden off road, the chance of these 2 things happening would be pretty remote. <S> I've had my pant's leg get caught in a fixie chainring, and all it did was tear the pants, and teach me to choose better what clothing I ride in. <S> There's no real harm to a chainguard, but not a lot of benefit either that I can see, so if you want one, go for it, but I'll be fine without. <S> I'd say the lack of brakes is a far bigger hazard when riding on the road. <A> My friend lost two front teeth and part of his face on the road when his shoe lace got caught in the chain of his track bike. <S> With that said, do whatever you feel comfortable doing, and feel free to tell that story to anyone who makes fun of you. <A> I have came off due to clothing getting caught <S> and I don't think the danger can be over-looked. <S> Since you are a man of taste and style, take a look at this minimalist chainguard: http://sogrenibikes.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=8 <S> With a few workshop tools you could make your own... <S> The same company also make an uber-cool trouser clip that you may also want to check out. <A> Cycling is a safety hazard, it's all a question of risk mitigation, reduction and awareness. <S> A fixed-wheel certainly presents a different set of hazards, but my short response to the question is 'no'. <S> I do over 3,000 miles a year on my fixed (almost all of my commuting) and have done so for the last 4-5 years <S> and I've never caught anything in my chain, be it cloth, stick, lace or anything else. <S> But then I generally cycle in shorts or tights with my velcro-strapped cycle shoes - risk avoidance, don't put anything likely to get caught in the vicinity. <S> So I think you're over-estimating the risks on this dimension; there are risks worth worrying about out there <S> - most of them are behind the steering wheels of metal boxes with 4 wheels - without creating needless ones! <A> A fixed gear bike will be "less forgiving" if something gets caught up in the drive train simply because you can't coast to a stop and dislodge the object. <S> The object will either break and fling off, or it will "stop" the bike usually throwing the rider very hard and very fast into the ground (often face-first). <S> If you're going to ride fixed as a commuter with street clothes you're taking on additional risk with no real benefit. <S> So yeah, put a chain-guard on there as well as a front brake and some foot retention system. <A> To your fingers and clothing, yes; bigger items (like your foot) dont really pose a threat because the chain and cog cant really get the necessary leverage to crunch through them. <S> That doesn't mean it wouldn't hurt <S> so I don't advise trying it. <S> Just watch where your fingers are when the bike is in the stand and the cranks are spinning (biggest danger) and dont wear your bellbottoms while riding (less of a danger). <A> My friend recently gashed the back of her calf completely open on the exposed sprockets, so to those who claim it won't hurt your skin... <S> it did. <S> It's now got splattered flesh all strewn about it. <S> She's got 14 outer stitches and 4 inner. <S> The gash went down to her muscle.
|
Unless it's large enough to stop you pedaling, then it's not a problem. DEFINITELY buying chain guards asap.
|
Why is my drivetrain so noisy after replacing the chain? I ride an SE Lager fixed . On the 30th of May this year I did a bit of an overhaul, replacing the rear cog, chain, wheels, tyres and brake pads. I measured the chain last weekend and discovered that it was already over .75 (which I asked about here ), but less than 1.0. So I decided the replace the chain with a new KMC Z410 chain . I use a Surly track cog 1/8 inch, 17t on the back and since it was only a few months old and with a single chain I decided not to replace it. The chainring is also not old and looks to be in fine condition. Here is a photo showing the old cog (on the left) and a brand new cog (on the right). I couldn't see any appreciable difference which I took as reinforcing my decision that it didn't need replacing. Unfortunately the next day I went for a ride the drivetrain was incredibly noisy. Clunking and grinding. I could even feel roughness through the pedals. I was thinking maybe the bottom bracket (the only drivetrain component that has not been replaced yet) might have completely fallen apart. What is causing this noise? Fair warning: I have the answer to this question that I will post shortly. According to my research , asking and answering a question is encouraged as a source of information Update: I should clarify that I don't have the answer to the question. I know how I fixed it, but that doesn't preclude another answer being more informative <Q> Fixed gears don't have as much tolerance for mismatched wear patterns as geared bikes, because there is no "give" in the drive train system. <S> The small amount of wear shown on the used cog is enough to cause this kind of noise in the case of a fixie. <S> I'd be surprised if the same amount of wear caused you any problems at all on a geared machine. <S> It's also possible that the chain was over tensioned. <S> I know you said that you use a tensioner, and that you didn't change the settings, but you used a new, unstretched, and therefore shorter chain. <S> You may have needed to relax the tension by a small amount. <S> Hard to say for certain, as you made the noise go away. <A> Normally I'd suspect hooking, on a worn cog. <S> But though there is some barely perceptible hooking on that "worn" cog, it's not nearly enough to cause a problem. <S> So I'm going to go with the yucky color of that chain. <S> The bike is rejecting it! <S> (Or perhaps the chain is just too wide.;) <A> It turns out the rear cog was making the noise. <S> I replaced the cog as soon as I got home and everything is running silently again. <S> Given how little wear there is on the cog, I'm amazed at how noisy it was. <S> so I don't think the chain tension would have changed.
|
As you removed the wheel to change the cog, It may be that the tension has changed as well. I guess there's also an off chance that I had something badly adjusted, but I use a chain tug and didn't change the setting
|
How tight should a fixie's chain be? I ride an SE Lager fixed. How tight should the chain be and what is the best way of measure it? I have a chain tug so I can be pretty accurate in dialling in the right amount of tension. I don't like to have much slop. Part of the joy of riding fixed is having a direct connection to the road. I like to have it adjusted so that there's no significant movement of the pedals when the bike is stationary. This often equates to about a centimeter of movement in the chain if I squeeze the top and bottom of the chain mid-way between the cog and chainring but it's hard to judge how hard I should be pushing to get that movement. As always, Sheldon Brown has a lot of information, mostly about centering the chainring(!!) and recommends having the chain as tight as possible without binding. <Q> The simple answer is, as Sheldon brown says, as tight as possible without binding. <S> But define binding. <S> The noises you described on your chain in your previous question were symptomatic of binding or of a worn chain. <S> The description you've given there of how you run your chain tension is tighter than I would recommend. <S> To clarify the tensioning - When I replaced the chain I adjusted the tension. <S> There was a very noticeable adjustment required. <S> But then when I subsequently adjusted the rear cog <S> I didn't adjust the tug from it's setting with the new chain. <S> I agree that I might have changed the tension marginally just be removing and refitting the wheel. <S> 1 millimeter of movement is too tight, in every case I've seen. <S> The manufacturing tolerances on the components (cog, chain, and chain ring, ans well as the hub, and BB axle), would need absolute perfection to allow that tight of tension to function without damage or noise. <S> I've never seen good enough all at once, and you would need to be amazingly lucky or diligent to find that mix of perfection. <S> A single speed requires slightly less tension, because the bearings in the freewheel will bind, and it won't roll at all, where a fixie will just be noisy and prone to wear. <S> Make sure you check for the spot where the chain is tightest, and do the adjustment there, as well. <S> You don't need to be that tight, and your drive train will still maintain good contact between pedal and wheel. <A> A loose chain is a fast chain. <S> The proper technique for getting proper chain tension is to pull the wheel back in the dropouts and tighten the nuts a little past finger-tight. <S> Don't worry about alignment just yet. <S> Here, it should still have some slack in it. <S> How much? <S> Perhaps an inch of total vertical movement is a good ballpark. <S> Essentially, anywhere between "falls off the chainring" and "binds even slightly" are all equivalent, but this is "enough" slack while still being tight enough to minimize latency when reversing pedaling direction. <S> Back to tightening. <S> If the chain is not ideally tightened, loosen the drive side nut. <S> If the chain is too tight at this point, push the front of the wheel to the left, so the drive side of the axle slides forwards in the dropouts. <S> If the chain is too loose, pull the front of the wheel to the right, so the axle slides backward in the dropouts. <S> Retighten the nut a little past finger-tight. <S> Now your wheel will likely be out of alignment. <S> To remedy this, loosen the opposite nut and push or pull the front of the wheel until it's aligned. <S> Retighten and recheck the chain tension. <S> Repeat this process until the chain is to the desired tightness and the wheel is perfectly straight in the dropouts. <S> Crank the nuts down tight and you're done. <A> Better a hair too loose than a hair too tight.. <A> I think you've answered your question - as tight as you can (I'd throw in by 'hand' because that would seem to feel right, once you use vices and so on, it's going above and beyond reasonable tightness). <S> Bear in mind that you need a little slack because the teeth on the two cogs won't match exactly <S> so you need to allow for some give to line them up independently, but enough to pinch a small amount seems fine. <A> As Daniel hicks said and also mentioned at the top, you would need 100% perfection in all your drive components to run a chain tight tight. <S> Its just not possible to have all your machined parts to match for an over tight chain, something will be off somewhere! <S> As mentioned if its not rolling off, its tight enough! <A> I have recently adjusted my new bikes chain with 3 speed internal hub gears and slightly oval chain ring. <S> The bike had the chain cranked up extremely tight <S> and it didn't feel or sound <S> right. <S> I'm sure it would have damaged the bearings or damaged something in the rear wheel internal hub over time. <S> I kept slackening the chain until I found no noticeable binding at the point where the chain is tightest due to oval chain ring. <S> The chain will have some some movement about 10-20mm halfway between the chain ring and back wheel, with this movement I could feel the chain had no slack. <S> To dial out the drive train binding I lifted the back wheel of the ground and turned the pedals by hand, I felt the resistance and could here it too. <S> I dialed this binding out bit by bit. <S> I believe this binding equates to increased mechanical loss and more wear and tear on moving components. <S> I think there should be no tension in the chain and as little as possible slack.
|
Rotate the wheel and "feel" the slack in the top half of the chain with a screwdriver until it's at its tightest point. Typical tension on a fixie or single speed is roughly 1/4" to 1/2", or 5-10 millimeters, when pressing on the chain from the top, and from one side.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.