source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Tubeless tires and compatibility Can 25mm tubeless tires fit on a wheel that previously had 22mm tubeless tires? I have a set of wheels that previously had 22mm tires on it. There is no description of tire compatibility listed on the wheels. <Q> Generally road tubeless is road tubeless and going to the 25 should be fine. <A> I recommend tracking down the rim manufacturer's recommendations. <S> Tolerances are tighter than with tubed setups, and as this case suggests , putting on a tire that is a fraction of a millimeter too wide may result in a blowoff, which can be catastrophic. <S> That said, a 25-mm tire is not very wide. <A> If it's any consolation; my road and gravel bike share the same wheelsets. <S> All four sets are set up tubeless, have an inner width of 24mm, and I have mounted many dozens of tires on them. <S> Sizes ranging from 700 x 23 up to 29 x 1.8" and everything in-between. <S> No burps, no blown out beads, no problems other than changing out sealant, and re-taping the rim beds about every 2 years.
|
Standards for road tubeless are still not completely settled, and manufacturer don't even agree on what makes for a safe setup . It's hard to imagine any rim manufacturer building a road rim these days that would be incompatible with it.
|
What are the hazards and risks if I keep using a worn rear tyre? I found similar questions: What are the risks of fenders/mudguards? What are the risks of untrued wheels? But I haven't found a structured analysis on the subject of tyres. Stack exchange technicalities: It is the rear tyres on two bikes in my family that seem to be a concern, so I kept my question specific to rear tyres. But please feel free to edit the title and question if you feel that provides a better balance of things like keeping the question specific vs effort required to provide a clear answer. I just don't know if it's better to deal with just the rear by itself or both wheels together to make this question useful. Logic: Ideally I would love a structured answer, perhaps based on this article about hazards vs risks . Naturally there may be other ways to approach this. The hazards that come to my mind are: Loss of grip in a bend/obstruction avoidance Braking performance - this is probably fairly gradual until the tyre punctures? Puncturing - the resistance can probably be measured, with some graphs based on some standard puncturing object vs tread depth? How the hazards translate to risks then probably depends on several factors, like the sort of riding you do, what mode of failure is developing on the tyre (cracks vs thinning) etc. You could probably write a books about this, right? Clearly if I'm already pushing my tyres to their limits in bends/braking etc. then the tyres need to be it tip-top condition. I don't think I ever get anywhere near these limits, but I guess I am conscious about emergency braking in commuting on roads. Do countries have government rules for bike tyre safety, like the MOT rules for cars in the UK ? I'm not asking about the annual testing and certification, I'm on about the minimum standards of roadworthiness. I really thought that this subject has been dealt with on this site or elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything complete/clear/structured. It if matters, the reason I'm asking is I am a bit of a pessimist (perhaps a primary characteristic), and therefore both a cheapskate and safety-conscious, which I would argue are both secondary characteristics on one hand, but clearly conflicting on the other. Safety and frugal are valid tags on this site, pessimism isn't:-) <Q> If it’s just the rubber tread which is worn down and thinner <S> : Keep using it. <S> With treadless tires you’ll only suffer from increased susceptibility to punctures. <S> Of course with knobby/treaded tires your grip on soft surfaces will gradually decrease. <S> If the tire’s structural integrity could be compromised: Don’t use it. <S> It could fail catastrophically at any time. <S> Things like bulges, abrasions of the sidewalls, cuts or large cracks are all bad signs. <A> As others have said, the biggest risk comes from sidewall failures. <S> Even with the tread worn out there's usually enough (reinforced) rubber to prevent splitting on the tread, but the sidewalls are weaker. <S> I would say the worst case is for it to blow out while cornering hard. <S> You're likely to lose grip and not get it back again, so slide out and hit the ground. <S> That hurts. <S> Taking this to extremes it would happen while being overtaken very closely and you'd get run over, but that requires multiple simultaneous bad things to happen at the same time that you're doing something (cornering) <S> that's a small proportion of your riding. <S> A rear tyre blowout in a straight line isn't a big deal in my experience (though I had some warning from the sound of the tube bulging through a damaged sidewall). <S> I have had the rear wheel lock up when riding steadily a few times ( derailleur sucked into wheel , <S> broken spoke catching on chain, tyre coming off the bead and wedging against the seatstay ) <S> What's more likely is that you'll get repeated punctures. <S> These aren't inherently hazardous, but can easily leave you cold,wet and exposed to traffic in fading light for which you're not prepared, as you walk home, fix it, or wait for help. <A> I managed to get an innertube pinched between the front rim and the tyre on a racing bike, got a few hundred metres down the road <S> and it popped with enough force to completely blow the tyre off the rim, but I managed to coast across the junction I was in <S> and nothing really came of it. <S> To deal with your hazards: <S> This is possible if you have worn through the grippy layer of rubber entirely on a slick, or are riding a bald rear tyre offroad, however you're far more likely to slip, particularly in an uncontrollable manner due to road conditions. <S> This is more likely to be caused by an old tyre which has hardened than wear. <S> Braking performance is as above really, its probably more likely to lock up, but until you're at the point of locking your wheel there won't be any change. <S> You should be putting most of your braking force through the front anyway. <S> This has too many variables. <S> Is the object glass, flint, thorns, a thumbtack, or have you gotten a pinch flat? <S> Tyres come in many different compounds and tread patterns, and different types of punctures are more or less likely at different levels of inflation, and depends on your inner tubes, whether they are thick or thin butyl rubber, or latex, or even tubeless! <S> Extremely simplified, you'd have a yes/no scenario, with a 2mm object causing a puncture as soon as the tube is less than 2mm from the outside of the tyre. <S> I cannot think of any country which has a 'bike MOT' as bikes don't have licence plates etc, so it'd be impossible to monitor. <S> Many countries don't even have a car MOT equivalent! <S> If you aren't sure about a tyre, change it. <S> Decent ones can be found on sale for £10 or less. <A> This answer is from the OP, I don't like the fact stack exchange doesn't seem to show it clearly. <S> Also, for now it's just a stub for an answer, written on a mobile, I hope to extend it when time permits. <S> The question has become a lot less important to me since I started working from home due to covid, but I have been looking into this occasionally. <S> There doesn't seem to be anything like an MOT for bikes or any detailed rules for roadworthiness. <S> However, case law is a good indication, and I have come across two cases which have some relevance. <S> Links are below but the bottom line is this: if a cyclist causes any sort of accident, damage or injury, then the condition of the bike will be closely checked. <S> And if the condition of the tyres is questionable to a reasonable inspector, then the cyclist's defence is weakened significantly. <S> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-33236920 <S> http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-alliston-mis-trial.html?m=1 <S> More reading here: <S> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685600/cycle-safety-review-report.PDF <A> The biggest risk is some sort of sudden tire failure, either a "blowout" or the tire actually coming apart. <S> On a smooth, level roadway with no traffic a simple blowout is usually not too hazardous, but if it happens on a tight turn you could be sent into a nasty slide, if it happens on a fast downhill you could lose control and crash, and if it happens in traffic no telling what could happen. <S> And if the tire comes apart it's apt to lock the wheel, further compounding things. <S> (And you don't even want to think about these scenarios on a front tire.)
|
Worst case from a worn tyre would be it splitting, and popping off the rim causing the wheel to lock up, and you to probably fall off, or at least damage the wheel.
|
MTB Weekend rider: step up to carbon worth it? Target: weekend rider, cross country, enjoying technical sections, approx. 3hrs rides. Would like to improve MTB skills and spend more time on the trails. Current setup: Grand Canyon 4.0 2018, 13,3 kg, Alluminium. Shimano Deore 2x10 crankset, 11-42 10s cassette. Situation: Having difficulty in steep climbs, bike feels really heavy when I lift it. Considering investing in a carbon model (Focus Raven 8.7). PROS: approx. 2kg less weight, 30t chainring (as aftermarket upgrade ) and a 10-51 cassette, more responsiveCONS: price, less comfortable to ride (?) Guess some of you could have been / are in the same situation. The author of this article rules against the upgrade decision. Taking into account technical considerations, is the investment worth it? Thoughts? Experience? <Q> Much of that weight could be dropped where it matters the most and where you will notice it first; the wheels and tires. <S> Find a lighter weight wheelset with tubeless tires and sealant <S> and I would almost guarantee you will drop over 1kg from the bike. <S> Upgrading the components where your body makes contact to the bike will also drop some weight and make the ride more comfortable. <S> Carbon fiber handlebars designed to flex slightly, dropper seatpost to get it out of the way when moving the bike around, and good grips go a long way to aid in comfort and confidence. <S> The other place where you can lose some weight is by swapping out the stock fork for a lighter and better performing one that has a more secure lockout feature. <S> FWIW; my steel singlespeed 29er is an XC racer, weighs in at 11kg, and has secured numerous podium spots in regional races. <A> If you just need lower gears, you can switch to 24t inner ring. <S> 24/42 is roughly the same as 30/51. <S> I've played around a bit with really low gears and that's about the lowest gear that is rideable for me. <S> Lower than than that <S> and you have to spin like crazy just to keep the bike upright, walking tends to be faster at that point. <S> If you're already at 80 kgs, 2.2kg is only about 2%. <S> My experience is that bang for the buck with bike weight tends to have a cut-off point. <S> Getting your bike below <S> X helps, but anything lower doesn't make much of a difference. <S> Unfortunately, X is different for every rider and can change over time as you get fitter. <S> As far as upgrades on your current bike, tubeless tires and nice wheels make sense <S> and you can keep those if you decide to upgrade to a completely new bike. <S> Make sure to get future-proof hubs if you go that route. <S> These will have removeable endcaps that allow you to change the hub to various axle widths. <S> There is a point at which upgrading an older frame design doesn't make sense. <S> 1x gearing and a dropper post make a huge difference IMHO, but neither of those really helps with climbing. <S> They make descending and all-round riding more fun. <S> Given that the reviews of your bike suggest that it has an old-school geometry, I'd wouldn't invest in anything that couldn't be transferred to a new bike. <S> I recently invested in a carbon hardtail and went from a roughly 12kg full suspended alumimum bike to a 9kg hardtail. <S> I like the new bike a lot more, but I can't climb hills that I couldn't climb before. <S> I just don't have to work quite as hard to climb the hills I can climb. <S> I really like my new toy, but it's very hard to justify what I spent as a rational performance benefit. <A> Countering the excellent answer by @jc alan.... <S> Carbon will not make you fitter or stronger. <S> It will not make you ride smoother, choosing better lines though the corners and over the rock gardens. <S> Carbon (any new bike) is an easy and expensive upgrade that gives a single step improvement and stops. <S> It sounds like you are after more. <S> What you need to look at is the package - the bike, the rider and the riders fit on the bike. <S> What other things have you done? <S> Could you loose weight? <S> Could you get fitter, go to the gym and get stronger? <S> Have you received coaching on riding techniques? <S> Have you had a professional bike fit done? <S> If more time is what you are after, have you considered an E-Bike? <S> For the cost of a light weight carbon bike you can have a reasonable quality E-Bike. <A> No If you need a lower gear ratio, swap out the cassette or chain rings on your existing bike. <S> Always remember this quote by Greg Lemond: <S> "It never gets easier, you just go faster."
|
You can drop 2.2kg easily with upgrades to your current bike that would probably be less expensive than purchasing a new bike. Getting a really light hardtail does make a difference on the hills, but it's not a magic bullet. You have to take into account weight of you plus bike.
|
Signal a u-turn to road users I am living in the UK and in this situation (sorry for my bad drawing): The bike (the dot in front) wants to do a u-turn and needs to signal to the car (the dot behind). If the bike does not signal, the car will not slow down and my hit the bike. How can I signal a u-turn? I was thinking about putting my hand behind me but that may not be obvious for road users. <Q> U turn away at a point where you can see both directions clearly - away from blind turns and rises. <S> Wait until vehicle have passed you to turn, If you need to get vehicles past, stop and wave them by. <S> You can also more safely u-turn by turning right or left onto a minor side road (or driveway, carpark etc), turning around there, then making the opposite turn back onto the major road. <A> The other answers have good notes about doing this more safely. <S> But if the car is far enough behind you <S> and you are sure there is no risk, just signal a right turn . <S> Your path will be almost the same, and the reaction needed from the driver is the same (increased awareness, possibly need to slow down). <S> I myself would only do this if the distance was so large that the car doesn't really need to slow down, so the signal is given just to avoid giving them unnecessary surprises. <S> Otherwise I would just wait for the car to pass before crossing the road. <A> I think the legal way is to get off your bike before reaching the cross street, (about where your arrow is,) cross walking, and get on your bike again. <S> The signal you need in that case is a hand up and down, on the side of the pavement (side walk) where you will stop. <S> But this signal is gone out of fashion in many countries. <S> What you want to do might be acceptable when there is no traffic on both roads, but any car will be confused and you will be in the danger zone.
|
First, don't attempt a u-turn at a junction where you may have vehicles approaching from multiple directions and vehicle drivers will be expecting you to make a left or right turn, not a u-turn.
|
Disc brake pad replacement, or replace whole caliper? We have a Boss Stealth 26" men's mountain bike with Zoom brand disc brakes. The disc brake pads are worn and need replacing, the problem is finding a workshop who can fit them as apparently it is a budget bike and hard to get the brake pads. Is it possible to fit another make of caliper which are readily available on ebay? Both front and rear rotors are 160mm, or are the sizes from disc to frame bracket different? <Q> If you cannot find replacement pads, many cheap off brand disk brakes use BB3 pads, have a look and see if they are the same. <S> Changing the yourself is straight forward enough. <S> Sometimes its as cheap and easier to replace the caliper, especially if paying a mechanic to source hard to find replacement pads. <S> If you do, get one that is major brand, or at least takes major brand pads. <S> If you want to do it yourself and cannot find pads, there are two mountings for calipers, IS and Post. <S> Generally buying same style caliper as you already have makes it a simple replacement. <S> Adapters will probably cost more than a cheap caliper. <S> Disks come in two mounting standards as well. <S> 6 bolt and center lock. <A> If the brakes are hydraulic I would not recommend replacing the calipers without replacing the levers as well. <S> There are two issues of compatibility. <S> The first is that different manufacturers use different 'leverage ratios' which is set by the relative cross section areas of the lever and caliper pistons. <S> The seconds is that different manufacturers use different hydraulic fluids. <S> Even systems that use mineral old use different formulations. <S> if you replace both levers and calipers you will be sure that you have a braking system that works properly. <A> Googling about suggests that the pads look like this: <S> These are listed as "Zoom DB280 DB550 DB450 DB350" compatible, and have a diameter of 18.5mm in the main, and the total length is 23mm. <S> Your best option is to remove one set of pads from the bike, (put a block in their place) and compare the pads with pictures. <S> You'll find the right ones if you look hard. <S> Then make a decision whether you want to spend money on replacement pads, or choose a replacement caliper. <S> While searching I noted that the Zoom brake is not a quality brake and seems to have spend more on anodising than function. <S> Zoom disk brakes only support 160mm rotors, and you have to match the frame mount if you change to another brand. <A> thanks for the help, i have removed the brake caliper from the bike and taken out the pads the pads are stamped with zoom 5 which are available on ebay, nothing wrong with the caliper or rotor also found out how to adjust the disc happy cycling everyone
|
If the brakes weren't working well for you then complete caliper replacement is feasible. If you want to replace the disk you will need the get the same type.
|
Has anyone had success mixing and matching cassette sprockets for custom ratios? I have a 9 speed rear cassette that I am looking to replace some or all of. I would love to have a 9 speed cassette with a 10 tooth or even 9 tooth top gear, but the combination doesn't seem to be available with existing cassettes, so I am contemplating a mix and match affair. I know each sprocket is indexed and has particular profiles to smooth the down and upshifts depending where around the cassette the shift happens, so this might make the idea a bit crap. Alternately can someone point to an existing 9 speed cassette that is 10-28 or 9-28? <Q> As far as I’m aware there are no 10 teeth sprockets for normal Shimano hyperglide freehub bodies because the freehub diameter is just too large. <S> That’s why SRAM created the XD Driver standard and Shimano created the Micro Spline standard. <S> Can’t you install a larger chainring and use a 11–30 cassette? <A> The vast majority of 9 speed bikes have the 8/9/10 speed freehub design, which doesn't go lower than 11. <S> (Technically the iteration of the HG freehub that goes to 11 is called Hyperglide C, I think.) <S> Stock Shimano Capreo 9spd cassettes for folding and other small-wheeled bikes are 9-26. <S> You need a Capreo hub. <S> If you really want to build one into a bigger-than-20" wheel you can, but personally I don't think there's much of a conceivable good reason to. <S> People have hacked Capreo cassettes to have bigger large cogs and even sold them commercially. <S> I don't know if there are any hidden tricks to doing so. <S> No idea whether anything would come of that. <S> The Miche system is difficult to make practical use of in my opinion, although there's plenty to like about the idea. <S> It's also expensive for having both a weight and shifting performance trade-off. <A> The example image below shows those for making an 11-speed cassette, but I think 9-speed options should also exist. <S> These sprockets are plain, you won't have ramps and tooth profiles that optimize shifting in either direction. <S> As a positive effect, you will be able to replace individual worn sprockets without throwing the whole cassette away. <S> The traditional Shimano Hyper Glide freehub body diameter is too big for that <S> (maybe there are one off solutions with an overhanging tiny cog/lockring, but they are definitely not very popular). <S> I am not sure that individual cogs for anything but Hyper Glide are offered though.
|
To have the smallest sprocket with fewer than 11 teeth, you will have to use a freehub with SRAM XD, SRAM XDR or Shimano Microspline interfaces. There are manufacturers that offer individual sprockets and spacers for cassettes with custom steps. If you did this on a big wheel you'd be even more at risk for exceeding the torque the hub mechanism is designed to sustain.
|
Have old bar end shifters which don't seem to fit in the new handlebars I retrieved the Shimano bar end shifters from some old handlebars and now I want to fit the shifters to new bars. However strangely I can't fit the shifters in the new bars. See the following photo: I don't understand why this happens: I have loosened the stick of the bar end shifter enough so the the clamps can "fall" to the centre. Here a photo to illustrate this: ? Some more details: The new bars should have the same inner diameter than the old bars. Even more important; The shifters don't seem to fit back into the old bars either. Do I overlook something? Do I do something wrong? Or are the shifters just broken? Update 2 days later I have payed around with the shifters - and noticed that apparently the area of the handlebars which is on the inside wide enough differs between the old and the new bar: I found this out by using the screw with the cone head which goes through the clamps of the shifter: With an allen key I held the srew as far into the hanldebars as possible. In the old handlebars I can fit the whole screw in: However in the new handlebars only approx 2/3 of the screw fit in: It explains why I cannot fit the whole shifter in the new bar even with grease and lots of wiggling! Not sure what to make it tough: I can think of two explanations for the difference: Either it is a manufacturer fault. (The new bar is from the same manufacturer as the old one and both are designed for bar-ends.) Or newer Shimano bar-ends have a shorter stick part than older versions of Shimano shifters have. Any ideas? (Particularly abot explanation 2.) <Q> You need to twist them around so they're not riding up. <S> Also at the very least grease inside the bar, but ideally grease the threads and every surface of the expander wedges. <A> Try the dirty finger gauge - push a finger into the ends of the old bars, and draw a line on your skin. <S> Then do the same on the new bars <S> - the line should be pretty much the same place relative to end of bars. <S> And the inside should feel about the same. <S> If there are ridges, or if the new bars close up inside quicker then that could be the cause. <S> I wonder if your old bars were steel, and the new ones are aluminium. <S> I have cut down some aluminium handlebars to make squirrel-bars, and found that the barplugs did not go in because the metal gets much thicker toward the middle. <S> Upshot - the alloy bars were only thin in the outer 2 cm whereas steel bars were consistent thickness. <A> After a while I'm back on this question, because finally the issue is solved. <S> A local frame builder (Thanks Myles!) did the following: <S> He reduced the diameter of the main bolt's conus. <S> He shortened the bolt a bit <S> Hi cleanend the inside of the handlebar (and possibly filed it slightly thinner). <S> Now the bar end shifters fit well:
|
I think your picture shows that the expander wedges are riding up on the ridged part of the shifter pod, which keeps them from being able to get small like they're supposed to, hence not fitting the bar they just came out of.
|
10-speed shifters work with one wheelset but not with another EDIT: Answer at the bottom Hi, all I have an issue with the shifting for my bike, a Giant TCR C1. It seems like the shifters for the Giant TCR work only with one 10s wheelset but not with another 10s wheelset. I have 2 bikes: a Giant TCR C1 & a Cannondale Giant TCR C1: Dura-Ace 10s Shifters Ultegra 11s Crankset Ultegra 10s Chain Dura-Ace 7800 Rear Derailleur Cannondale CAAD9 R5: Shimano 105 10s Shifters Shimano 105 10s Crankset Shimano 105 Chain Ultegra 10s Rear Derailleur I have 2 wheelsets: an Ultegra wheelset for my Giant TCR and a Shimano wheelset for my Cannondale. I'll be referring to the latter wheelset as my Cannondale wheelset . When I put the Cannondale wheelset on my Cannondale, the shifting works fine. Same for when I put in the Ultegra wheelset. I don't have to adjust the barrel adjuster to adjust the position of the chain. When I put the Cannondale wheelset on my Giant TCR, the shifting works fine also, albeit a bit more slowly on the descent from the biggest cog down to the small cog. However, when I put the Ultegra wheelset in, the shifting doesn't work properly. I have to adjust the barrel adjuster to align the chain with the cassette, and even then the shifting isn't smooth. It goes up fine but doesn't come down smoothly. It gets stuck in the biggest cog until I shift twice; then, it jumps the second-biggest cog and lands on the third-biggest. I adjust the barrel adjuster so that it descends properly, but then it has problems with shifting upwards, getting stuck on the smallest cog until I shift twice and then it goes up to the second cog. I had initially thought it was an issue with the shifters, 11s crankset, rear derailleur, or possibly the rear derailleur cable, on my Giant TCR. However, the shifting works fine when I have the 10s Cannondale wheelset on the Giant TCR, so those are not it. The Ultegra wheelset had originally had on it an 11-speed cassette, which I've swapped out for a 10-speed cassette. I had also initially thought it was an issue with the cassette, but the shifting works fine on my Cannondale when I put on the Ultegra wheelset with the 10-speed cassette, so I don't think it's an issue with the cassette. Does anybody have an idea on why this is happening? Solution It turns out that the issues were with the rear derailleur cable and the rear derailleur. The cable was bent in two places and the derailleur was either incompatible with the brifters or not fully functional. I've replaced the rear derailleur cable and swapped the Dura-Ace 7800 derailleur out for a Dura-Ace 7900 derailleur and the shifting has started working smoothly. <Q> It's very likely that an 11 to 10 speed cassette spacer was used on the 11spd wheel that's not exactly the Shimano-specified 1.85mm thickness. <S> There's some range in what thickness of spacer will physically do the job. <S> For example, people are always using 1.8mm Mavic cassette spacers for Shimano for the purpose, which works fine as long as you're not swapping wheels. <S> But the 11 speed Shimano freehub was designed to have a 1.85mm be the size to create interchangeability with 10 speed native hubs. <S> Once the cassettes are located right, chain/cassette wear and is worth looking at next. <S> It's possible but not likely for it to be the decisive factor. <A> everybody <S> Thanks for the responses. <S> The cable was bent in two places and the derailleur was either incompatible with the brifters or not fully functional. <S> I've replaced the rear derailleur cable and swapped the Dura-Ace 7800 derailleur out for a Dura-Ace 7900 derailleur and the shifting has started working smoothly. <A> Since it works smooth one way (Giant wheel ---> Cannondale) but not the reverse, I think the culprit is the Giant Dura-Ace 7800 Rear Derailleur. <S> Both wheels have 10 cogs, but it looks like the Cannondale cogs are larger and that the Giant derailleur is not capable of provide enough tension to shift properly or that the spring is overstretched and therefore got stuck in the largest cog.
|
It turns out that the issues were with the rear derailleur cable and the rear derailleur. If for some reason the hubs locate the cassettes differently even with the correct spacer, that would be surprising between two Shimano road hubs, but by the same token you could potentially use spacer tricks to compensate. Wear can have enough of an influence on shifting ability to cause these problems.
|
Where is the valve in my handpump - and what stopped it working? I have quite an old handpump that fits on my frame. It looks like it's called TOPEAK "miniDUALG - optimised for MTB/ROAD." It has a pressure guage and various bits that screw the handle to the body and the body to the end with the pressure/bar valve, with an interchangeable head that allows you to switch between Schrader and Presta / Woods/Dunlop valves. Last night, when I got a puncture, it wasn't working. The pump was placing as much resistance to pumping in as pulling out (I may even have been drawing air back out of the tyre, I can't remember). Somewhere, there must be a blockage which is stopping the one-way valve from working. But where is the air intake for the pump anyway? In the head (part of the valve adaptor), the middle (it has two sets of o-rings, with some cleverly designed stuff between them), or the handle (which has gaps in the screw thread down which air might flow from the outside — if that cup-shaped head seal would let it). Anyone got any suggestions? I'm baffled - but I don't want to throw away a perfectly good bike pump if I can repair it. <Q> If I understand correctly you're feeling the same pressure on the compression stroke as the extension stroke? <S> The mini dual g pumps air during both compression and extension strokes so this would be normal behaviour https://www.topeak.com/global/en/products/pumps/239-mini <A> First of all try to use the pump without any tire attached to it. <S> It might be that you have forgotten to unscrew the head, if there is a threaded cap, or the valve is stuck and you need to loosen it by pushing it down manually with the cap stem. <A> I would first check the parts that ar exposed to outside, those that are connected to the tube valve. <S> Something could be stuck in there. <S> Check <A> Thanks, guys. <S> I can't believe how swift and helpful were your responses (for such an ancient pump). <S> I think I may have it solved, thanks to all three of you. <S> Won't know for sure until I get out to my bike and pump a tyre. <S> Firstly, by the looks of things in daylight, the PSI guage is now registering pressure in each direction. <S> I had managed to pump in the end, last night (after loosening the screw-thread slightly at the handle and mid-section) — but, in the half-light of dusk, mistook the extra resistance on the upstroke to be suction; quite possibly, at first, the presta valve was obstructed or its seal not broken, so there would have been exceptional resistance. <S> That feature of pumping air into the tyre even on extension is really very clever. <S> Does that mean, do you suppose, that there might be two different air intakes - one in the handle, one at the other end of the pump? <S> Or is there just one at the front, with the two o-rings cleverly diverting air in opposite directions through some double ducted shaft?
|
If it works fine, check that the tire valve is not blocked.
|
threaded and threadless fork origin I was wondering why for a relatively long time the most common fork set-up was the threaded + quill stem one. Why? To me, it makes sense to try to have one point of failure for the the steering system of a bike (handlebar and fork), but it does not seem appropriate that said point of failure is hidden, requiring the disassembling of parts of the bike to be checked for its conditions. From the fork manufacturing point of view, threaded and threadless fork still share the design of the 2 tubes down and 1 tube coming up, with the possible failure at the connection between the two parts, so I see no reason for making the top part "shorter" and then having a stem reaching down into it to connect. This question states that threaded stem are stronger , but the "test"[a] does not convince to me as being reliable. I reserve myself to put here the answer, if I find something useful in the next weeks/months. [a] holding the front wheel between your feet and checking if you can turn the handlebar without turning the fork ... <Q> It depends what you mean by "a relatively long time". <S> You're looking to compare one against the other, but that is only possible now they both exist. <S> The threadless headset was patented in 1990. <S> So for the 100 years of safety bicycles before that point, there was no comparison to make. <S> Once it had been invented, it was quickly adopted by the world's bicycle manufacturers. <S> It may not be superior in every way, but things rarely are. <S> For a timescale on the changeover period, I give you the 1999 <S> Specialized Allez , which adopted a threadless stem over the previous year's threaded. <S> I regard Specialized as relatively responsive to cycling trends and it took about 9 years to see this innovation arrive on one of their mainstream, base model, road bikes. <S> In the grand scheme of things, ten years or so for this system to become widely adopted isn't such a long time. <A> The threaded design is good enough. <S> Sure it is heavier than necessary, flexy, has the single point of failure, the stem can seize in head tube, it is more expensive to manufacture and requires special wrenches to adjust, but none of these problems is exactly a showstopper. <S> On the other hand, it has the benefit that the height can be easily adjusted until the stem is stuck. <S> For a long time there was no strong incentive to invent a different system, but when threadless headsets were invented, they quickly took over the market. <A> In a word - tradition . <S> A bike looks like a bike because that's what bikes look like. <S> Quill stems and threaded headsets endured for so long as the normal will be at least partly because of this. <S> I was going to say that manufacturing requirements contribute, but the argument doesn't stack up for forks where the steerer length is either trimmed at install, or hidden by the top cap. <S> In short, Cycling suffers from a boat-anchor of "that's the way we always did it" compounded by UCI regulations mandating what bikes look like.
|
Threadless headsets are now effectively ubiquitous on all kinds of bicycle.
|
Cracked rim - adequate for trainer use? I'd just bought a used wheel, but didn't actually notice its quite serious crack on the sidewall of the rim (silly me, quite foolish to not inspect it). In this case, what are the odds of it failing, when used exclusively on a trainer? <Q> If it where a tiny crack and your trainer was the type that holds the weight by the skewer then maybe, but the damage shown may be too risky even to mount and inflate the tire onto it. <S> I think the outward pressure from the tire might further break the rim walls and expand them, causing contact with the bike. <S> If that happens while your'e spinning the tire it may cause serious damage to the frame. <S> It could also send debris in any direction that may damage your floor, furniture or cause injury to you or someone nearby. <S> EDIT: <S> Indeed the damage is in the area of the seam, but there are also two hit marks, on each side of the rim, on each side of the seam, and there is also what looks like a longitudinal crack (between the painted section and the brake track). <S> To me it seems this rim was bashed hardly right on the seam. <S> I think you better throw it away or make a lamp or other decorative object out of it... <S> Inspect the hub to see if it's worth keeping as a spare. <S> Maybe the spokes too. <A> That's the seam of the rim. <S> It's fine. <A> That looks like a pinned rim joint where the pin on that side of the rim is trying to break free. <S> What exact model wheel is that? <S> (There are three basic ways the rim material is joined into a hoop - welded, pinned, and sleeved. <S> Welded means the two ends are welded together then machined, pinned means two metal pins - one in each rim wall - are used to keep the ends aligned, and sleeved means a single sleeve fits on the inside of the rim to keep the two ends aligned. <S> For pinned and sleeved rims, the spoke tension pulling on the rim keeps the joint closed.) <S> And what does the other side of the rim look like? <S> Is it cracked, too? <S> If the other side isn't cracked, it should be relatively OK for trainer use. <S> so the most likely thing to happen would be a small chunk of rim would just fall off. <S> And that would be less likely to cause damage than a spoke failing while riding would, and such spoke failures are possible with most wheels. <S> But all that's assuming the rim material surrounding the pin on the other side of the rim is intact. <S> If the other side is visibly cracked, too, that's getting to the point where I personally wouldn't use the rim at all. <S> In any case, I wouldn't ride that rim off the trainer ever.
|
While it's possible that a failure while riding on the trainer could cause parts of the rim to damage other parts of the bike, that's probably not all that likely - the rim joint is held tight in place by the spoke tension
|
What are the main differences in Giant's Toughroad and Revolt drop-bar bike series? I'm at a bit of a loss trying to decide what sort of a (Giant) bike I should be looking towards. I used to have a Ribble Sportive 7005 from 2014 to 2017. I am now looking for something that would enable a better posture for a longer (50-150 km) ride on gravel, compact dirt, and tarmac. Firstly, I'm looking at Giant because it's one of the few reputable companies that offers anything in my area that I'd feel comfortable going with—including one of the only ones that have at least a slightly relevant model for trying out. I've been looking at the Giant's Revolt series, but the differences between the various options are not very well described by the company: Toughroad SLR GX : "When you’re unsure what lies ahead—smooth roads, gravel or dirt—and you relish the adventure of quiet backroads, this is the bike. With its lightweight aluminum frame, drop handlebars and rugged, high-volume tires, you’re ready for anything." Revolt : "Over half the world’s road are unpaved, offering ample opportunities for adventure on gravel, dirt and scenic byways. This lightweight aluminum all-rounder is the perfect way to explore roads you’ve always thought about but never ridden." Revolt Advanced : "Almost anything goes in gravel racing and riding. It’s a mixed-up challenge of speed, endurance and handling. This high-performance all-rounder does it all. It’s smooth, it’s efficient, and it’s your new best friend for pushing limits on roads, gravel and dirt." Revolt Advanced Pro : "Almost anything goes in gravel racing and riding. It’s a mixed-up challenge of speed, endurance and handling. This high-performance all-rounder does it all. It’s smooth, it’s efficient, and it’s your new best friend for pushing limits on roads, gravel and dirt." I tried a comparison on the Giant site , but it wasn't particularly helpful except for highlighting that the Toughroad SLR GX should be worse in nearly every category. It helps to know that the technologies marketed below in the Giant comparison table relate to bike construction techniques. Though the Toughroad SLR GX isn't marketed under the "Gravel" category, the description mentions relatively poor road conditions, and in the shop I went to, it was described as the "lower level Revolt". Some other companies (Kona and Bianchi) don't make such a Gravel/Adventure distinction. road.cc lists the Revolt 2020 model as one of its "best gravel & adventure bikes" while bicycling.com goes out of its way to make clear that the Revolt Advanced is not a touring bike (which to my ears is synonymous to adventure/gravel). Instead, bicycling.com recommends a non-drop bar Toughroad SLR as a touring bike (and even one of its best)—which makes no sense to me. Meanwhile, Specialized Sequoia Elite which is described in this review as "Gravel" (but coming out worse than Giant's Revolt Advanced) is marketed as a "touring rig" by Specialized so there's some overlap here. I've now also received the specifications for the Giant 2021 range: How important are the differences between these Giant's adventure/gravel drop-bar series'? Are any of these more suitable by their configuration for specific usages (e.g., racing, touring, forest-riding, etc)? Please note that answers which say "Go out and try them all" are extremely unhelpful in today's climate where a) many bike shops have been bought empty (e.g., Pelago everywhere), and b) some shops don't offer options for trying bikes in any case (e.g., Kona in my area). I was able to try a Giant Toughroad SLR GX for about 10 minutes, but that doesn't tell me how it would feel going for the 100th (nor the 20th...) kilometre. <Q> I think you are confused about the frame 'technologies' that Giant offers. <S> More boxes checked does not mean a better frame, the choices are mutually exclusive. ' <S> Advanced Composite' means a carbon fiber composite (CFC) frame. ' <S> ALUXX' means an aluminium alloy frame. <S> CFC frames are generally held to be superior to alloy ones. <S> I'll give you that the 'SL' and SLR postfixes are confusing, intuitively they would appears to indicate a progressively higher grade of either CFC or alloy construction, but the lowest spec bike has the SLR tag. <S> The 'gravel', and 'adventure' adjectives don't mean much. <S> Asking who are these bikes are for is a kind of meaningless question. <S> What you should do is find stores that have the bikes you are interested in, sit on the bikes and do some test rides. <A> A lot of the difference is in the components, and therefore price. <S> Sora/105/Ultegra drivetrains will make a big difference to their costs, as will the brakes (in-house/105/Ultegra), tyres and cranks <S> (the highest spec has carbon cranks). <S> So much of it is how much you're prepared to pay. <S> The more expensive components will be lighter of course. <S> Looking at the geometry of a couple of models the Toughroad has a longer wheelbase than the Revolt Advanced. <S> Almost all of this is in the chainstay length, meaning more heel clearance for panniers, important if like me <S> you've got big feet and long cranks (long legs). <S> One of the biggest differences will be the handling though: the Revolt Advanced has more rake and less trail on the forks (the headtube angle is the same for a given size). <S> According to this article that means quicker steering on the Revolt Advanced, or more stable on the Toughroad. <S> This is where test rides will most demonstrate the difference, as the cockpit geometry is within a few mm. <A> I am now looking for something that would enable a better posture for a longer (50-150 km) ride on gravel <S> All the various component specifications don't address that at all. <S> You need to look at frame geometry. <S> If by "better posture" you mean "more upright", in general between two very similar bicycle frames the frame with the taller headtube, shorter reach, and more upright seat tube will give a more upright posture. <S> And a longer wheelbase and more trail will give a more stable but less responsive ride that is likely to be less taxing on long rides. <S> Even then there's likely to be a huge overlap of possible positions that you can achieve on two close-but-not-quite-the-same frames. <S> Saddle positions are usually variable up-and-down by at least 10 to 20 cm and fore-and-aft by 5 to 10 cm. <S> Handlebar positions can usually be varied up-and-down about 10 to 20 cm and fore-and-aft by 5 to 8 cm. <S> That amount of saddle and bar variation is usually enough to change any bike from a "comfortable" touring-style posture to an aggressive racing posture, within some limits. <S> There might not be enough reach or the head tube may be too tall, for example, to get into a full back-flat race posture. <S> Or the reach may be too great to allow for a real upright posture. <S> Regarding the level of components? <S> IMO anything higher than 105 is overkill and only worth riding if someone else is paying for it.
|
It's very obvious that the Revolt Advanced is the better bike, and the Toughroad the inferior. Generally the Toughroad series sits below the Revolt in Giant's range, with a bit of overlap. Figure out which gives you the riding position, ride and handling you are looking for, then decide how much money you want to spend and which level in the range you want to get.
|
Can anyone help me with identify this Giant bike? I need a name for this bike so I can look into it. It's going to be sold to me but I don’t want to get ripped off. Thanks! <Q> You should ask the seller for all the information you need about the bike, because a) they should know more than we do and b) if they can't give it to you readily <S> then there is more risk that it is stolen. <S> These things do happen! <S> Don't tell the seller this, but the name is usually written on the frame . <S> If they can't manage that much then consider walking away. <A> It looks like a 2017 Giant Contend SL2 Disc: https://www.giant-bicycles.com/gb/contend-sl-2-disc-2017 . <S> The picture is quite grainy so it's hard to be 100% sure. <S> Check if it has the Giant Conduct disc brake system to be sure. <S> Here's the image in the linked product page for the 2017 Giant Contend SL2 Disc: <A> The top tube profile suggests an aluminium frame not carbon fibre, and <S> the thickness of the fork tines/legs suggest they are carbon fibre. <S> Both tyres are a bit low on air so pump them up before you test-ride it. <S> And you should absolutely test ride it before buying. <S> As long as its comfortable for you, then its a good bike. <S> Do note that Giant's "lifetime frame warranty" only applies to the original purchaser. <S> Look at the chain and drive train's state of wear, and look at rotors for wear. <S> You'll get an idea if its a low mileage garage queen or a worn-out commuter with tens of thousands of km on it.
|
When you test-ride, do a quick M check to make sure all the important parts are safe, not rattling or worn. Giant bikes aren't known for being counterfeited - the higher-end brands have much more of that. Looks like a nice bike - not very old because disk brakes have only been on road bikes in the last ~5 years.
|
Can I mix these SRAM Apex components with Shimano/Ofmega components on my bike temporarily? I own a Fausto Coppi vintage bike. Currently I have RSX shifters with Shimano exage 300EX front and rear derailleurs. I am switching my whole setup to accomodate 10 speed. My new wheels fit well. I have just ordered a SRAM Apex mini set. This comes with a 10 speed chain, shifters, cassette, rear derailleur and brakes. I do want to eventually switch out the bottom bracket and crankset but I currently have an Ofmega 52/42 crankset. I also want to switch out the front derailleur as well. I just want to know if this setup will not work or cause damage to components until I can replace the front derailleur, BB and crankset to match the Sram Apex set? So to be clear this will be SRAM Apex rear derailleur, shifters, cassette and chain. But the mixed components will be shimano Exage 300ex front derailleur and Ofmega 52/42 crankset. This is strictly temporary but I just want to know if it'll work okay. Thanks <Q> Proof's in the pudding, but generally you should be fine with this setup as long as the frame's OLD is large enough to take your new rear wheel hub. <S> The trick is to keep the front mech and shifter compatible with each other, and keep the rear mech and shifter and cassette compatible. <S> One interaction can be that the narrower width of the 10 speed chain takes longer to move chainrings at the front because the front mech's cage is for a wider chain. <S> For a beater bike you might squash the cage horizontally a bit, or learn to live with it. <S> Also the RSX shifter on the left of your bars will be mostly grey, and the new one on the right will be much more modern-looking. <S> A workaround here is to use a downtube shifter on the left for the front mech, and leave the left brifter as only a brake. <S> This was a thing in the 90s, noticeably some yellow texan. <A> The 10 speed chain is narrower than the chain your crankset was originally designed for. <S> This is not a fun situation, but if you shift very carefully (i.e. make sure to shift all the way quickly) and check that shift was successful before applying power, you might get away with it. <S> As already mentioned in other answer, front derailleur cable pull is also an issue. <S> If you keep the original downtube shifter, you can work around cage width issue by overshifting and letting the shifter back after chain has shifted. <A> Shimano STI brake lever shifters will not work with SRAM. <S> There are also many variants within Shimano's ranges over the years that have strange compatibility issues - some useful, others not. <S> If you are careful you can experiment but make sure you do your endstops BEFORE anything else. <S> Don't forget hanger alignment and B-Screw as well. <S> Good Luck
|
With narrower chain there is the risk that the chain slips between chainrings and is stuck there. With downtube shifters you could switch to friction mode and use any rear mech. The pull-rate (cable per click) on SRAM is very different from Shimano.
|
How do I use this style of hitch rack? I recently got this rack for free. Someone down the street had left it outside with a “free” sign. How do I actually use it? Do I need to buy straps to hold the bikes down? Am I missing a part? It seems like the bikes would immediately bounce out of the indents without any retention. <Q> Yes you must get something like a strap to hold the bikes in place. <S> Something that you can tighten down to retain the bike and will not loosen. <S> Nylon webbing straps with a tensioner are usually supplied with the rack when new. <S> Consider a strap and a lock for true zen-like peace of mind. <S> Bikes on these kinds of racks are surprisingly stable, but must be secured; when transporting anything on our vehicles we must ensure very little can go wrong. <A> I was hoping to find installation instructions for your rack with factory tie downs. <S> You have a Hollywood Racks HR600/610 from around 2000. <S> 2002 was the last year for a Traveler rack with arms like yours <S> Back then Hollywood Racks didn't have installation manuals on the web TRAVELER <S> 3 and 4 Bike Models <S> Available <S> Traveler is one of our most affordable hitch mount rack systems. <S> Assembles in just minutes, includes No Wobble lockable hitch pin and tilts down for easy cargo access. <S> Available for 1-1/4 & 2" receiver hitch. <S> The rack didn't come with any tie downs. <S> The other answers have great suggestions for fashioning your own tie down system <A> Best thing is use a couple of bungy cords to hole the frame to the horizontal bars. <S> A strop to stop the bikes slopping around, wraped around the upright post to stop the bikes sliding backwards should also be used as bungies are not the most reliable. <S> When tieing a bike down make sure it does not movve in a way that will cause damage, especially to things like deraileurs and (if a MTB) fork stancions. <S> 'Shuttle rash' is almost inevitable when carring bikes on these racks.
|
A bike lock could do double duty in retaining and securing the bike, but something that can be tensioned is preferable.
|
Switching from straight handle bar to drop down - which dual control lever would fit? I am currently looking for ways to modify my bike. I do have a straight handlebar equipped and I‘d like to switch to a drop down road bike handlebar. My drivetrain is built mostly from Shimano SLX parts MT600 36/26 Crank (2S) SLX M7020 Front Derailleur (2S) SLX M7000 11-42 (11S) Deore XT M8000 GS Rear Derailleur (11S) BR-MT200 Disc Brake SLX M7000 Shift Levers I'm having troubles figuring out which drop down brake shift Levers (aka dual control lever) from the Tiagra or Sora series could work with those parts (2x11 and disc brake). Is there any possibility at all upgrading the shift levers without changing anything else in the drivetrain? I‘d like to stay with Shimano parts, if possible. Kind regards <Q> What you are proposing to do is basically impossible. <S> There is no documented compatibility between Shimano mountain and road groupset components. <S> The derailleurs have different actuation ratios (how far the cage moves for a given length of cable pull). <S> MTB and road cassettes have different sprocket spacings. <S> I've not read about anyone experimenting with Shimano road levers and MTB hydraulic brake calipers <S> but I'd bet they are not compatible either. <S> You cannot replace the entire drivetrain and brakes. <S> An 11 speed cassette may not fit on a MTB freehub body and a road crank <S> won't fit in a wider MTB bottom bracket shell, and if you are contemplating buying a whole now groupset, just buy a whole new bike! <S> Another reason to not attempt this is that flat bar bike frames typically have a longer reach, <S> as the distance from the head tube to the flat bar grips is shorter <S> the the distance from the headtube to the hood or drop hand positions on a drop bar. <S> Flat to drop bar conversions typically need a very short stem which can negatively affect the steering. <A> A possible solution is this pair of brifters GX – Compatible with Shimano Dyna-Sys MTB Derailleurs <S> GX Shifters are sold as pairs and are compatible with Shimano 10 or 11 Speed Dyna-Sys Mountain Bike derailleurs. <S> You can select from double/triple chainring, and short/long pull brake travel, and 10/11/12 speed. <S> However I have no experience whatsoever with them or even with the company, so I am just saying "a commercial solution may exist". <S> I would say that staying with Shimano parts is next to impossible, and I second @Michael suggestion about carefully changing bar AND stem. <S> Your wrists should stay more or less in the same position on the drops as they are now. <A> There are three paths that each have pros and cons. <S> The Gevenalle levers mentioned in EarlGrey's answer and switch to mechanicals. <S> Any hydro 11spd STI with a Jtek Shiftmate 8. <S> The FD will be a minor kludge but typically can be made to work fine in this direction on a double. <S> You'll be trying your luck combining the STI with the BR-MT200. <S> They're not listed as compatible but a lot of people run such mismatches. <S> If you don't like it you can then just switch to a compatible caliper. <S> Albeit functional, MT200s are extremely basic anyway; you don't actually have a lot of money tied up in them. <S> If what you really want is hydro STIs with your existing gearing and a clutch, I believe this is the only way to get it. <S> I don't believe the Garbaruk GRX cage would help here if running a double is what you want to do, because it mainly exists to make RD-RX812 clear a 50t cog in a 1x (which may be another way to get where you want to be anyway, and note there that then you're not buying a left STI). <S> It would add a little total capacity, but probably not enough, and it would make your shifting bad with the 42. <S> There are no Sora or Tiagra STIs that help you here. <A> For hydraulic disc brakes you need at least Tiagra 4700. <S> Lower series only support mechanical brakes. <S> You need the ST 4720/25 levers - but that would only give you 10 speed. <S> You need the 105 series for 11 speed. <S> But you need to be careful with the MTB derailleur. <S> No road groupset has the same actuation ratio even if they use the same cassette (like GRX). <S> You will need some third-party products for the cable-pull ratio https://www.wolftoothcomponents.com/products/tanpan <S> http://www.jtekengineering.com/shiftmate/shiftmate-8/ <S> These are made precisely to allow road shifters and MTB derailleurs. <S> This is a useful combination for 1x setups. <S> Especially before there was GRX. <S> The brakes are also distinguished road/mountain <S> and I do not personally know about their compatibility with the other type of levers. <S> But many people report they work together. <A> There is one foolproof option but getting a new bike is probably cheaper. <S> You could get <S> GRX or Ultegra DI2 hydro STI's on your drops. <S> You would need to change your Rear Mech to XT DI2, Front Mech to XT DI2 and add all the associated parts such as battery and wiring. <S> Cost would be around $1000 and you would probably struggle to get a nice fit <S> and you'd need a very high rise stem. <S> Its a thing though - particularly on older MTB frames at 7/8/9 speed - see this thread here http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=94356 <S> Also google monstercross bikes.
|
Microshift BS-M11s with your existing derailleurs and switch to either mechanical brakes or Hylexes.
|
Identifying features of a mountain bike specific to a tall and heavy rider? I recently found some local bike trails that have everything from flat gravel to dirt bike jumps. I'm looking for a bike that can hold me through off road biking. I don't plan on doing any jumps or anything, but definitely offroad trails. I've looked around a bunch and haven't been able to find many bikes that have an actual weight limit listed. I'm hoping to find something around the middle of the price range, but I know most things for heavy guys tend to be a lot more expensive. I am brand new to biking so any and all tips are very much appreciated! I'm 6'3" (~190cm) and 325lbs (~147kg). <Q> I would be looking at bikes with frames made of steel. <S> A cro-moly frame will be most likely to meet the requirements you are looking for on your budget, and there are a lot of bikes with cro-moly frames available in different price ranges. <S> Companies like Trek and Diamond Back make high quality bikes in every price range, you would just have to look at how each bike specs out for weight limits. <S> Dont rule out alloy bikes, I just think they tend to fatigue faster under rigorous use. <S> There is a company called Zize Bikes that might interest you, although they look pricey. <A> WHEELS <S> In addition to frame, your wheels need consideration. <S> In modern terms, a rear might be 24-36 spokes, and a front is the same or slightly fewer. <S> More spokes means a stronger wheel. <S> The front wheel carries a little less of the overall load, but when braking can hold up to all of the load, so 32 spokes would be good there too. <S> Some wheels might have 48 spokes, which was possible on tandems, for load. <S> Any more than that and its likely to be a "lowrider" show bike - 96 was common, and they're totally for show not load. <S> ANSWER 32 spoke min, more is good, up to 48 spokes. <S> Ideally, avoid wheels with less than 32 or more than 48 spokes. <S> PEDALS <S> Separately, I'd avoid any clipless pedals. <S> Just stay with normal flat pedals and shoes. <S> A fall can be harder on a heavier person, and you also have more inertia/momentum to deal with. <S> Being clipped in can make a fall that much worse, and if you do have to walk out, then walking in flat shoes is generally more comfortable. <A> Aside from the frame and wheels, suspension quality will make a big difference in price and durability. <S> You will save money skipping rear suspension and going with a hardtail or even non-suspension bike. <S> Some strategies for saving money:1) <S> Buy used -- from a local dealer will cost a bit more but should mean the bike is in good mechanical shape.2) <S> Buy an older model -- bikes depreciate pretty quickly. <S> A 5 or even 10 year old quality midlevel bike from a name brand will be more durable and perform better than an el cheapo new bike.3) <S> One or two generations back is often a price/selection sweet spot. <S> Concrete suggestions: <S> Look at 29er bikes - they're an older generation than 27.5er bikes, and should be better suited to your large size. <S> Go with a hardtail; full suspension will be much more expensive. <S> Avoid the el cheapo entry-level spring-only suspension forks. <S> Consider bikes designed for AM (all mountain) rather than XC (cross country) as the former are intended for more impact/abuse. <S> If you find a bike that fits the bill except for non-robust wheels, you can always have custom wheel(s) built for you, with heavy-duty rims (like Rhyno-Lite), 32 or 36 heavy duty spokes, 3-cross spoke lacing. <S> You can get a quite decent if not super light heavy duty wheelset built for $200-300.Find a knowledgeable "real" local bike shop to work with for maintenance and repairs. <S> They will keep your bike safe and even help you figure out what is and what is not worth spending money on. <S> Note - <S> this is like finding a trustworthy auto mechanic -- you will have to solicit lots of opinions, check Yelp and see if you feel comfortable with them. <A> You'll probably want to upgrade to 4-pot brakes and larger rotors to give you more braking power and cooling ability. <S> Without enough pressure, you'll risk bottoming out the fork fairly often and end up damaging internals.
|
Ideally look for bikes with wheels have a high spoke count. Tires with "downhill casings" might also be nice to avoid pinch flats and damaging the rims. Buy an older technology generation (but not too old!) I'd recommend 32 spokes as a minimum for the rear wheel and 36 or more if you can do so. Finally, make sure whatever fork you get (if hardtail) is rated for your weight. Air forks usually have pressure limits and coil forks only have so many spring weights available.
|
The eyelets/braze-ons on my bike's seat stay are on the inside, not on the outside. Which Rear Rack will fit it, if any? I have a Trek X1 Cyclocross bike and I want to get a rear rack for my bike. I went to a bike shop and none of limited rear racks they had would fit my bike. The reason was because the eyelets or braze-ons on my bike are not on the outside of the seat stay as typical for a bike, but are on the inside. The second picture shows what I mean. Does anyone know which rear rack will work without adding any attachments? Much appreciated! <Q> Most racks that use the common stainless flat stock type upper struts can be made to fit. <S> Planet Bike Eco, Topeak MTX, and many more. <S> Getting them on will require reworking the struts. <S> Usually one must flatten the twisted end of the strut and put the twist back in further up to snake them in on arrangements like this without interfering with the brake cable. <S> I always use a vise to do the flattening, dummy it up, figure out where the new twist needs to be and mark it, then put it back in the vise clamped at the mark and use an adjustable wrench to do the twist. <S> But it depends on whether they have a clear shot at that point, because the aluminum rod type struts they use shouldn't be bent around. <A> The Pletscher quick rack system will attach directly to the seat tube, so no need for the eyelet. <S> https://www.pletscher.ch/index.php/en/products-en/carriers-en/quickrack-carriers-en They carry up to 25 kgs, as other racks. <S> Otherwise, the regular thing to attach the rack can probably be swapped inside/outside or left <S> /right to attach the rac to your eyelets. <A> Both Topeak and Tortec racks (many, not necessarily all designs) have a fair bit of adjustment from rails that can be slightly bent to fit. <S> I'm sure other brands do too <S> but these are the ones I'm most familiar with. <S> The Tortec Velocity <S> (I've got the slightly wider Velocity Hybrid) <S> for example has support rails that pivot and slide. <S> They're also aluminium and can be bent a little (though if bending near the holes, grip the whole flat bit in the jaws of a vice to avoid bending right at the hole). <S> As pictured it wouldn't work, but swap the arms over and you'd probably be close enough to bend them. <S> The Topeak Super Tourist <S> (several versions available) uses flat steel arms with a twist in. <S> They're slightly easier to bend, but it's harder to cut off the excess if that sticks out. <S> I've had to bend the arms to use a clamp on the seatstay with the noodle of a V-brake in the way. <S> This will all be much easier if you have a small bench vice and some mole grips (vice grips/self locking pliers), or just 2 pairs of the latter. <S> An adjustable spanner is also a good metal bending tool at this scale
|
Tubus and the many racks that copy their strut design can usually work by flipping the strut carriers in opposite from normal, which means they then have to be accessed with a ball-end tip only.
|
Resistance for different gear ratios Why are some gear ratios more difficult to pedal than others on a bicycle. It feels as though I’m missing some very simple piece of reasoning! <Q> It's the same with a car: you pull away from a stop in 1st gear in a car, not 4th, because the engine doesn't have enough torque to manage it in 4th. <A> Divide the chainring tooth count by the cog tooth count. <S> Multiply what you get by the circumference of the back tire. <S> That's how far one rotation of the cranks is moving the bike. <S> So why would that take the same amount of effort with two different gear ratios? <A> The amount of energy and power required to move your bicycle a certain distance at a certain speed should always be the same. <S> Power is torque times rotational speed. <S> Shifting gears allows you to choose between pedalling harder (i.e. more torque) or quicker (i.e. more rotations per minute). <S> There is a very small amount of losses in the transmission (like 3%) which can vary depending on the gears you use (like ±1% or 2%). <S> For example “cross chaining” (using the large chainring in the front and large sprocket in the back or vice versa) can increase losses. <S> With internal gear hubs it’s even more pronounced. <S> But you’ll probably be unable to feel (or even measure) it.
|
Different gear ratios offer different mechanical advantages, and let you divide or multiply your torque to suit different conditions. To add to Nathan's correct answer, the concept at work here is mechanical advantage .
|
How to mount tires without tire levers? Videos like this give the impression that mounting a tire with your hands only is stupidly easy. Now during my life I've mounted quite a few tires myself (probably ten times at least), always trying to make it without tire levers and always failing. Not only that, I always ended up needing quite some force even with tire levers to get that last bit over the edge (even broke a plastic lever once). Now I'm wondering, is this normal, and all the videos that are trying to tell you how easy it is are just using especially loose combinations of tire and rim? Or might I be missing anything? <Q> That video is of a relatively supple tire going on easy. <S> It's pretty blasé about the difficulties that can be encountered. <S> He does end at the valve, which is good because advice to do the contrary is one of the most parroted falsehoods in cycling, but he doesn't talk about why. <S> There is a universal truth of difficult clincher tire mounting situations, and it's simple. <S> You get the last part of the bead to go over easiest when on the whole rest of the wheel, but <S> especially 180° away, the two beads are pinched together down into the well of the rim and kissing each other. <S> And you must finish at the valve, because the valve is the spot on the wheel where the beads can sink into the rim well the least. <S> You can use force, tools, water, soap, pastes, and thinner rim strips to help accomplish this. <S> Sometimes even strong, skilled mechanics need or choose to employ some or all of those. <S> It is true that oftentimes brains and dexterity are enough, but not always, and not always on an average time expenditure basis either. <S> But the point is that if you want your maximum chance of doing it with hands alone, you have to focus your efforts on the above principle. <S> It's how clincher tires work <S> and there is no trick <S> that's anything but a rephrasing or play on it. <S> A side note <S> The basis for this is that doing it carelessly is a good way to ruin tubes and sometimes tires. <S> Tubes when the tube is being reefed on directly by the lever without the user noticing or caring, and tires when excess force is applied when the beads haven't been properly sunk into the rim well, as above, and instead are stuck and won't simply be coaxed in with force. <S> These situations are avoidable, although some tires don't make it easy. <S> I install a lot of 25, 28, and 32mm Marathon Pluses <S> and I usually finish with a tire lever because on balance I find things go smoother that way, but it requires being very careful that I'm not committing the above mistakes. <A> One technique is to use the "well" or valley in the rim. <S> The tyre wants to sit in the bead, so you have to actively squeeze the tyre bead together and make it sit in the lowest part of the rim. <S> This gives you slack which can be used at the other side to get the tyre over the rim. <S> Check out <S> How can I fit Schwalbe Marathon Plus 28-622 tires on a 622-16 rim? <S> for an existing answer that documents this more fully. <A> First of all, some tires are much easier to mount than others. <S> It just depends on how "tight" they are. <S> Secondly, some people have much stronger hands and fingers than I do. <S> I've seen others take a tire that I've been unable to mount and simply "roll" it onto the rim. <S> My take is if you need a lever, use it rather than kill yourself trying to get it on without them. <S> There is no shame in that! <A> I think it might be one of those skills you can't fully demonstrate in a video. <S> I struggled myself until I got a puncture on a ride with someone experienced who showed me. <S> Hopefully you know someone who can show you, if not a decent mechanic in an LBS might take a minute to show you, it will probably encourage them if you spend a bit of money in the LBS.
|
You've got some great answers already from the usual suspects, but I think another aspect is that it's much about the feel of it under your fingers, and where exactly your hands go to get the leverage on that particular combination of tyre and rim. : Sometimes you hear cyclists and mechanics advising against finishing the job with tire levers or using them for installation at all.
|
WD40 for crank arm There is visible rust where my left crank arm meets the bottom bracket which I believe is the cause of the creaking (only present when pedalling hard on left side). Is it okay to spray WD40 in there to get rid of the rust? ThanksMark <Q> However surface rust there shouldn't lead to creaking, because nothing should be moving against it, so I'd be more concerned with checking that everything is tight that should be tight, and moving parts move freely. <A> WD-40 is a penetrating oil. <S> It will happily creep past the seals of the bottom bracket and thin out the grease lubricating your bottom bracket bearings. <S> Once the grease has thinned, it won't lubricate the bearings as well, and it will want to work its way back out the same way <S> the WD-40 got in in the first place. <S> You'll end up needing to repack the BB more frequently (until the WD-40 finally wears off), or you end up wearing out the BB bearings and having to replace them. <S> Don't spray penetrating oil near seals that hold back grease. <A> you should first assure that your crank arms are properly tight on the bottom bracket spindle, then ride. <S> If you hear creaking, then check the bottom bracket.
|
WD40 won't actually get rid of rust, though it will slow the rate at which it gets worse, for a little while. The creaking could be from the bottom bracket.
|
Yes/no replace chainrings+cassette after chain failure? I had a pretty bad chain failure a couple of days ago. I bought the bike second hand about a year ago, and in all fairness I had not done much maintenance on it since. I discussed with a friend and after showing some images, he recommended to change the cassette and chainrings too . This is a nontrivial expense for me and he did not seem to be aware that the teeth on these rings are not supposed to be all exactly the same (so the recommendation might have been based on that judgment). I have thoroughly cleaned the cassette and chainrings, but find it hard to decide if they need replacement. After some research I figured that these parts should often be replaced even before they show visual tear, so I am choosing between trying only a new chain first, or not even bothering trying the old cassette+chainrings and getting new ones straight away. Should these parts be replaced, based on the attached images? Or should I try a new chain only first, then decide on the ride experience? I'm pretty new to cycling (maintenance), so any advice is welcome. Images of the chainrings: https://drive.google.com/file/d/171Y8GkHIazoUpsi193cJDTCLCSA303Gc/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bEjFhXYGA7bZACvhgLaKIaeVaGxng8G9/view?usp=sharing Images of the cassette: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LyLW_y22JIImM1SidEyc9fi3ChCFKJco/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GmMbabw11xpt9RADFe1GUCbcjix8FlpD/view?usp=sharing Image of the failed chain: <Q> Yes. <S> The cassette teeth are clearly worn, and the large chainring teeth have worn into characteristic shark fin shape. <S> If you use new chain with these, it will skip. <S> The small chainring looks still good. <A> You must be aware that in such a case, the best is to get a new full transmission (cassette+chain+rings), to be sure. <S> Depending on the usage, you may then change the chain only for 2/3 times without touching rings and cassette. <S> If you use a new part with too older others ones, then nothing will goes very well and you will worn the new part too rapidly. <A> There are four options for you, from lowest cost to highest: <S> Bend back the chain. <S> It might eventually break, though, and risk you falling over if you are pedaling standing up at the time. <S> Repair the chain. <S> Either buy a separate repair link, or buy a similar enough chain and take one link from it and put it in place of the bent one. <S> You can then ride it until it starts to skip due to wear. <S> Replace the chain completely. <S> This has a high likelihood of causing the chain to skip, but if it doesn't skip, it will slow down further wear of the chainrings and cassette. <S> Replace chain, chainrings and cassette. <S> Apart from the falling risk of 1, there is no reason not to try 2 or 3 before replacing everything. <A> It appears that the chain has been used way beyond it's useful service life. <S> That is, the chain stretch, is beyond 0.75%. <S> that has caused the big chain ring and the cassette to have excessive wear. <S> The small chain ring looks ok. <S> You will need to change out the cassette, big chainring, and the chain. <S> There is no easy way around this. <S> For future reference, you should get three times the chain use per cassette. <S> (If changed out before excessive wear).All the best in sourcing your components. <A> I would replace the twisted link with a master link (aka a powerlink) which is normally used as a chain joiner. <S> Then I'd ride the bike. <S> I'd ride it into the ground and wear it out as far as possible. <S> When the chains starts slipping then I'd change the cassette, chain, large-chainring, and <S> I'd check the jockey wheels too. <S> Yes its an expense, but you'll appreciate the difference. <S> If saving is hard, put a dollar/euro/pound in a jar every day you go for a ride. <S> Your little chainring looks perfect, almost never used and does not need replacing. <A> Don't know what everyone is smoking saying that is a massively worn cassette. <S> Only wear I see is big chainring. <S> Even then, the teeth on the big chainring are heavily profiled so they often look worn brand new. <S> As others have said - buy a master link and ride it. <S> Note <S> : if you change chains early enough, you can easily run 4-5 chains on a single cassette & set of rings. <S> If you let your cassette and chainrings wear too far, a new chain will slip. <S> However, your old chain on old cassette and old chainrings might still run just fine for a LONG time still. <S> Shifting will start to suffer before the chain starts to skip.
|
To me you can try to, in this order: change the chain and the largest chainring (completely worn), at least, change the cassette. Once replaced I'd keep a record of mileage (strava does this for me) and keep a better handle on how long each part should go before replacement is required.
|
Do I need a spacer between my cassette and freehub? I am fitting a modern Shimano 10-speed Hyperglide cassette ( CS-HG81-10 ) to an old Shimano 8 speed hub ( FH-M565 ). Fortunately, it is long enough (approx. 35mm) to take 10-speed. The hub came with a spacer and I am not sure if I should use it or not. I know that when fitting 9/10 speed to an 11 speed hub you should use a spacer, but I am going up from 8 to 10! The spacer measures 1mm. I can fit all sprockets with and without the spacer, however with the spacer the final sprocket will extend slightly over the end of the hub. How do I know if I need a spacer or not? <Q> My guess is that the spacer is for fitting 7 speed cassettes (which are narrower than 8-10 speed cassettes). <S> Try installing the cassette without the spacer, if you can tighten the lock ring up and it isn't bottoming out on the freehub, I think you are good. <A> Most Shimano 10-speed cassettes road cassettes come with a 1mm spacer. <S> It is intended to and should be installed whenever it can fit on the freehub body. <S> Mountain cassettes never include or use this spacer. <S> For cassettes that include it, in many instances the small cog overhang past the end of the freehub body will be marginal if the 1mm spacer is left out in an installation where it will fit, potentially causing the lockring to bottom out. <S> It's within possibility for this issue to develop or become noticeable over time, as cassette carriers and freehub bodies can have slight dimensional wear occur, particularly aluminum ones. <S> In the case of installations where other spacers are present, Mavic being the classic example, it should be installed in addition to the other spacers. <S> For the tall-spline Shimano 10-specific hubs, i.e. FH-7800 and WH-7800, the spacer will not fit and can be left out. <S> The spacer also exists to create cassette location interchangeability, i.e. for wheel swaps sans adjustment. <S> In other words, the design of the various hubs and 10-speed cassettes is intended to create the same dimensional relationship between the cassette and the dropout for an 8/9/10 hub with a 10-speed cassette that has its 1mm spacer installed, an FH-7800, an 8/9/10 hub with a Tiagra CS-4700 10-speed cassette (not tall spline compatible and doesn't come with the spacer), an 11-speed hub with the 1.85mm conversion spacer plus a 10-speed cassette with its included 1mm spacer, and a Mavic hub with the 1.8mm spacer for Shimano 8/9/10 cassettes plus a 10-speed cassette with its included 1mm spacer. <S> An 8/9/10 hub hub with a mountain 10 cassette will also put the cogs in the same place, although it probably won't work in the same bike as the road ones. <S> (Some cassette carriers have a lip for the spacer machined out). <A> You don't need the spacer. <S> You are correct, it is intended for when you are using a narrower cassette. <S> If you can torque the lock ring without the spacer it shouldn't be used. <S> It's likely that your derailleur will have the range to suit if it worked with your 8 cog cassette, so you should be able to tune and go. <S> If you haven't invested in a 10spd der yet, hold off and see if the old one works.
|
There may be some instances where leaving the spacer out on an installation where it will fit will create improper contact between the cassette and the shoulder of some freehub bodies.
|
Is my Shimano Deore SLX dérailleur a medium or long cage? I have a Scott E-Genius 730 Plus and would like to replace the rear dérailleur (the probable cause of difficulties described in my last question ). It's a Shimano Deore SLX Dyna-sys unit, it's for a 10-speed cassette, and has a code RD-M7000 stamped into a metal part of the body. The drive system does not have a front dérailleur. I have found a Shimano Deore M6000 Shadow+ 10 Speed Rear Mech , which I assume would fit. It asks me whether I want a medium or long cage, and I don't know. I was hoping I could find a Bill Of Materials ("BOM") for my bike, perhaps by looking it up on the Scott website by its frame number, or scouring through the supplied CD-ROM and manuals. None of these have provided much information, other than basic brand information that I already know. I have also looked at the Shimano website, but this does not seem to provide measurements (e.g. see this product ). The cassette is 11t to 36t, so based on this answer I have these calculations: Maximum Chainring Difference = 0 (there's only one chainring) Maximum Cassette Cog Difference = 25 Total Drivetrain Capacity = 25 Maximum Cassette Cog = 36 Based on the Total Drivetrain Capacity, that would point to me being able to use either Medium or Long (my Maximum Cassette Cog exceeds the 34 limitation, but that answer is nine years old, and some comments indicate that 36 is pretty normal). Of course Medium might be good in relation to ground clearance, but I might be tempted to go for Long if that's what I have already. What cage size do I have, and is there physical measurement data available that I could have used to answer this question for myself? <Q> That linked answer is great, but the lengths of derailleur cages have been increasing with successive generations, so those figures are out of date now. <S> You need to consider the size of largest cog which the derailleur is compatible with and compare the specs of the individual units. <S> The medium cage M6000-GS is suitable for cassettes where the largest cog is a 42T, while the long cage M6000-SGS works with cassettes where the largest cog is in the range 32-36 teeth. <S> If you were choosing between these two, then you would choose the SGS long cage <S> There's every likelihood that your bike currently has the RD-M7000-10-SGS for the same reason (also its the 10 speed one). <A> I'm certain by the looks of it <S> Referring to the Shimano Specification Chart one can see that the RD-M7000 is only available with the SGS length cage. <S> This makes it a little more versatile, being able to handle 1, 2 or 3x drive trains. <S> It has a high total capacity in other words. <S> The Deore RD-M6000 is a nice derailleur too. <S> I've seen on eBay some excellent deals on them. <S> And brand new as well. <S> Product endorsement is shunned here on Stack Exchange, however, one can find several objective areas to support the viewpoint that Shimano has an outstanding record of quality and value. <A> I found this very well articulated answer for you, which I feel lays out how to determine the right size for your drive train. <S> https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/7265/47206
|
Counterintuitively, the longer cage is actually compatible with the 36 tooth large cog you have, even though this 36 is smaller than many around today. your current SLX der is an SGS, or long, cage. The long SGS cage is able to handle the large amount of chain wrap involved on a 3x drivetrain.
|
Why are bicycles triangulated at the back but not at the front? I know that triangulation of structures makes them stiff. Why are bicycles stiff at the back but not at the front? <Q> Forks on bikes and motorcycles do pay either a weight or stiffness/strength penalty for their lack of triangulation. <S> One can imagine systems for steering the front hub with a linkage rather than a conventional cantilevered fork. <S> That sounds more heavy and complex than it's worth for a bicycle once you have it able to handle the full range of motion needed, but that's just a guess, and it's not say there's not some other application for such an idea. <S> One piece of the answer is that the main drawback to a cantilevered fork is that they're vulnerable to being smashed into things head-on. <S> If all else was equal that would be a nice vulnerability to eliminate, but it's hard to imagine a situation where all else is equal, especially considering the forces <S> the bike encounters in such incidents are quite high. <S> This is to say that a more triangulated design employed in a way that increases stiffness likely would be unwanted. <S> If you could keep it at the same stiffness but with less weight, I would say the main reason that doesn't exist is no one's been able to figure out how. <A> If the fork was also welded to the frame at the bottom, you would not be able to steer. <S> There are still two points of contact to the headset, the down tube and the top tube. <S> Also, the fork needs to be compliant and not totally stiff for good riding properties, otherwise the ride is too harsh and braking could also be bad. <S> In the back it works differently. <S> One sort of drags the rear wheel behind and it reacts to bumps and other forces differently. <S> Also the braking is very different. <S> And one does not steer the rear wheel. <A> A triangle is a truss. <S> Old bikes had trusses front and back. <S> Two (seat tube - chain stay - seat stay), and one <S> (seat tube, down tube top tube). <S> Suspension systems have required unique designs between manufacturers. <S> But a truss is a classic construction component and is the simplest way to add strength and stiffness to a frame. <A> As others have said there is basically no good way to add additional structure to the front wheel to triangulate the support for it without lots of extra weight and complications to allow it to turn and steer the bike. <S> It turns out we can make forks that are good enough without triangulation. <S> Also bear in mind that the rear part of a bike frame has to transmit forces from the crank though the chain to the rear wheel, which which means it has to be stiffer. <A> They are not necessarily stiffer in the back merely because that section more closely resembles a triangle. <S> The geometry and structure of a bicycle is more complex than that. <S> The primary purpose of a bike frame is to hold your weight over the wheels, stiffness isn't the main goal. <S> A relative amount of stiffness is necessary, but a little flex is good too. <S> Part of the purpose of putting rake into the fork is to allow for flex. <S> Modern mountain bike frames aren't stiff at all, and have pivots that allow for many inches of flex. <S> I have a carbon fiber cyclocross frame that is about the stiffest thing I have ever ridden and that doesn't make for the most pleasurable ride.
|
Good forks offer a degree of valuable micro suspension even if they're not suspension forks, and losing that just to be able to smash into things would not be a welcome compromise for most. As bikes and materials and construction methods have evolved manufacturers were able to develop designs that are not trusses - either by beefing up a single tube or some other geometry.
|
Why can't my rear shifter shift into low gears? I have an entry-level Trek mountain bike bought several years ago, with a Shimano derailleur. It's been hanging in my garage for the last few years, taken down only a few times for rides. I just did a ride with some hills, when I noticed it wouldn't shift into lower gears. It feels like there's so much tension in the cable that I can't physically move the shifter below gear 5. After spending hours this afternoon looking at bike repair videos and questions here trying to isolate the issue, I've found or done the following: the derailleur hanger is straight I can manually move the derailleur to the lowest position and it shifts down to the lowest gear fine I've cleaned out the shifter with WD40, and when I relieved the tension in the cable by taking it out of the little cable holders between the derailleur and shifter (sorry don't know correct terms); with the tension gone, the shifter moved easily between gears 1-8 when I had the cable unclipped as above so it was loose, I was able to move the cable housing up and down the cable easily; it didn't seem dirty or much friction, although I noticed the rear gears and derailleur were pretty dirty It hasn't had a tune up or any self-service in years. It just seems like there's so much tension in the cable that's preventing it from shifting down below gear 5. Also I noticed even when I can shift down from 8 thru 5 that the derailleur looks like it's barely moving. This is just when it's sitting still, although while moving I didn't have much trouble shifting between 5-7. <Q> It's a little unclear whether the shifter is refusing to get into the lower gears based on what the indicator is showing or if it's indicating lower gears than 5 <S> but nothing is happening in back. <S> Also I'm assuming by "lower" you mean larger cogs and that you don't have a Rapid Rise rear derailleur. <S> If the shifter is clicking from gear to gear but not moving the rear derailleur into the large cogs, it's likely you need a bunch more cable tension. <S> If you mean that it's having a hard time getting into the small cog (the high gears), then check to make sure there's not a cable housing end hung up on either a housing stop on the frame or <S> the where it enters the shifter or RD. <S> If you did happen to have Rapid Rise, either of the above problems can still occur, but the symptom that goes with each solution would be switched in terms of which end of the cassette you can't shift into. <S> Friction in the housings could cause this problem too but it sounds like you've eliminated that. <S> Make sure you've checked <S> all the RD housings - bikes can have 1, 2 or 3 of them depending on the design. <A> It sounds like you need a tune up. <S> If the cable is too loose or too tight, it wont shift properly. <S> My suggestion is that if your not great at working on bikes (like me), you should take it to your LBS and have them check it out. <S> Theyre most likely going to do a tune up though. <A> It ended up having something to do with the cable tension. <S> I ended up fixing it by taking the cables off whatever those things are called where they attach to the frame, sliding the housings around, and then re-attaching them. <S> Worked fine after that! <S> No idea why. <S> It seemed like you could adjust the tension between the 2-3 places where the cable housing attaches to the frame.
|
There are plenty of questions here about this, but the basic process is loosen the RD cable, screw the barrel adjuster(s) on the shifter and/or RD in, and fasten the cable back so that you have all the slack taken out, barely taut, then use the barrel adjusters to fine tune from there. This is one of the more common break-in type adjustments bikes need.
|
General question about small transmission changes I am trying to wrap my head around the benefit I may get out of small changes regarding my transmission ratio. Here is the premise: 11-42 cassette (Shimano M7000) 36-26 crankset (Shimano MT600) I found that I generally don‘t use the lowest gears much - if at all - as the hills around here are more like bumps in the landscape. That led me to wondering if maybe even small tweaks, like switching to a cassette with less teeth in the lowest gear as well a crank with more teeth would even be recognizable. To summarize : Would changing above mentioned cassette and crank to 11-40 cassette and 38-28 crankset even matter? I am very interested in your experiences and thoughts about such small changes. Supplementary question: would that change lead to compatibility issues? Thanks! <Q> I would say that changing the crankset by 2 teeth is not worth the money it costs. <S> At least try to only change the chainrings first. <S> Cassettes are much cheaper so it is more natural to start there. <S> However, your current derailleur has the minimum size of the largest cog 40, exactly as you proposed. <S> It won't do much. <S> So thinkink about also increasing the chainrings is natural. <S> You can calculate the difference using a gear calculator like http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com <S> The denser cassette can only help you to have smaller jumps between sprockets. <S> But with 11-speeds you don't have too large jumps and off-road <S> you don't need such finer ratios as road racer like. <S> So in the end the chainrings or, indeed, the whole crankset may be be a better investment. <S> This is your current setup <S> http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com/#29/2.10I1931I1370 <S> With 28-38 <S> you would get <S> http://gears.mtbcrosscountry.com/#29/2.10I1542I1370 <S> As you can see, your maximum speed at 80 rpm cadence would increase from 35.9 to 37.9 km/h. <S> That means you could keep your cadence lower at higher speed if you want, not that it would be any easier to go high speed. <S> Changing the cassette to 11-40 does only a very marginal change and I would only do that when having to buy a new one. <A> To start with, forget the math of the gear calculators. <S> You can use those later.... <S> If you are spinning out - is you cadence at 90-100 when spun out? <S> If not, leave the chain rings and work on spinning technique. <S> Changing the chain rings will help only for the times you are spinning out. <S> If you spinning out for a only a short percentage of the time, it may be best to accept it and use the time to perfect spinning fast and smooth. <S> Keep in mind an increase the size of the chain ring comes at the cost of larger speed jumps between gears. <S> If you are finding the jumps between gears are too large (i.e. can't get the right gear for the speed <S> so 'hunt' for a comfortable gear), reducing the size of the largest cog will reduce the size of jumps between the larger cogs- exactly how far it goes <S> depends on the specific cog sizes used in the cassettes. <S> Head out on ride that represents a high speed day you regularly have (e.g. a tail wind on a long down hill) <S> keeping in mind that 5% faster needs much more than 5% effort. <S> Now focus on <S> your slow speed - e.g. hill climb into a head wind - what is the lowest gear are you using? <S> Select a cassette with the largest cog the same size as the lowest gear you you want. <S> You may want to have a bit larger so you have another gear or two spare. <S> If you think you will increase the chain rings as well as change cassette, you may want a bit lower again <S> (26->28 is about 8%), <S> this is where you may want to reach for the gear inch calculators discussed in other questions.. <S> Overall the cost of dumping a good cassette and chain rings for 2 tooth differences is likely to be disappointing, but if replacing due wear, certainly worth while. <A> Changing the chainrings simply changes how fast or slow you can pedal. <S> A 5.5% larger chainring (e.g. changing from 36 to 38 teeth) allows you to keep pedalling at a 5.5% higher speed. <S> Of course this assumes that you are limited by how fast you can spin the pedals (and not by your fitness or road/trail conditions). <S> Going for a cassette with a narrower gear range reduces gear steps. <S> This is generally desirable because you can pick exactly the right gear for the current circumstances. <S> In a mountain bike it can be less of a problem because conditions usually change all the time. <S> But when you are riding on flat terrain for an hour and one gear is just a bit too easy while the next one is just a bit too hard <S> it’s annoying and less efficient. <S> If you compare the 11–40 cassette with the 11–42 cassette you can see that the steps between the larger cogs decrease. <S> Where you previously had a 17% step from 24 to 28 teeth you now have a 13% step from 24 to 27 teeth. <S> Of course at the same time the slowest speed you can go has increased from ~5.8km/h to ~6.05km/h because your largest cog is smaller. <S> https://ritzelrechner.de/?GR=DERS&KB=26&RZ=11,13,15,17,19,21,24,27,31,35,40&UF=2215&TF=90&SL=2.6&UN=KMH&DV=teeth&GR2=DERS&KB2=26&RZ2=11,13,15,17,19,21,24,28,32,37,42&UF2=2215 <S> 11–40 <S> on the top, 11–42 on the bottom. <S> With a single 26 teeth chainring: <A> The change in the lowest gear would be from 26/42 <S> = 13/21 = 0.619 <S> to 28/40 = 7/10 = 0.7 . <S> That is a relative change by 13% . <S> That's noticeable, but it's not much. <S> It's like losing a single gear on a finely stepped transmission. <S> The effect on your gear stepping will be very slight, and I'd wager not noticeable.
|
Ideally you want a cassette size that gives you the lowest gear you use on its largest cog. If you keep the the smallest cog 11T, which you have to, only larger chainrings can enable you higher speed in flat sections and downhill parts where you control the speed by your power. , pay attention to the high speed sections - how much are you spinning out and how much would you benefit by going 5% faster (36->38 is about 5%)
|
Friction shifting 9 speeds using an 11 speed rear derailleur I am interested in running a 1 x 9 drivetrain using an 11-speed Shimano 105 R7000 rear derailleur. If I'm friction shifting 9 speeds, will using an 11-speed derailleur cause issues? Or is it as simple as setting the limit screws to the proper positions. Would I need to use an 11-speed chain because of the derailleur? <Q> It won't necessarily just work, and there is a way of predicting whether it will with good accuracy, barring a borderline case. <S> If it's a Shimano 7, 8, 9, or 10 shifter in friction mode, it probably won't work. <S> Friction shifters have some variance in their total cable pull between models. <S> It's easy to measure by marking the cable and using a ruler or caliper to note the total movement of the mark. <S> Take that total cable pull number and multiply it by the actuation ratio of the rear derailleur. <S> For Shimano road 11, it's basically 1.4. <S> That number has to be equal to or greater than the total cog-to-cog distance of the cassette, which for Shimano 9 is about 34.8mm. <S> If it's less, the rear derailleur won't have enough total movement. <S> But it's pretty close to just being a ratio. <S> A 7/8/9/10 Shimano shifter in friction mode has a little bit of movement beyond where its last detent position would have been, but not very much. <S> Since these generations are designed to pair with a 1.7 actuation ratio rear derailleur, that small bit of movement is not likely to be enough to compensate for the fairly large difference in actuation ratio. <S> I don't have any experience putting 9-speed chains in 11-speed derailleurs. <S> Sometimes that direction of mismatch can cause rub between the derailleur inner cage and the chain. <S> 9 speed chains don't tend to experience this in 10 speed derailleurs and 11 speed chains are only something like 0.2mm narrower than 10, <S> so 0.1mm per side. <S> It will probably be fine to run 9 <S> but you could do 10 or 11 to be safe. <S> The shifting may be laggier but it's unlikely to matter with friction. <A> I don't thin there will be any problems being able to shift an 11 speed derailleur with a friction shifter. <S> You need to run a 9 speed chain on a 9 speed cassette. <S> There might be a problem with the wider 9 speed chain fitting in the R7000 derailleur cage. <S> The only anther problem I see is that you'd be wasting money if you buy an R7000 derailleur specifically for this purpose. <A> Nathan is right - the most important thing is that your shifter has enough cable pull to get the derailleur across the cassette. <S> A Shimano 11s derailleur has a 1.4 pull ratio, so to move it <S> 34.8mm <S> you need ~25mm of pull. <S> It should be more pleasant to use with a lower ratio derailleur as the cogs will feel further apart and be easier to trim. <S> It's worth noting that the sprocket pitches listed are averages - the smaller cogs will feel closer together and the bigger ones further apart as the derailleur doesn't move in a straight line. <S> Running an 11s chain with a 9s cassette will suck. <S> The outside width of the chain is narrower and it will fall between shifts. <S> FYI <S> my setup is 9s downtube friction shifting with 9s derailleur, but I'm looking at moving to 11s. <S> Trimming is tricky as the cogs are so close together <S> but you get used to it.
|
The reason there can be borderline cases is because rear derailleur movement for a given input is actually a curve, not a perfect ratio, and the exact start to finish value is going to depend on the high limit setting. Maybe talk to your LBS about running a 9s chain through an 11s derailleur, but I imagine it'll be fine.
|
Best setup for long distance? I’m looking to get a recumbent bike for travelling long weekends around Europe. I don’t know much about bikes and I’m looking at recumbent mainly for comfort reasons; I tried biking long trips on a normal bike and by butt was hurting quite a lot. I have a view quite specific questions: Which model should I look into buying as a total newbie? Considering my budget is around ~2000 euros Should I consider the electric assisted paddling ones? I’m super interested in these. Would buying a normal recumbent and then adding an electric motor later make sense? Can a regular recumbent fit another seat in the back? Curious since sometimes I may want to travel with a friend. Any help would be great! <Q> We don't give specific product recommendations here on Bicycles. <S> SE. <S> I will mention that because they are produced in smaller volumes, recumbents usually will be more expensive than conventional bikes with similar specifications. <S> Long-distance riding is not a great use case for electric bikes: you'll run it down before you get where you're going and will then be hauling the electric system as dead weight. <S> Or if you use it intermittently, you'll be hauling it around as dead weight the rest of the time. <S> And you'll need to arrange to recharge it where you're going. <S> I suspect the aftermarket system would be more expensive overall. <S> It would not be as well integrated. <S> There are tandem recumbents, but you can't just stick a seat on the back of a single recumbent. <S> If you're new to long-distance riding, you need to acclimate to it, and some minor changes to your current setup may make it more comfortable. <A> To be straight forward I would question your experience on the 'traditional' upright bike and how much thought went into your own personal body fit on that bike. <S> It's the difference between wearing an expensive piece of clothing that doesn't fit versus a cheap bit of clothing that does. <S> Whether that either piece of clothing is actually suitable for why you're wearing it is a seperate problem. <S> There is a lot marketing BS around with regards to bicycle fit; but it can boil downto a couple of different body proportions to get in the ball park set up. <A> Tadpole trikes (two wheels in the front, one in the back) are probably the easiest recumbents to ride since you're effectively on a beach chair with the handling dynamics of a go-cart. <S> No balance required, just don't flip the thing turning too fast. <S> Just keep in mind <S> it's also pretty disconcerting to be riding in traffic so low to the ground.
|
You would need to compare the prices of buying a bike with electric assist built in vs buying an aftermarket electrical system.
|
Is 160mm crank too short? I’ve done some research about crank length. When I’m riding foooool gas my knee is starting to hurt but when I’m just chilling in group rides I feel alright. My crank length at the moment is 172.5 and I’m thinking upgrading to a shorter crankset. My inseam is 30inches and by the formula I found on the internet by GCN. I should have a 160mm crank length. Is 160mm too short or should I just go buy the 165mm???? <Q> 160mm crank is abnormally short. <S> This doesn't mean that you shouldn't but as Axemasta mentions, you should have a bike fit before deciding what crank arm length you should have. <S> Plus you've not given any details about your bike or <S> it's size. <S> There are so many variables involved in knee pain, it would be foolish for anyone to suggest your first course of action to be crank arm length. <S> Bikes related variables for knee pain: <S> Overall wrong size frame Bad <S> saddle position (tilt and position on rail) <S> Stem too long <S> Handle tilt <S> Crank <S> length Pedal choice / fit Body related variables for knee pain: <S> Incorrect cycling technique Muscle imbalance <S> Muscle tightness <S> Non-optimal nutrition <S> These are just examples of a much larger list. <S> So, in my opinion, without finding the root cause of your issue, buying extremely short cranks should only be done <S> if you are 100% that is what you need. <S> And I don't think (with the information you have given) that will be what you need. <A> The formulas are a bit rubbish sadly. <S> Based on those, my crank length should be 200mm <S> and that's simply not available. <S> Feel free to disregard those as "average-sized person fairy tales" On the other hand, I do run 165mm cranks on my recumbent without issue. <S> They're hard to find but do exist. <S> You can also get a machinist or engineering shop to drill and tap some existing crank arms with new pedal holes. <A> I would first make sure that you're pedaling at reasonable cadences and not mashing at high torque <S> , lower rpm. <S> I also think incorrect saddle height (even pretty small changes of a few mm) matter more for me than the crank length does. <A> 165 is not really that short, all things considered. <S> I have no opinion whether they are right or not, but just know that running short cranks is not that "crazy" of an idea. <S> Also apparently there is a market for abnormally short cranks for those with knee problems or limited motion, so some bike shops have made a niche service of shortening cranks. <S> If you want very short cranks you may consider looking into unicycle cranks. <S> They fit normal square taper cranks but are available in extremely short lengths down to 75mm. <S> Some adaptation would be needed. <S> Also, Answer makes mini BMX cranks down to abnormally short sizes for 4-6 year old BMX racers. <S> Considering what BMX racers put them through, I would guess they are strong enough for normal use especially considering they are shorter. <S> That's another possible source of short cranks. <S> I prefer slightly shorter than normal cranks (170mm despite 6'1" height) for simple reason of ground and tire clearance, and have done so forever.
|
If you do some research you will find there is a school of thought who prefer shorter cranks or who even break with standard bike-fitting orthodoxy and claim that standard size cranks are too long. I have a few bikes with cranks ranging from 165mm to 175mm and don't find that it makes much of a difference (although perhaps that changes if you have known issues with knee-flexibility or stability).
|
Don't like upright position so which bike should I choose? Hi I used to cycle quite a lot and about 26 years ago bought a men's trek singletrack 970 which I loved. That eventually got stolen, and I haven't ridden for many years, but when I tried out some bikes at the beginning of the year they all felt like I was sitting upright which just felt wrong! I think times have changed with bikes (and I'm older so maybe not so flexible but hopefully don't have to go to a ladies bike yet!) But I would still like to try that geometry before I give up! Any ideas of brands/models that might recreate that position? <Q> It’s awesome that you’re getting back into riding again. <S> MTB style bikes have gotten a lot more sit-uppy in the years since you last purchased a bike. <S> Their geometry has gotten a lot more slack and the headsets a lot shorter and <S> the wheels are bigger <S> so you tend to sit “in” the bike rather than stretched over the top of the bike. <S> This might be an occasion where you should talk to your local bike store to see if an MTB is still what you want or whether a gravel bike which is a modified road bike with fat tyres but still has drop handlebars, might suit you better. <S> It really depends on the terrain you want to ride on. <S> Also some brands tend to be longer in the frame than others. <S> Good luck with your search. <A> This may not be the road you would like to go down, but have you considered buying used? <S> Instead of trying to find a new bike to recreate an old experience you enjoyed, why not try to find a quality used, refurbished bike similar to your beloved 970? <S> Bonus, if you do not end up enjoying the used bike, its value will not have decreased nearly as much as trying to sell a new bike that has now become used. <S> Less skin in the game overall, and could hopefully get most of your money back if you decide you want to go a different route. <A> Hi <S> I used to cycle quite a lot and about 26 years ago <S> bought a men's trek singletrack 970 which I loved. <S> That eventually got stolen, and I haven't ridden for many years, but when I tried out some bikes at the beginning of the year they all felt like I was sitting upright which just felt wrong! <S> You should seriously consider drop bars. <S> Drop bars have two major benefits over straight handlebars. <S> Firstly, drop bars are designed for an aerodynamic position where part of your weight is supported by your arms. <S> This is the opposite of an upright position typical on most straight bar bikes. <S> Secondly, because on very long rides your arms will become tired if you stay continuously in the most aerodynamic position possible, drop bars offer many other positions too. <S> You can keep your hands in the drops, in the hoods, in the corners and on the short straight section of the bar. <S> Thus, a drop bar bike allows at least four different positions some of which are more upright than others and some of which are more aerodynamic than others. <S> Don't believe the people that tell you that drop bars are not suitable for anything except smooth pavement. <S> You can perfectly well ride a drop bar bike in a forest trail. <S> Cyclocross is just like that; riding a drop bar bike outside of smooth pavement. <S> Heck, you can even have drop bars on a bike having suspension fork! <S> (I had such a bike after converting a straight bar bike with a suspension fork to drop bars.) <S> So, for example cyclocross bikes do not have suspension forks whereas many mountain bikes do.
|
However, you probably will find that drop bars allow you to easily use your arms as suspension, so with drop bars a suspension fork is not a necessity like it may be with straight bars. A good store might be able to recommend changes like a slightly longer headset to an off the rack bike to stretch you out a bit too. If riding outside smooth pavement often, just put some wide tires with a non-slick tread pattern.
|
What do I need to change to avoid 'bouncing' in my bike seat at high RPM? I've noticed while cycling on my road bike that, when I try to pedal very quickly, I start to 'bounce' a little in my seat. As in I'm lifting off the seat a little with each pedal, so feel I'm not harnessing the full strength of my legs. To avoid this, do I need to adjust my bike seat/handlebars? Or is this more relating to good cycling form? Or, perhaps, I just need to go up a gear at this point? <Q> Always have in mind that: Due to the mechanics of a bike, pedalling fast doesn't always mean you are biking faster. <S> In fact this is the very same reason why changing cogs of a crankset or cassette renders the bike easier or harder to bike uphill. <S> From your comment I would assume you may be pedalling too fast, i.e. you are not maintaining your cadence within your optimal "speed" (60-100 RPMs depending on your fitness, technique, etc). <S> As far as I understand - I am not a pro - when pedalling, you try to find a balance between strength and cadence. <S> Bike too fast with little load on your legs and you will be bouncy, bike slow with too much load and you will exhausted faster than needed. <S> Therefore I would suggest you ask yourself: Are you using adequate load when biking "fast"? <S> If not, I would suggest you pedal a bit slower but with more load (be that by shifting the front or rear speeds). <S> Hope this helps <A> In my experience I start to bounce at a high cadence (over 125-130) because even with some training it's hard to switch from pushing to pulling on the pedal that fast. <S> If you think about pedalling at a cadence of 120, that means 2 pedal strokes per foot per second, with each lasting about 2/10ths of a second. <S> So you have less than 1/10th of a second to come off your power stroke for the return. <S> If you're even 1/30th of a second late, your push will start to lift you off the saddle. <S> And you bounce a bit before you can recover. <S> With training, and even just experience building muscle memory, you'll be able to smoothly pedal at higher cadences, but you may not need to. <S> Most riders never need to be able to pedal over 100-110. <S> Being clipped in will help to, since instead of switching from "push" to "neutral," you switch from "push" to "pull" and engaging the opposing muscle groups will help with fast changes. <A> I've noticed while cycling on my road bike that, when I try to pedal very quickly, I start to 'bounce' a little in my seat. <S> As in I'm lifting off the seat a little with each pedal, so feel I'm not harnessing the full strength of my legs. <S> To avoid this, do I need to adjust my bike seat/handlebars? <S> Or is this more relating to good cycling form? <S> Or, perhaps, I just need to go up a gear at this point? <S> Most likely, you should just simply switch to a higher gear. <S> A needlessly high RPM is just wasting energy moving your legs up and down. <S> This energy is not usefully utilized to propel the bicycle forwards. <S> However, do check your seat height. <S> I had a 5-year break from cycling. <S> Now when I started cycling again (I have only cycled 100km after the break), I noticed my pedaling <S> RPM is significantly lower than it used to be. <S> If I try to pedal at high speeds, I feel I am unable to produce the needed power without rapidly tiring my legs. <S> I suspect my optimal RPM will go up as my muscles get used to cycling again after the break. <S> This legs-rapidly-tiring phenomenon is different from "bouncing". <S> If your legs are not strong enough, you feel you are just unable to produce useful power at high RPMs. <S> You don't "bounce". <S> So, your "bouncing" means that you are either using so ridiculously high pedaling speed that no active cyclist would use, or either your seat height needs to be adjusted. <A> As stated in other answers, the bouncing is coming from the pushing and pulling. <S> As also stated, it's possible to mitigate this over time by building muscle memory however, I think that the solution has to do with gearing. <S> It also may take time to build up the strength to achieve the point where you're going at a comfortable speed at a comfortable level of muscle discomfort. <S> In my experience, I usually see beginners bouncing in their seat while charging the first portions of a hill. <S> They don't quite have the strength built up to take it at a harder gear, but still want to go fast. <S> So they shift into something less difficult and pedal fast, but end up with the bounce.
|
Instead of pedaling faster, consider shifting into something that takes a little more strength so that you can get the desired power without the bouncing. Either too low or too high seat can cause problems.
|
I have a customized Salsa Journeyman Claris. How small can I go for my small chainring? I'm not sure how to verify compatibility It's a Salsa Journeyman Claris drop bar 650b converted to flat. The flat and drop frames are the same, but the drop comes with road bike components. I have already upgraded a Sunrace 11-40t cassette to the rear with the help of a Wolftooth Components Roadlink which leads me to about 20.06 gear inches. I currently have an FSA Adventure Tempo 30t/46t crankset in the front paired with the Shimano Claris front derailleur but was hoping to drop my small chainring to around 24t for the sweet, sweet, 16.5 gear inches. Is it as simple as an easy cog swap and a chain? I'm not sure what parts need to be compatible to make it work. Cheers all! <Q> The crank chainring bolt center diameter <S> (diameter of a circle that passes through the center of the chainring bolts) is what limits the maximum and minimum chainring sizes. <S> It's likely that you will not be able to get a much smaller chainring on the FSA crank. <S> To get to 24 tooth small rings you need an mountain bike crank. ' <S> Two-piece' MTB cranks made for external bearings in threaded frames or press-fit bearings are not compatible with road frames as they require a wider bottom bracket shell. <S> The FSA Tempo crank is three-piece for a tapered axle cassette type BB though, so you made have luck finding a three-piece MTB double crank with the chainring sizes you want. <S> Bear in mind you will probably have to change the BB as different crank models require different BB axles lengths. <A> Three things: <S> Can you mount the chainring on the crank? <S> This is mainly a function of the "bolt circle diameter". <S> Can the front derailer handle the smaller diameter ring? <S> This is a little tricky, but worst case <S> it's obvious, in that the chain guide will be rubbing on the bottom of the top chain segment if the ring is too small. <S> Can the rear derailer handle the increase in chain slack that will occur when on the smaller ring. <S> The rear derailer has a limit as to how many links of slack it can take up between large-large and small-small combinations. <A> The 46/30 FSA Tempo Adventure crank on the Journeyman uses proprietary chainrings. <S> The small one is an 80mm BCD, which is basically a size FSA made up for this crank. <S> The large one is 110mm but with counterbores on the opposite side from normal, so a standard 110mm ring won't fit. <S> Going all the way down to 24 once you have a crank where it's possible raises the question of what you'll run for a front derailleur setup. <S> Time was that arbitrarily large tooth count gaps, i.e. 46/24, between small and large on a cyclotouring double were relatively commonplace among enthusiasts, usually on TA or Stronglight touring cranks. <S> In exchange for the wide range, the shifting is clunky. <S> Indexed front shifting doesn't really work with that kind of gap on a double, so no modern systems have it <S> and it's not really seen anymore. <S> If you wanted to go to something like 24/36 on an MTB double, you could do that with an MTB shifter or thumbshifter and double FD with the right specs. <S> There are many questions here that cover the compatibility issues with doing it with your current shifter and/or FD. <S> If you want to use unorthodox chainring setups and you're staying with flatbar, I highly advise just getting any friction thumbshifter now for your left side and getting used to that. <S> It's cheap, works better than indexed for the most part once you're doing unusual things, and gives you more freedom to do what you want.
|
Check that your front derailleur can accommodate the difference between chainrings on the crank you select, and can be dropped far enough down the seatpost. You presently have no options for smaller rings, larger rings, or other rings.
|
New chain for old bike I came into possession of an old Mongoose 3.5 that I need to buy a chain for. Unfortunately, I know very little about how to properly purchase the correct chain for a bike I can find very little information for. No bike shops around here are available to service it. The bike has a rear cartridge with 7 speeds and a pedal cartridge with 3 speeds. I am also not sure if I need to replace anything else. The rust on the derailleurs looks like it can be scraped off and I can clean the rest of the bike. <Q> You’ll have to shorten it by a few links after purchase (they’re sold excessively long for funkier gear arrangements), which should be done with a specific chain tool. <S> This tool will also be needed in order to remove the current chain. <A> You need a chain suitable for a 7 speed drive train. <S> The manufacturer may specify it fits 6,7,and 8 speed or any combination of that. <S> As long as it says 7 speed it will work. <S> You will also need a bicycle chain tool. <S> This tool separates the chain so it can be removed. <S> It will also be needed to make your new chain the correct length. <S> The easiest way is to make the new chain have the same number of links as the old. <S> This is critical, the same number of links is not necessarily the same length. <S> As the chain wears it gets longer but the number of links will remain unchanged. <S> Reattaching the ends is easiest using a quick link which may come with the the new chain or be purchased separately. <S> So at this point you have to decide to invest dollars in the tool or just have your local bike shop do the job for you. <A> The reason for this is that the chain stretches over time as it wears. <S> When this happens the teeth of the gear block wear down to match the new distances between the links in the chain. <S> Then they don't match the new chain when it's replaced. <S> Whether or not this is necessary depends on how much wear the drive train has had. <S> After you change the chain, you can recognise this problem if the new chain slips over the gear block when you apply a lot of force (e.g. stand on the pedals). <S> In extreme cases the shock of this can cause a link in the chain to break (this was my experience). <S> Also looking at your photos, there's also rust on the block itself. <S> You might be OK, but be prepared for this extra work - you'll need a tool to get the back gear block off the wheel, and you may need a lot of force to get it free. <A> Shift the chain to the big chainring and then pluck at it, pulling it forward from the middle of the chainwheel. <S> If it pulls out enough so you can see light between the chainring and the links of the chain, the chain is probably stretched out enough to need replacement. <S> At any rate, you will need a chain tool to "break" the old chain and remove it from the bike. <S> Then, if you decide to re-use it (if it isn't too stretched out) you can soak it for a few hours in a coffee-can full of orange soda. <S> That works pretty well to dissolve rust; not as well as more expensive stuff, but tolerably. <S> A wire brush may help. <S> (Oh, and if you have a bit of extra bikechain lying around, practice with the chain tool. ) <S> If you buy a new chain, go for an ordinary chain for a 5-8 speed cassette. <S> You can get this kind of stuff online easily. <S> If you get one with a so-called "powerlink" you'll have an easier time putting it on the bike. <S> But you'll still need your chain tool because they always ship new chains with too many links and you'll have to remove a few. <S> Others have said you may need to replace the cassette (rear gears) and chainrings (front gears) if the bike has been ridden hard for a long time with a stretched chain. <S> Happened to me once. <S> Pain in the neck. <S> May or may not cost more than the bike is worth. <S> If you get this chain situation fixed and you decide you like the bike, consider changing the brake pads, brake cables and housings, and shifter cables and housings. <S> In the 21st century you can watch online videos showing how to do all this stuff. <S> I know all this because I do a bike clinic every year with the kiddos at our local public housing project. <S> We pick through the bikes -- mostly cheap mart bikes -- that the cops picked up, and fix up the best ones. <S> Have fun! <S> It's really cool to be able to care for bikes. <A> I was going to suggest vinegar (acetic acid) <S> but this video very elegantly addresses a bunch of rust removal options including vinegar: quite interesting <S> You'll need to let it soak, then brush it clean, rinse it, dry it, and lube it, all quickly enough that you don't let it start rusting again!You should probably buy a new chain anyway, but you might get that one going in the meantime. <S> I've used vinegar before <S> , it's slow <S> but I've been impressed.
|
It is quite possible that the rear gear block (cassette/freewheel) will need to be replaced along with the chain. All you need is a 7-speed chain.
|
Can 700x28c wheels and tires fit in my MTB frame? I have an old Giant MTB frame. It's got typical oversized aluminum tubing but with roadbike-esque triangle shapes. It's disc-brake compatible and I want to turn it into a commuter bike. The rear end has a radius limit of 343 mm. I currently don't have the resources nor the opportunity to test-fit. The theoretical tire radius seems to fit just fine, but actual tires may deviate or vary slightly, hence my crowd-sourcing question. <Q> We can work out wheel approximate diameters. <S> Assuming tire height above the rim is about the same as its nominal width and the MTB frame will take a 50mm tire. <S> 559/2 + 50 <S> = 329mm 622/2 <S> + 28 = 339mm (+10mm) <S> The 700c tire might fit but bear in mind <S> you are also raising your bottom bracket 10mm, which will raise your position on the bike and affect handling to some extent. <S> The larger diameter wheel will also effectively increase the gear ratios. <S> Note that a 27.5" / 650b (584mm rim) with a 32mm tire comes out to the same diameter as the 559 with a 50mm tire. <S> 584/2 + 32 = 320mm <S> Finding 27.5" wheels with rims narrow enough to take a 32mm tire make <S> be tricky though. <A> @GregoryLeo another side-thought is gearing changes. <S> Some assumptions - the bike is a 48/38/28 triple, with an 11-32 cassette (number of gears is irrelevant here) <S> and I've assumed a 559-54 tyre, <S> so ~54 <S> mm wide. <S> 48 <S> 38 28 tooth chainring11 <S> 113.2 89.6 <S> 66.012 <S> 103.8 82.1 <S> 60.514 <S> 88.9 <S> 70.4 <S> 51.916 <S> 77.8 <S> 61.6 <S> 45.418 <S> 69.2 <S> 54.8 <S> 40.4 <-- gear-inches, where bigger numbers21 <S> 59.3 <S> 46.9 <S> 34.6 are "harder" and smaller numbers 26 <S> 47.9 <S> 37.9 <S> 27.9 are "easier"32 <S> 38.9 30.8 22.7^Cassette gear <S> If you increase the wheel size to 622-32 and keep everything else the same: 48 38 28 tooth chainring11 <S> 117.8 <S> 93.3 <S> 68.712 <S> 108.0 85.5 <S> 63.014 <S> 92.6 <S> 73.3 <S> 54.016 <S> 81.0 <S> 64.1 <S> 47.318 <S> 72.0 <S> 57.0 <S> 42.021 <S> 61.7 <S> 48.9 <S> 36.026 <S> 49.8 <S> 39.5 <S> 29.132 <S> 40.5 32.1 23.6^Cassette gear <S> So your tailwind gear of 48-11 would be 4.1% further down the road on the bigger wheels for each pedal stroke. <S> Likewise, your grannie hillclimbing gear of 28-32 would be 4.0% harder than on the MTB wheels. <S> The upshot is all your gears move roughly halfway to the next gear. <S> Personally I think any gearing changes will be offset by the lower rolling resistance of road tyres and better aerodynamics, but if you depend on the lowest grannie for anything then it won't be quite as low as it was. <S> Tables calculated with https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gear-calc.html thanks to Saint Sheldon. <S> This gear calculator doesn't offer a 28mm tyre option in 622, so I chose the slightly higher of the two MTB tyre sizes to offset that. <A> is it a MTB frame for a 29" wheel originally? <S> then "probably" <S> But if its a smaller wheel size then your chance of success will drop. <S> You also need to check the OLD of your frame vs your proposed wheels - a road bike wheel is probably 100mm at the front and 135mm at the back, your frame could be one of the weirder MTB sizes depending on its age. <S> Since you're probably going to thinner tyres, again its more possible. <S> Do try a test fit before you get too far down the spending-money path! <S> Even if you just borrow some wheels for a static "fit" test, and leave all the transmission fiddling for later. <A> I think you'll find that most mountain and road bicycle wheels with mounted tires have the same outer radius (approximately). <S> A road bike has 622-28 tires, for an outer diameter of 678mm. <S> A mountain bike has something like 559-60 tires, for an outer diameter of 679mm. <S> However, what makes your plan fail is the brakes, if you have rim brakes. <S> Mountain bikes usually have V brakes; some older variants may have cantilever brakes. <S> There may not be enough adjustment possibility in the brakes to move the brake pads to track a 622mm rim -- and even if there is, the mechanical advantage of the brakes would change. <S> For example, a V brake where the pads are moved upwards has larger travel and smaller mechanical advantage. <S> Thus, stopping the bike would be difficult with excessively small mechanical advantage. <S> I don't see anything that would make the plan fail if you use disc brakes. <S> For rim brakes, you need to use 559-28 tires instead of 622-28 tires. <S> However, fitting narrow high performance tires won't make a mountain bike into a road bike. <S> You also need drop bars. <S> This may prove to be difficult. <S> I have a long time ago <S> converted a V braked hybrid bike (622mm rims) with cheap suspension fork into a drop bar bike.
|
Disk brakes are what make this a possibility - if you had rim brakes it would be quite unlikely. The rim size is smaller on the mountain bike only to allow mounting a larger tire size without making the outer radius excessively large. An old MTB will have used 26" wheels (559mm rims), you want to put 700c (662mm) rims on it with smaller tires.
|
Multiple flat tires on front My new bike is a Giant LaFree (electric pedal assist) with 26 x 2.35 tires. The tires are CST Metropolitan Palmbay.I have had multiple flats on the front. The leak is always on the inside of the tube in the same place, where the ribs are.My bike shop sells me Sunlite 26 x 1.95 - 2.125 tubes. I have changed the inner rim strips to cloth ones, I run the tires at 60 psi (recommended on the sidewall is 22 - 60 psi).I'm not sure what to try next.Thanks very much,Robert <Q> The Sunlight tubes I was using have a "ribbed" area near the valve stem. <S> Patches just did not hold in that ribbed area. <S> Inside the rim no sharp areas or spokes protruding, <S> but I added an additional cloth rim strip and a Continental brand tube purchased from a different shop. <S> It is holding for now, although this problem sometimes doesn't show up immediately. <S> Here's hoping it is a good fix. <S> ( later ) I am happy to report that changing to a different brand of tube (continental) and adding a second rim strip has solved my problem of multiple flat tires. <A> we once had a batch of cheap tubes that all punctured near the same spot. <S> i thought the odds of a defect like that were too long to take seriously <S> but we couldn't think of any other reason. <S> i know it's an unsatisfying and obvious answer, but i would try a different brand and see what happens. <S> if it still happens, well, i'm not sure. <S> even the sticky-backed cloth tape can shift around on the rim after installation, exposing spoke holes that could puncture. <S> if your rim strip still looks like it's installed correctly, observe how narrow the center channel of the rim is. <S> we used to have endless rim-side flats on cheap internet singlespeeds that came with rims that had an extremely narrow and deep channel. <S> the tubes would get pinched there, but the puncture wouldn't resemble a typical pinch-flat with the two snakebite holes, it would looks just like a normal puncture. <S> i contacter PureFix about it and they acknowledged the problem. <S> if your rim has a very narrow and deep channel in the middle that could be causing it - try double and trippling up your rim strip (use the cheap rubber band ones over the top of the cloth). <A> For the puncture to appear in the same place, means that the cause of the puncture is not moving. <S> A sharp edge will "fret" its way into the tube. <S> If the hole is at one point on the rim, check the area for burrs. <S> If you rotate the tyre around the rim some amount, do the new holes move with the tyre or do they stay in the same place on the rim? <S> If they move, that suggests the cause is embedded in your tyre and you need to look very closely. <S> A wire or shard of glass is the likely cause, though I once found a thorn hiding. <S> Aside - learn to patch your tubes. <S> A puncture should cost around 20c for a patch, not $5-$10 for a new tube every time. <S> I've got one tube with a dozen patches, and as long as the new hole isn't on a patch or near the valve, its worth trying to save the tube.
|
If the hole in the tube appears at a specific spoke hole, then check closely there for burrs.
|
Why do bike tires suffer from frequent punctures whereas car tires don't? I have driven in my life 200 000 km by car and 20 000 km by bike. In my car, I have never had a single puncture. In my bike, my puncture count probably exceeds 5. Why do bicycle tires suffer from frequent punctures whereas car tires do not? <Q> The main reason is that bicycle tyres are much, much thinner than car tyres. <S> A little tetrahedron of broken glass or a drawing pin that would puncture both tyre and tube on a bicycle won't trouble a car's tyre in the slightest. <S> A secondary reason is that bicycle tyres with tubes have additional ways to suffer punctures: an under-inflated tyre is susceptible to pinch flats. <S> It's pretty much as simple as that. <A> An unaddressed reason is speed-induced wind and the shape of modern roads. <S> Motor vehicles travel in a lane, and a roadway is generally two or more lanes in opposite directions. <S> As such, these two lanes meet at the centerline, which tracks the highest point on the sealed road surface. <S> For drainage, the road is not flat - all roads are intended to have some minor slope to assist rainwater to flow off. <S> Also, some corners are cambered, so that the shorter inside of the corner is lower than the longer outer edge. <S> Bringing it back to the question - we cyclists do not generally ride the centerline. <S> I ride on the outside of the road, which is where road detritus gets washed by rainwater, and debris also gets pushed here by the passage of cars. <S> You can see a similar effect on a flat road just before a traffic island - here's an extreme example, which is mostly gravel and organic leaf matter.... <S> ... <S> but I'd expect to find metal wire shards in there and possibly fragments of glass and plastic. <S> Nails, screws, and staples are normal road rubbish too. <S> Basically anything that can be "swept" by the passage of vehicles travelling at 50 or 80 or 100 km/h which creates a respectable breeze to sweep the lane clear and push the jank downhill to the sides. <S> The side (or shoulder) of the road is where we end up riding. <S> All of these items lie on the road surface, and get concentrated on the sides, and this contributes to punctures along with the other points raised in other answers. <A> Essentially all modern car tires have steel puncture-protection belts under the tread surface <A> As someone who's had three car tire punctures in 200'000 km, and one bike puncture in maybe 20'000 km, I'd say an individual result is simply not statistically significant. <S> With a car, if you do mostly highway and city driving, punctures are rare. <S> If you go on mountain or country roads, of frequently visit construction sites, railroad depots, junkyards and the like, you'd better have a spare tire ready. <S> The same is true for bicycles: going all-terrain is not the same as riding on dedicated bike lanes. <S> Other than that, causes of car and bike punctures actually have not that much of overlap. <S> Small glass shards which damage a bike tire are not a threat to cars, and sharp rocks / metal scraps which are dangerous for a car tire can be easily avoided on a bike. <A> I've got some on my bike from a well-known brand as I bought it <S> and I haven't had a single puncture yet. <S> For the same distance I would have expected 3 or 4 punctures on the tires I used previously. <S> However, this comes at a cost - higher rolling resistance. <S> Using the site linked below, I see a 9.3-watt power loss versus the race tires of the same brand at 8.3 bar pressure. <S> At lower pressures, the power loss is higher. <S> I'll probably get different tires when these wear out. <S> Conclusion: it's possible to make bike tires more puncture resistant, but at a cost. <S> It's much easier to change the tubes on a bicycle than to change the tires on a car, so <S> the trade-off for bicycles is different: people prefer to go faster with the occasional additional puncture. <S> Site that has a Rolling Resistance Test Result comparison option
|
There are puncture-resistant versions of popular road bike tires.
|
Are there any bike GPS computers / devices that can create routes themselves out on the road? In other words, I would want to be able to be in an arbitrary location and tell the device that I want to go to a specific destination (by entering an address or town name) and it would calculate a route from where I am to that destination and ideally re-calculate if I went off-course. From researching such devices, it seems that you need to prepare the routes at home and then physically copy them to the device, or download it through an app onto the device. I could cope with having to use a smart phone to create the route (by specifying a destination) and transfer that the GPS device, but I want to be able to do this out on the road. I do not have any experience at all with any bike GPS devices other than just purely to tell me speed (presumably all bike GPS devices can display the current speed). I only have experience with car sat-nav systems and the above is how they work. <Q> Yes. <S> The Garmin Edge 530/830/1030 can be loaded up with extensive map data, and can give you live routing, even without a cellular connection. <S> The Sigma Rox 12 also has extensive navigation functions. <S> Probably others. <S> The idea with these apps is mostly that you would use them instead of a dedicated bike computer, not together with one, but you can do that too. <S> They create a route stored in the cloud that you can sync down to your bike computer (using the phone as a hotspot, of course). <A> If you're up for a phone app, I've been using Navmii to do this recently. <S> It uses OpenStreetMap mapping and calculates its routes in the phone, not on some server. <S> So it works offline. <S> The maps include cycle paths and bridleways. <S> It carries some adverts <S> but there's an option to pay to turn them off. <S> I've not been using it long enough to give a detailed review <S> but it seems promising. <S> I have nothing to do with the company. <A> The Garmin Monterra can do that (and android-based Garmin GPS). <S> I say 'can' because apparently it is still for sale, but i am not sure i would actually recommend someone else to buy it. <S> You load an OpenStreetMap of the area, then the routes can change offline, and also depending on which mode you choose (walking, bike, road,..)
|
There are some smartphone apps that can do this—I think the best-known are Ride with GPS and Komoot. Wahoo's ELEMNT ROAM can also do routing on the fly.
|
Protecting Tires from House Cats I have a friend with several cats, one of which destroyed the material of their bike tires and is presumed to enjoy doing so.. having acquired new tires and tubes (but not yet put them on), how can we prevent the cat from chewing/scratching the new pair? We had thought bag the tires (no good; likely too thin and they love bags too) move the bike outside (no, it will definitely be stolen) spray the tires with lime juice, vinegar, etc. which the cat will find unpleasant (this at least works for ferrets which love chewing cables) decoy tires (see: cats on keyboards) some sort of removable, thick rubber coating (perhaps a second, larger pair of tires cut to fit over mounting) hard case for bike (probably too expensive) Other details bike is a Schwinn road bike without fenders no garage is available and it is impractical to store at my place the cats are otherwise delightful bike will be left unattended indoors for long periods of time (weekends/workday..) open to trading in the bike and getting something heftier if that's the only solution Likely also suitable for Pets StackExchange , but I doubt this is an unheard-of problem in this community <Q> Have you thought about a bike cover or bicycle wheel covers ? <S> If the cover isn’t suitable or the cats destroy it, you could easily make a bike stand from some 6mm mdf, make it wide enough to stand the bike in but tall enough to cover the wheels <S> If I was on a PC i would draw up a quick image / diagram of a simple stand. <A> I think your idea "some sort of removable, thick rubber coating ( <S> perhaps a second, larger pair of tires cut to fit over mounting)" would probably work. <S> I would store the bike upside down and use old mountain bike tires. <S> If that fails, perhaps try inexpensive hard plastic tubing used for underground sprinkler systems, about 1.5 inch diameter. <S> With luck the hardware store will split it for you lengthwise with tin shears. <A> Do the cats do it while people are around? <S> Yes, its slightly mean to the cats, but once they learn then the problem goes away. <S> Or store the bikes in a room with a closed door, keep the door closed.
|
This seems the most logical form of protection for little outlay, the most effective method would be to move the bike out of reach of the cats but if that’s not possible then a cover of some sort may suffice. If you have hydraulic brakes do not stand your bike upside down. Then a spray bottle of water can be used to deter them at the instant they start.
|
Are there any good reasons not to remove cantilever brake bosses in order to fit calliper brakes? I have a steel bike, with cantilever brakes . I much prefer calliper brakes. I'm planning to get the frame resprayed. Maybe this isn't such a great idea, but I'm wondering about having the cantilever braze-ons removed, in order to use callipers instead. To be clear (and to address some of the comments), removed by a frame-builder who knows what they're doing, not removed by me with a hacksaw in my garage. It so happens that versions of this bike were also built with callipers . Perhaps that makes it a marginally less bad idea... What do you think? <Q> A framebuilder could do this in a sound way. <S> The best approach is to do as much as possible cold, i.e. cut off the bulk of the posts and work the area back down to smooth with files and then sanding. <S> For the most part, it sounds like a giant hassle that accomplishes little and is founded on the misconception that cantis aren't good brakes. <S> One exception to that could be if there's something about the frame/fork design that made cantis a bad choice. <S> For example, if overly flexy stays or blades were used, performance with cantis can be lacking. <S> If this is the problem you're trying to address <S> and you're willing to go to this length to do it, going to direct mount centerpulls like Mafac, Herse, or Paul <S> would be far superior to a caliper in terms of braking power, assuming this bike has the kind of clearances that usually go along with cantilevers in the first place. <S> You haven't mentioned reach measurements, but in the more normal case that this is some kind of typical hybrid/touring/cx bike, it would probably need very long reach calipers to use the existing bridge and fork, although the bridge could in theory be moved. <S> You'd be giving up a lot of function. <S> That way you can use any reach-appropriate off the shelf modern caliper with a recessed nut front and rear without having to screw around with either adapting modern brakes to non-recessed nuts or working with the few extant options for stock non-recessed nut calipers. <S> I wonder if you're using basic smooth post low profile cantis and making the assumption that other types are equally hard to live with, or if the bike is set up to create excess shutter off the front brake. <S> These problems are all solvable with less extreme measures and certainly with better results than an ultra long reach caliper. <A> I'm planning to get the frame resprayed. <S> Maybe this isn't such a great idea, but I'm wondering about having the cantilever braze-ons removed, in order to use callipers instead. <S> If you want function over looks, remove the cantilever brakes, leave the posts there and cover the cantilever posts with epoxy. <S> Since epoxy is less durable than steel, it is very easy to remove the epoxy over the cantilever brake posts with a sharp tool <S> should you want to switch back to cantilevers. <S> The function of the epoxy is to prevent water from causing rust on the cantilever brake posts. <A> I'm sure you've confirmed that you have mounting points for caliper brakes, right? <S> Cutting off the canti bosses with a hacksaw will leave remnants that are not an improvement, aesthetically. <S> Assuming the canti bosses were brazed on, they could be removed with the application of heat, but that could weaken the tubes.
|
Those kinds of calipers are pretty mediocre brakes compared to a well set up cantilever. Getting the remnants smoothed out will take a lot of filing and sanding, but it can be done. If you want the bike set up to not have any use for long reach, and again assuming it's a clearance-heavy bike now, then probably the best path would be replace the fork entirely rather than rework it, and move the bridge.
|
Should my pedal be this shape or is it bent? I took my pedals off my old bike to grease them and I noticed that they were both splayed outwards on the outside edge. This means that either they sit on the top of the axle cup (if that is the name) on only one side. If they are in place on the outside cup the inside edge rolls round the nut of the axle. I wanted to replace the dust caps to stop them gunking up inside but it would cause them to sit in this position. Are they bent, should they be like this? If they are can I just bend them back? They need replacing at some point but I can't do it at the moment. <Q> Should my pedal be this shape or is it bent? <S> Yes, your pedal is bent. <S> I drew some straight lines on your photo to illustrate the places I see bends. <S> "Side A" is bowed in toward the pedal axle. <S> "Side B" - the ends are bent toward the crank arm. <S> In a more direct top down picture I think it would be clearer that your pedal is no longer a rectangle - a quadrilateral with four right angles - and that the whole pedal cage is off square. <S> can I bend them back? <S> Yes you can bend them back. <S> If you: Figure out exactly what it should look like. <S> Analyze where you need to bend to get it back to ideal <S> Carefully apply force in the correct place You can get it closer to the original but probably not perfect. <S> If they are in place on the outside cup the inside edge rolls round the nut of the axle. <S> I wanted to replace the dust caps to stop them gunking up inside but it would cause them to sit in this position. <S> I'm not sure what this means - possibly that the cage is no longer connected to the axle housing preventing the installation of the dust cap. <S> Straightening the cage may help, but it also might make it worse. <S> It might be best to ride what you have until you can afford to replace the pedals and not worry about the dust caps. <A> You could try to straighten things out. <S> I don't think that would make the situation worse. <S> But this is not an expensive pedal, and replacing it would be a faster, easier, and complete solution. <A> So I reshaped it <S> and it stays on the axle body now. <S> Thank you everyone for your advice.
|
If I am viewing this correctly, the backplate is bent inward, which would pull the other parts of the pedal out of alignment. Maybe look for some used pedals in better condition.
|
My child seems to have difficulties riding bike - would different tires help? My son is 6 years old, weighs about 20kg himself. The bike we have for him is this Merida Matts J20 which weighs about 13kg. His riding skills are fine but I get the feeling he's not comfortable on the bike. He often raises himself from the seat and rarely rides in a straight line, which frequently leads to minor accidents. We're not going fast - about 10km/h average - but it seems he still needs a lot of effort to keep going. The bicycle just doesn't seem to have nearly as much inertia as everyone else. This results in him standing up to deliver more power to the pedals and the aforementioned swerving when going too slow. And sure, the mass and its distribution is definitely a factor here; as well as him being easily distracted and not paying full attention to the road, but... feels like it should still be better than it is. I've tried spinning the wheels but they seem to be moving freely (although the rear wheel does slow down a bit faster than I would expect, but perhaps that's normal). The tire pressure also seems normal, but I'll check tomorrow with a meter. I'm wondering if perhaps tires could be a significant factor? They have a large protector like for off-road usage and we're riding almost exclusively on paved sidewalks: Would the bike handle better with smoother tires? Are there any other tips you might share that could help? Or is this just par for the course with 6 year olds? Update I increased the tire pressure to 3.5 bar (was below 2) and raised the seat by a few cm. This seems to have made a significant difference and he is riding better now. I also checked with a LBS that the rear wheel was turning normally. He still likes to raise himself from the seat but is now riding with less swerving and seems to require less effort. Here's a picture, maybe there's something else that can be gleaned: <Q> Not a helpful answer, but I would definitely find a lighter bike. <S> In the UK, Frog and Isla are popular makes for light bikes. <S> I would say a 20" wheel is OK for a 5-6 year old. <S> A single-speed Frog 52 <S> (20" wheels, 10" frame) weighs under 8kg. <S> Make sure the saddle is high enough, and raise it if he looks uncomfortable. <S> We bought ours second hand. <S> They are very expensive, but maintain their value, and we sold both of ours for a profit when both children had outgrown them. <S> I doubt tyres will make any difference. <A> That's a very big bike for a kid who is only 6 years old. <S> I'm guessing you have the saddle right down to help him get on it? <S> That could be another indication of a bike too big for the rider. <S> Perhaps ask another parent at school or someone else you know ? <S> You can always put the bigger bike away for a few years until he grows into it. <A> From your update it looks like you did all the right things. <S> In the photo, and after your tweaks, the bike looks to be correctly sized, he has a nice upright position and his elbows are slightly bent which is ideal. <S> The saddle height looks good as well. <S> Good job!! <S> As he gets more comfortable riding you might be able to raise the saddle ever so slightly to get a little more power, but that is more of an adult/advanced saddle position and it is better to be a tad too low than a tad too high as the latter can stress connective tissue more. <S> The rule of thumb is that you rotate the pedal away from you (the crank should follow the angle of the seat tube), and raise the saddle until your knee locks out (I.e., fully extended leg) when your heel is on the pedal. <S> This gives you a slight bend in the knee when the ball of the foot is on the pedal. <S> Children often ride on the middle of their foot so this rule of thumb may not always work as intended. <S> Beyond that I would not consider a new bike (as suggested elsewhere). <S> The bike looks fine, just ride what you have and have fun. <S> Raising out of the saddle can be an indicator of a number of things: <S> terrain may just require it; Gearing choice too hard for the terrain or starting (my children are constantly doing this despite my best suggestion/guidance); Lack of strength; and Incorrect fit <S> None of these are mutually exclusive so it could be a combination. <S> I would be careful not to over interpret this as an issue as it has been my experience that some of this is just growing pains associated with learning to ride a bike and when to do what. <S> Getting the hang of gear selection can be a big one, my eldest (9 years) <S> still refuses to ride in any gear but the hardest, even up hills. <S> So she struggles with her stubbornness. <S> In general pedaling out of the saddle is more powerful but more fatiguing. <S> It can be useful to take a closer look why the child is looking for more power.
|
As a start, I'd suggest getting him to test-ride another bike. Someone else's would be ideal and there's no cost. Both my children had Frog bikes and did fine. I see in the specs that this bike has 20 inch tyres.
|
What can I do to fix or replace this broken axle? I cased a jump badly and I broke either my bottom bracket or crank, I’m not sure which. What can I do to fix or replace this? Picture is of my broken bottom bracket or crankset. <Q> You've broken your bottom bracket's axle. <S> There is no way to safely reattach, so you're up for a replacement bottom bracket. <S> Ideally you'd install a cartridge BB <S> that duplicates what you have. <S> Dings are fine, chips maybe, and cracks are not. <S> You need a crank puller to get the sheared-off stub out of the crank arm. <S> I'm not sure if your bike uses a square taper or one of the newer standards <S> - the broken bit could be square or round. <S> Tools should be mostly common hand tools (ie a big spanner), and you will need a BB tool to fit the splines visible in your photo, and a crank extractor to push the nubbin out of the crank arm. <S> That last might be possible using a press or a hammer and brass drift, but only because its already off the bike. <S> A follow-on thought - to break a bike like this means either a very hard impact or a lack of maintenance on your part. <S> Based on the corrosion I can see in the photo, there's a part which was already cracked and exposed to the elements for long enough for rust to start. <S> Upshot - there was a fairly hard impact, and this was focused on pre-existing damage that you hadn't noticed. <S> I'd strongly recommend a good clean and de-grease of your entire bike, and go over it looking for other looming damage. <S> Or ask someone else to help with this - its easy to miss things. <A> As Criggie says, bottom bracket has to be replaced. <S> Axles in cartridge type bottom brackets cannot be removed or replaced. <S> They are held in by pressed in bearings. <S> I can see it's a square taper axle type the axles on Octalink and other splined types have a greater diameter). <S> Those are common and not hugely expensive. <S> Different model cranks need different bottom bracket axle lengths to achieve the correct chainline, you'll need to measure your axle length to find out what axle you need. <S> You also need to know if you have a 68mm or 73mm wide bottom bracket shell. <S> Bottom brackets and crank arms should also be installed with a torque wrench. <S> It's especially critical to get square taper crank arms tightened properly. <A> I'm going to throw this out there as even under close zoom, I can't tell for sure, <S> but.... <S> It's the crank arm that has busted leaving a chunk of itself still attached to the BB spindle (which is perhaps an Octalink or Isis interface. <S> It appears to be round). <S> Based on the photo showing misshapen, silver chunk I think that it is probably aluminum alloy which is a material of crankarms whereas BB spindles--especially hollow pipe ones like Isis and Octalink--are made from steel.
|
Note that special tools are required to remove and install bottom brackets, and a crank puller is needed to get crank arms off square taper axles. So your new BB has to match what the cranks fit onto, otherwise you'd need new cranks too and that's getting expensive. MTB cartridge bottom brackets fit both, but you need to know if you have a 68mm shell that requires two 2.5mm spacers to be installed. The crank arm (in your hand) is probably okay to reuse, though have a good clean and a close inspection before doing so.
|
Shimano shifter neither reaching top nor bottom gear So, I have the Shimano shifter, depicted below that selects from the 7 rear-wheel sprockets. To my surprise it no longer reaches highest nor lowest gear. At first I thought the cable could have lost tension, but that is not the case. Also, if it were the case, I would expect it not to reach lowest, but easily reach highest. What is going on with a shifter if it can't reach the extreme positions anymore?It used to work just fine. <Q> The common reason for a derailleur not getting to the high gears (smaller sprockets) is the cable hanging up in the cable housing and preventing the derailleur spring from moving the cage outwards. <S> First follow the cable run from the shifter to the check the cable housing is properly inserted in the shifter and all frame stops. <S> Detach the cable from the derailleur, tension the cable by pulling on it with a pair of pliers, work the shifter and make sure it shifts through all gears and pulls in and lest out the cable smoothly. <S> If the cable does not move through the housing smoothly take the cable out and wipe it off, if you still have problems replace the cable and housing. <S> With the back wheel of the ground, manually pedal and carefully push the derailleur cage in to make sure it will move between the smallest and largest sprockets. <S> If the derailleur range is too limited check the limit adjustments and look for anything jamming the parallelogram. <S> Reattach the shift cable and follow a guide for derailleur set up and adjustment. <S> Park Tool has a really good one . <S> Cleaning the chain, derailleur jockey wheels and sprockets and re-lubing the chain will help also. <A> If you don't have it, download a Shimano rear derailleur manual and follow the procedure for adjusting the limits, or follow one of the many Youtube videos, like this one . <S> The process is the same for most models. <S> The limit screws control how far the derailleur moves in or out. <A> First thing you should do is undo the bolt that's holding the shift cable until it's completely loose. <S> Then adjust the H screw until it sits perfectly on your highest gear. <S> Once you have that, then you should screw in the barrel adjuster on your handle bars all the way to the right. <S> Next, reattach the shift cable bolt to hold the cable tension; you want to hold the cable taught when you're screwing it in. <S> Not too tight, but not too loose. <S> From there try to shift up - if there's not enough tension <S> / it's not shifting, just twist the barrel adjuster to the left. <S> This will tighten the cable to allow the derailleur to shift properly. <S> Adjust the "L" screw until it sits in the lowest gear. <S> You also want to check that it's not going to over shift into the spokes of your rim, so it's safer to go closer to inwards than outwards. <S> (Your bike has a protector for that, so I don't think it is possible to shift into your spokes). <S> Lastly, you might get some inconsistent shifting somewhere in the middle of the cassette. <S> Shift to the lowest gear, and make sure that between the derailleur hanger cog and the gear that there's about a pinky length between them touching. <S> You don't want it too far apart <S> and you don't want it to touch the cassette. <S> If you're still getting inconsistent shifting, try small increment / decrement of barrel adjuster tension. <S> If that doesn't work, you either have a bent derailleur hanger or the incorrect derailleur for your cassette. <S> You should be able to Google this information pretty easily based on the model of your derailleur. <S> If the derailleur came on your bike new, you can basically phase out the possibility of it being the wrong derailleur.
|
Common reasons for a derailleur not getting to the low gears (larger sprockets) is the shift cable slipping through the pinch bolt that secures it on the derailleur, cable housing has come out of shifters or frame stops or bad adjustment via the barrel adjusters. Once it is shifting up and down consistently, it will most likely undershoot or overshoot the lowest gear.
|
What might be causing my inner tubes to get rips behind the valve? I'm on my third inner tube now and it's always the same problem: an oblong shaped rip on the part right behind the presta valve. I'm at a loss since instead of the valve side, these rips are appearing on the other side. I've been told this might be because the innertube gets folded inside but I'm always making sure to massage and bounce my tires. I really don't don't what to do since it's always just at the same place that this happens. <Q> I struggled with this once for a while. <S> One (duh) obvious thing to double-check. <S> Valves usually have a little knurled and threaded ring. <S> Otherwise it's a way to push part of the valve body into the tire. <S> The person writing this learned that the hard way. <S> Another (duh) <S> obvious thing ... make sure the tire pressure is correct. <S> Best move: get a floor pump with a gauge. <S> Third thing. <S> It will lubricate the interface between the tire and the tube to let the tube adjust its position within the tire a little bit. <S> That helps the tube from bunching up. <S> Careful: <S> Real talcum, not cornstarch powder. <S> Talcum's a mineral with lubricative properties. <S> And like other minerals that come in dust-tiny sizes (asbestos) <S> you REALLY don't want any in your lungs so be careful. <S> Handling the tire to spread out the powder doubles as a way to inspect it carefully for sharp stuff and other tire damage. <A> Check that the rim strip isn’t spinning. <S> It can spin during braking force and carry the tube with it tearing the tube away from the base of the valve. <S> If it is spinning you need to remove it and replace with a new strip or a few layers of tape of your favourite flavour. <A> Also check the rim itself, underneath the rim tape. <S> It is possible there's a sharper edge, a burr at a spoke hole or the valve hole. <S> If you find something, try and deburr it with a deburring tool, or a larger drill bit, or a small file, or even a sharp knife can trim aluminium.
|
Be sure to remove that ring before inserting the valve through the hole in the wheel, and replace it afterward. If you don't have a pressure gauge you should get one. Get yourself some talcum power, put a bit into the tire and spread it around, by rotating the tire in your hand.
|
How can I know if a crankset is compatible with my bike without physically seeing it? I'm using Shimano Tourney TX right now and would like to upgrade. I can only shop online and can't visit physical bike shops. I'm leaning towards SORA R3000 but I'm not sure if it has the same BB size as Tourney. <Q> In general, you may be able to check the bike manufacturer’s page for your bicycle. <S> They will usually list all the components the bike is built with. <S> However, the list may not be comprehensive, especially if the manufacturer mainly sells lower end brands. <S> Bottom bracket standards can be confusing, because there are a number of variations. <S> The Tourney crank takes a square taper bottom bracket, where there’s a square spindle in the BB. <S> The Sora crank takes a Hollowtech II bottom bracket; here, the spindle is integrated with the crank, not the BB, and the latter is a set of cups with bearings. <S> So, this is a different type of BB. <S> The term size is ambiguous here. <S> In general, in shopping for BBs, you need to consider the frame’s BB shell type, and the crank spindle type. <S> Do be aware that it is usually not economical to upgrade a lower-end bike piecemeal. <S> Bike manufacturers buy components in bulk from the group set manufacturers, and they get big discounts. <S> It is often more economical to just sell a lower-end bike and get a higher-end one. <S> Also, I’m not sure the Sora crankset will be a major upgrade from Tourney. <S> That said, if you are aware of this <S> and you still want to upgrade the crankset alone <S> , you shouldn’t let an Internet forum stop you. <A> If you can identify the specific part number on the crank (or just by looking at pictures online), Shimano provides a great deal of information online about compatibility. <S> For example, if you are using the current Tourney FC-TX801 crank, it uses a standard threaded square-taper bottom bracket, so any square taper crank will work. <S> The SORA R3000 crankset you are looking at <S> uses a Hollowtech II type bottom bracket, which is also threaded, but is not square taper, so in order to switch to SORA, you will have to replace the bottom bracket as well as the crank. <S> Bottom bracket bearings wear out, so it is common to replace both at the same time anyway. <S> In addition to the bottom bracket, however, there are other factors you need to consider. <S> First, SORA is a road bike group, while Tourney is for mountain bikes and hybrids. <S> That means your bike may have a 73 mm bottom bracket <S> (this is measured along the length of the cylinder that holds the bottom bracket). <S> The SORA R3000 is only designed for bottom brackets that are 68-70 mm. <S> Since the Tourney is compatible with 68-73 mm bottom brackets, it is possible that your bike has a 68 mm bottom bracket width and can use the SORA, but you need to check that. <S> I am basing this answer on these Shimano pages: <S> https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/tourney-tx800/FC-TX801.html https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/sora-r3000.html <A> Mixing mountain (Tourney TX) and road (Sora R3000) components is tricky at best. <S> But here the answer is easy because while the TX uses a square taper BB, the Sora crankset requires an outboard bottom bracket (cups threaded or pressed into the bikes BB shell with bearings that sit outside the shell). <S> See Shimano's Compatibility Chart . <S> These are completely different systems and you'd have to replace your sq taper BB with the outboard type to use Sora. <S> Further consideration must be given to the front derailleur. <S> Would it be large enough to handle the larger Sora crankset? <S> And would differing chainlines come into play? <S> Furthermore, as Sora is a 9 speed system, for best shifting and noise prevention, a 9 speed chain would be best to use. <S> A Tourney system is most likely going to have a wider 8speed chain. <S> One can sucessfully use different speed class system of front drive components if there's only one generation difference (replacing a crankset marketed for 8 speed with a 9 speed crank, a 10s crank can be used in a 9s, 10s, 11s system, etc). <S> To summerize, for your switch to a Sora crankset from the current Tourney, you will need to replace the bottom bracket, chain, and perhaps the front derailleur. <S> Then it must yield a workable chainline for best performance.
|
However, your frame most likely has a bottom bracket shell that is designed for threaded BBs, most likely with English threads. In this case, you could have looked at Shimano’s web pages for the Tourney and Sora groupsets. If the issue is that the chainrings are worn out, then just in case you aren’t aware, you should be able to get single replacement rings.
|
Bar end shifters onto a flat bar - temporary fix solution I have a bike in progress that will use Shimano bar end shifters, but I am putting on a Jones Loop Bar. I am ordering a set of Paul's Thumbies, but they will take over a month to reach me. In the meantime, my bike is my only vehicle. I am looking for how I can set it up in the interim until my Thumbies arrive. One solution I have seen is using hose clamps, one around the stem and one around the base of the shifter, to attach it to the bike. Another option I am considering is to put the bar ends into an accessory bar like this one below. I know the external diameter is 22.2 mm but nowhere lists and internal diameter. It is on a webstore, not a local shop, so I cannot just go measure it myself. Has anyone dealt done a similar conversion and have any success? Does anyone have other suggestions for how to get it to work for three or four weeks? Thank you! <Q> Go find a scrap donor bike - either check at the local refuse-resell shop, or a bike cooperative. <S> You're after one with friction lever shifters. <S> A simple friction shifter will move as many gears as you want, and won't cost a lot. <S> They're super-versatile and are well-worth holding onto for situations like this. <S> I used one to shift a quad-chainring bike, and it worked really well for that purpose. <A> Two options come to my mind. <S> However, the limit screws are designed mainly to adjust the limits, not put the derailleur to a middle gear. <S> Thus, you might find the limit screws are not long enough, and if you install a longer screw, you might find the limit screw misses the limiter. <S> Secondly, you can cut your chain to make your bike a single-speed one, route it directly instead of going through the rear derailleur. <S> Then when the components arrive, you make the chain longer again and route it through the rear derailleur. <S> However, to cut your chain, you need a reinforced connecting pin and to make it longer again, you need another reinforced connecting pin. <S> If using Shimano, you'll find these reinforced pins for sale. <S> In the history, all bikes used to be single speed ones until hub/derailleur gears were invented. <A> I wonder if it would fit inside the steerer tube? <S> After you’ve adjusted the headset bearing preload the cap and plug serve no purpose anymore <S> and you can just remove them. <S> With 28.6mm outer diameter and ~2mm wall thickness the tube would almost have a sufficiently small inner diameter. <S> Maybe add some tape or something else around the shifters’ clamping surface to increase their diameter? <S> The hose clamp solution also looks feasible. <S> You could make something nicer out of some sheet metal. <S> Just bend it into a ring of the correct diameter, leave two attachment points sticking out and clamp those attachment points to the stem.
|
Single speed is much less annoying than it sounds, if you choose the gear wisely. Firstly, you can try to adjust the limit screws of the derailleurs to make your bike a single-speed one. If using some other chain, I don't think you'll find any reinforced connecting pins at all -- a good reason to switch to Shimano chains as you should be carrying these reinforced connecting pins along with a mini chain tool in your emergency tool kit to be prepared for drivetrain failures.
|
What do you call the plastic bit that mounts brake cable housing to dedicated frame mounting spots? I lost a couple and have no idea what to search for online. <Q> Jagwire calls these "Hose Guide for Frame Loops" . <S> I've also found these under "Cable Guide" on Amazon. <A> The term slotted might help disambiguate from other search results. <A> They are possibly called "cable clamps". <S> For most frames that I've seen, they looked like this: <S> When lost, they are usually replaced by zip-ties, which are a better solution in the first place, from my perspective. <S> Your frame, however, looks to use a different type of clamps which act like inserts. <S> From the picture it is hard to tell whether the regular U-shaped clamps will work for you. <S> For them to work, you need matching holes in the cable stop/guide, e.g.: <S> A zip-tie around the tube will definitely work in your case, but it won't be equally aesthetically pleasing to look at, to be honest.
|
I just came across them at https://www.kineticbikebearings.com/kbb9038-slotted-cable-guide-pack-qty-20.html , called Slotted Cable Guides or slotted (wedge type) cable guide.
|
Increasing reliability of a hardtail MTB What affects the reliability of bike more, better suspension or heavier tyres? I have bought a hardtail (Rockrider ST520) with 80mm front travel and 27.5 x 2.0 all terrain tyres. The bike is meant for slightly rugged trails but I intend on taking it out on some fairly rough ground, it will probably hold as I am only 60kg but what upgrades are possible to increase its strength and reliability, should I invest in a better fork or heavier tyres? I'm a college student so finances are how you would expect them to be. <Q> There's no point replacing the fork. <S> A better fork will cost a significant fraction of the whole bike as a separate component. <S> If you want a better fork you should have spent the money buying a higher spec bike in the first place. <S> Go tubeless if your wheels allow for it as this will allow running lower pressure without risking pinch-flats. <A> Determining the weakest point is impossible to say. <S> What is going to fail first will depend on the terrain, speed and the aggressiveness of your riding style. <S> If you are new to mountain biking your perception of what is rough ground will be far different than that of a more experienced rider. <S> So just ride it until something fails. <S> You have what is best described as an entry level bike. <S> The weakest points are typically the fork and the wheels. <S> They are also the most expensive individual components on the bike. <S> When those components fail a new quality replacement can be near the cost of the whole bike. <S> At that point the most cost effective repair may be quality used parts or a used bike that already has heavier duty parts. <A> I would say that it is difficult to point a single (or a pair, or even 4) component that will make your bike more reliable . <S> I suggest you to check youtube videos from the United States of people doing mtb trails or rough roads on Walmart bicycle&similar cheap bicycle. <S> You will be surprised at how much abuse they will get, and you may get some idea about what to upgrade (in short: possibly everything, practically almost nothing?). <S> Even some cheap aluminium rims may take much more abuse than you expect, at least impact-wise (drops, steps, roots, rocks and so on...), although they will probably be off-centered after a few tens of kms and worn out after few thousands km). <S> Your bike is an entry-level, inexpensive all-rounder (knowing Decathlon&Walmart stuff, I guess your is a fairly priced bike, with a decent quality/price ratio, while Walmart bikes have often a very poor quality/price ratio ... and they are very cheap :) ! ). <S> Instead of going from tarmac to old glacier beds (what do you mean by failry rough ground? <S> can you add a picture or a description?) <S> , I would suggest you trying your set-up step-wise, i.e. travelling further and on more complicated terrain. <S> Keep in mind that if you have a major failure, you may end up walking home ...
|
A better fork will be more robust but replacing a major component is not cost effective. Wider tires are relatively inexpensive and will definitely help smooth out the trails.
|
Is passing traffic on the cars' passenger side ("Undertaking") with a bicycle frowned upon in the UK? Take the example where a bicycle lane is on the road, rather than the pavement. There is a queue of cars waiting at the lights, and the bike lane is clear right up to the lights. If you were to cycle right up to the lights, you would be passing all the queuing cars on the way, on the passenger side ("Undertaking"). Is this an example of "dangerous driving", or otherwise frowned upon (UK)? What if the cars were moving? What if there wasn't a bike lane, but you were staying to the side of the road so that other cars could overtake you if they wanted? <Q> As the previous answer states, you're perfectly within your rights to continue along the cycle lane in this situation, regardless of any cars to your right. <S> Some junctions even have advanced stop lines (see rule 178) , which are explicitly designed for exactly this purpose: allowing and encouraging bicycles to pass beyond the stopped cars and position themselves in front of other traffic (this is generally preferable, as it makes the cyclists much more visible to drivers). <S> You should of course still maintain awareness of the traffic (especially if there are large vehicles such as HGVs or buses, which often have significant blind spots), and be prepared to make a quick stop if it appears that a vehicle is about to cross the cycle lane. <S> But not only is this allowed for bikes, <S> See Rule 163 of the highway code : <S> Rule 163 Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. <S> You should: <S> [...] stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. <S> If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left [...] <S> (my emphasis) <S> Note also (admittedly now getting some way from the original question) that the points in rule 163 are governed by "You should", not "You must". <S> As explained in the Wording of the Highway Code , that indicates advice rather than legal requirements per se (failing to follow the advice can lead to liability in an accident, but isn't prohibited in itself). <A> Take the example where a bicycle lane in on the road, rather than the pavement. <S> There is a queue of cars waiting at the lights, and the bike lane is clear right up to the lights. <S> If you were to cycle right up to the lights, you would be undertaking all the queuing cars on the way. <S> Is this an example of "dangerous driving", or otherwise frowned upon (UK? <S> Absolutely not, you have a cycle lane allocated to you. <S> There’s no point to slow down because some cars next to you slow down. <S> You have a free path ahead of you so you can move forward. <S> I’ve seen people do this all the time. <S> It’s one of the main reasons cycling is better and quicker. <S> What if the cars were moving? <S> Same rules apply, you have a cycle lane, use it. <S> What if there wasn't a bike lane, but you were staying to the side of the road so that other cars could overtake you if they wanted? <S> That’s also fine, in fact you should stay at the side of the road (especially a busy one). <S> Ducking in the middle of the road could be “dangerous driving”. <A> This isn't the example situation described in the question, but it is what immediately what came to mind when I read the title, which is: Undertaking another cyclist whilst on a bicycle is in my experience extremely frowned upon, and to me (when I am the one being undertaken) feels very dangerous. <S> My rationale for why it feels like this to me is that as cyclists we have a constant sense of threat from motor traffic, and our "emergency escape route" is to move away from the traffic towards the side of the road. <S> Furthermore unless we have moved in to a separate lane away from the side of the road (for example if we are going straight on at a roundabout with a left-turn lane) we only expect (and therefore only check for) traffic coming from behind to appear on our right side. <S> Then the appearance or presence of an obstacle inside this emergency channel and in a position we would not normally check for before executing a leftward manouevre feels extremely sketchy. <A> As we talk about the UK, yes ride on to the stop stripe (or the lights) unless that gets you in an unsafe situation. <S> As many of the bike lanes in the UK are too narrow for cycling <S> when cars are stopped close, you may have to get off if you want to move forward, even when the car is in the proper position on the road. <S> And many of the bigger vehicles warn you not to pass while it is stationary, like stopped for a light. <S> I have seen those stickers on buses as well as on heavy goods vehicles. <S> If you need to pass one of those vehicles with such a sticker, consider staying behind it, (as the drivers may not check well for cyclists on the inside even though law tells them to do so.) <S> Too many lives have been lost in accidents where the driver did not see a bike next to the lorry. <S> Where the bike lane is safe to continue, wide enough and with enough separation cars do not cross it while turning, you should continue on.
|
in the specific situation you're asking about - passing traffic which is stopped at a red light - it's also perfectly fine (and indeed expected) for cars to undertake.
|
Broken rear brake - told it was unfixable I have an older model Trek mountain bike. I took it to the shop for an annual tuneup and they called me to say that the rear brake broke off the frame and that it can't be fixed. The entire brake is off the frame - is there really no fix for this situation? <Q> The brake pivot broke off the frame in a very unusual way. <S> A framebuilder may be able to contrive a pretty cheap way of fixing it by putting a new pivot stud in. <S> This would still require removing the paint in the area, but it wouldn't necessarily be that bad. <S> Minimum prices for framebuilders to even get into repair j jobs are typically in the $100-200 range in the US depending on where you are. <S> Removing and replacing the canti braze-on entirely would be technically easy but far more time consuming. <S> The offset needs to closely mirror the other side, so either both would need to be replaced or the left side replacement would need to be carefully selected and/or modified. <S> The bike shortage situation is such that some things that weren't worth it in the past might be now. <S> You could also fix it by just putting a long reach BMX sidepull caliper on the back, like an Odyssey 1999. <S> These are mediocre brakes but this would be a cheap way to get it functional again. <S> You would need to be careful to get one with long enough reach. <S> To be honest this is a pretty obvious path and it doesn't speak well of the shop to not suggest it, unless they did the measurements and found it was longer reach than brakes exist for. <S> It doesn't look like it though. <S> I see what happened and would not hold the shop at fault for it breaking in the first place. <S> The main way for it come off like that <S> is poor brazing at the factory. <A> So it looks like the cantilever brake stud was pressed/punched into the frame from the rear of the brake tab, like in this photo , about 25 years ago. <S> The non-invasive fix is to buy a replacement cantilever brake stud, example only linked and locate a suitabel lock washer and nut (better, two, if the replacement stud has enough thread) and lock that stud down tight. <S> This is well within the technical ability of any bike shop, but you may have more success if you find a shop that is more at the 'bike-freak' end of the spectrum or if you know a bike enthusiast who will invest the time in it for you. <S> Some shops may reject this as they are opening themselves up to liability from making 'creative' changes to safety critical parts of a bike. <A> You can get cantilever bosses with a threaded end that can be removed from frames if your using disc brakes. <S> That's definitely savable but it will take someone with an ounce of common sense to fix.
|
It's the kind of thing where a simple and fast fix may be possible but the equipment and skill to achieve it are costly. Over time and with braking this connection failed, and also maybe the bolt holding the canti arm onto the stud came loose and was lost.
|
Assemble gravel bike from parts Is there any guide or what should I know to assemble a bicycle from parts instead of buying a complete new one ? <Q> I have done it successfully, but it takes time, lots of time. <S> Over a year in one case, because I was trying to get the lowest prices I could find. <S> The time was spent looking for deals on certain components then researching if they were compatible with the frame and the other parts I purchased already. <S> If you aren't wrenching on bikes already you will need several hundred dollars in tools. <S> Some of the tools are specialized and have one purpose so unless you build another bike may never be used again. <A> Other answers have warned you off the idea and this is good advice, building a complete bike up from scratch is not the place to start learning about bike repair. <S> There are a number of bike build up videos on YouTube that a bit of searching will get you to. <S> These are probably about as close to a complete guide that you will find. <A> Another point to consider is warranty . <S> A collection of parts won't have anything significant, even if you buy a brand new part and bolt on, its function might be compromised by one of your other parts. <S> And some regions of the world alter/eliminate warranty period unless the part was installed by a qualified technician. <S> Compare, some new bikes have a "lifetime" frame warranty. <S> I've seen a Giant replaced completely when a chainstay weld parted after 10 years riding.
|
The first thing you need to know is it is almost always cheaper, faster and less work to buy an assembled bike than build it from parts.
|
Frequent punctures, is my weight the problem? 2 road bike. The rear tire keeps popping. I have replaced the rear rim and tube. Every time I go for a ride I inflate the tire to around 70-80psi. I am on the heavy side (310 lbs). What are my options. A stronger tube if they make one. Or a different bicycle in which case what do you recommend? <Q> Increased load (i.e rider weight) on a pneumatic tire does not increase the pressure in the tire. <S> The contact patch on the ground just increases in size until the contact patch area x pressure = load (or the rim contacts the ground). <S> What might be happening is you are getting pinch flats when hitting bumps or holes. <S> This is when the tire and tube are deformed so much by the impact that the tube gets pinched between the tire and the rim often resulting in two symmetrical holes in the tube. <S> 70-80 psi is on the low side for a road bike 28-23mm wide tires. <S> If you have clearance in your fork or frame run a wider tire. <S> Also if your wheels will support it consider running tubeless tires, which are of course not susceptible to pinch flats. <S> Trying to avoid bumps and holes in the road, and standing up slightly to absorb impact through bent arms and knees can also help avoid pinch flats. <A> Other than Argenti Apparatus' great advice, if you get punctures frequently, one of the following might also be the case: You may have a small sharp object stuck in your tyre. <S> Your rim tape may be worn out or misaligned, resulting in spoke holes rubbing through your tubes (happened to me personally, resulted in about 4 flats within a month before I realized it). <S> You say that you replaced the rim, so this is relatively unlikely, but still worth a check. <S> Your tyre may be too narrow for your rim. <A> As a 310lbs person, you absolutely must inflate your tires to the max rated value. <S> It's printed on the side of your tire. <S> For safety, it is advisable to also check the rating of your rim, as it also needs to withstand the tension of your tire. <S> If you ride at 80psi, that means that you have a contact area with the road <S> that's 310lbs/80psi <S> = 3.75inch^2 . <S> I.e. a patch of 1 inch x 3.75 inch (that's 2.5cm x 9.7cm), or similar. <S> That's a lot, more than your tires are designed to provide, and it means that your tires are squished flat by your weight. <S> There is simply not enough air between your rim and the road to carry you over potholes, roots, and other unevennesses in the road. <S> Instead, the rubber of your tube will be forced to carry you, and it will fail, giving you pairwise punctures where the rim has pressed through to the bottom of the tire. <S> Bikes are generally built for persons of norm weight (around 70kg). <S> Any person that's significantly more heavy needs to put the max. <S> rated pressure into their tires. <S> Not more because that's the maximum that the tire is built to handle, but lower pressure will increase the likelihood of pinch flats. <A> A lot of good advice so far. <S> Pinch flats are very likely, but also check the rim strip/tape which protects the tube from the spoke nipple ends on the rim itself. <S> ( the location of the punctures should offer a clue as to the cause of the punctures ) <S> Assuming you have the common 700x23c tires, I'd ditch those skinny tires and put some 700x28c tires on there instead. <S> I'd specifically recommend Continental Gatorskin tires, based on 1000s of miles of personal experience, if you can get them. <S> A properly inflated, larger tire, will be more comfortable, and have fewer pinch flats, while still offering acceptable rolling resistance. <A> Yes, good advice here, esp re: ”pinch flats“ —sometimes called “snakebites“ because you’ll see two parallel holes. <S> I learned this the hard way, too: check tire pressure is near or @ <S> the maximum psi printed on sidewall before every ride <S> , even *daily!Evidently, *all tubes lose air gradually; <S> under-inflation has caused three flats here in as many days. <S> Shop did not even mention inflation psi and assumed it was weight-related on our tandem (now my *former shop).Important tip to use your limbs as shock absorbers on street bikes.
|
You can try running higher pressure which will stop the tire from deforming as much.
|
Why is a damaged bike tyre a problem? I have seen / heard of cases where bike tyres get damaged (like for example riding on a flat). But what I don't fully understand is why the damage becomes a problem or whether the tyre actually needs replacing after being damaged or not. Can someone explain the full consequences of a damaged tyre and whether it should be replaced or not? <Q> Two things could happen: <S> You pump up the tube, and after a while, the side of the tire yields. <S> Usually when you´re sitting on the bike, because that increases the pressure a bit more. <S> Looks like it has the plague or something, develops a well visible bulb. <S> The bulb grows, and after a few moments or minutes poof (or bang if it´s a racing tire at 8 bars) <S> you´re out of air. <S> Can happen at a dangerous moment. <S> Usually you hear a funny sound of the bulb touching your frame before and have time to slow down. <S> You brake, and the side of the tire disintegrates under the sudden stress. <S> Perhaps more likely with lower pressure (otherwise (1) occurs before). <S> Complete loss of control if it´s the front wheel. <S> Both of these only happen when the carcass of the tire is damaged, due to riding on a flat (likely invisible), a maladjusted brake pad, or something else that has been making quite some noise while rubbing off the rubber down to the carcass. <S> Visible cracks in the rubber can grow for many years before the reinforcing fabric below is destroyed. <S> If you bend the tire, and pieces fall off, yes, then it´s had it. <S> The crack growth is sped up a lot by riding (or even letting the bike stand in a dry shed) with too low pressure. <S> Rubber that is bent + ozone from the air = <S> environmental stress cracking. <A> Can someone explain the full consequences of a damaged tyre and whether it should be replaced or not? <S> Depends on the level of damage. <S> Things like scuff on the sidewall that don't penetrate to the carcass (reinforcing fibers), cuts in or chunk taken out of the tread are generically not a problem. <S> If the damage is something that could cause the tire to fail, that's a safety issue and the tire should be replaced. <S> That includes any damage to the carcass, a hole that would allow the tube to herniate out of the tire or the rubber tread missing so that the carcass is visible and would contact the road, or damage to the bead. <S> Most of these things may cause a crash. <S> If a tire failure doesn't cause a crash the wheel rim may be damaged. <A> Beside the obvious potential crash damage there is potential damage from the tire failure. <S> If the tire rolls off the rim you could ruin the rim on the pavement before you can safely stop. <S> There is the chance the tire could catch the brake caliper damaging that also. <A> I once damaged my tire by pushing the bike when the tire was flat. <S> It was a quite new tire actually. <S> One day, when I came back to where I had parked my bike, it was flat. <S> Closer inspection revealed that the tire had exploded while the bike had been parked! <S> This was in winter and under a roof, so absolutely not temperature stress. <S> The point is a damaged tire can explode at any time. <S> You cannot trust them anymore . <S> Now, it's not a problem if it explodes while being parked. <S> However, if it explodes while you are riding downhill through a corner at 60km/h, it'll get you <S> at least a free ride into the hospital. <S> Unfortunately, tires tend to explode when they are stressed in one way or another, that those situations are those where an exploding tire is most dangerous. <S> Your life depends on your tires. <S> So ride tires that you can trust. <A> A sudden failure of the front tire is very likely to cause you to crash. <S> The tire can come off the rim or otherwise make you lose traction. <S> If you are lucky you are going straight at a slow pace. <S> If you are unlucky you are going through a turn at 50km/h <S> and there is a 100m drop at the side of the road. <S> A sudden failure of the rear tire is still bad but more stable and manageable. <A> As a very minor side effect, as a tyre wears and is damaged, the more rolling resistance it acquires. <S> Check out <S> this <S> https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-endurance-test where the sample tyres have added a watt of losses between new and the first 1000km checkin. <S> After that losses still grow but more slowly. <A> I get through two pairs of tires a year. <S> My rule is to replace a tire if... <S> There is a hole I can see through. <S> I can see any part of the white nylon/fabric layer from the outside <S> It gets more than one unexplained flat <S> It has more than 5000 miles (for a road tire) <S> It has any bulges or a broken bead <S> If you don't replace a damaged tire you will eventually get a flat which may cause you to crash. <S> Flats caused by damaged tires tend to be blow outs and cause serious crashes. <S> Note that the rear tire wears faster than the front. <S> Some people will move their front tire to the rear and put the new one on the front. <S> You don't always have to replace both tires at the same time.
|
A really damaged tire may puncture more readily, suddenly blowout, negatively affect braking or traction while cornering or come off the rim.
|
Correct frame size, will 56 and 58cm work? I'm new to bicycling (I have a 7 speed HEAVY beach cruiser I use for 10-20 mile rides). I am looking into used road bikes now. I checked several places to measure what size frame I should get for a road bike. Most recommend 56cm for me but some suggest a 58cm might be fine. Inside Leg: 31.75" (80.6cm)Height: 5'9" (175.2cm) I'm looking to buy used and a listing I'm highly considering was wrong and is 58cm instead of 56cm (it's a Cannondale SAECO). Should I stop pursuing this bike and wait for a 56cm frame or am I overthinking this? <Q> You have a few things to consider. <S> First a Cannondale 56cm geometry is not identical to a Giant, Specialized or likely any other brand. <S> Each brands designer has a specific goal in mind when they design a frame. <S> So you can make a generalized statement that you may usually ride a 56cm <S> it is not a hard and fast rule. <S> One thing to consider is with the advent of compact frame designs the dimensions become virtual. <S> This means that measuring the frame will yield a number other than 56cm. <S> If the frame isn't marked for size you have to verify manufacturers dimensions to determine size or ask the owner how tall they are. <S> The most critical is stand over height. <S> If you can't comfortably straddle the frame <S> it's too big. <S> It also has to be comfortable, if you haven't ridden a drop bar bike before it will likely feel awkward for the first few miles. <S> I would test ride a few 56s but don't overlook a 54 or two for test rides. <S> Similar to buying a house or car try not to fall in love with the first one you ride. <A> You'll really want to look at the specific geometry of the bike, rather than the seat-tube size. <S> As stated in the other answers, standover height is important, and should be shorter than your inseam by 1-2cm. <S> Besides that, Stack and Reach are probably the second most important measurements to consider. <S> If you can't try on a bike in person for pandemic reasons, there are many ways of calculating your "ideal" stack and reach by measuring various parts of your body and punching them into online calculators. <S> I'll leave a couple of links below. <S> https://www.competitivecyclist.com/Store/catalog/fitCalculatorBike.jsp <S> https://www.bikeexchange.com/promo/bike-size-calculator <A> That said, given you dimensions, the fact my height and inseam are within a cm of yours, and the fact I have trialed risen a large number of brands and <S> sizes I can say with a high degree of confidence that you will not be happy with a 58cm Cannondale road frame. <S> Their bikes tend to fit low and long, the 58 will be too long with out resorting to extreme measures (e.g., ultra short stem). <S> It might work as a flat bar road bike, as you typically want a longer top tube with a flat bar setup - but given that you are a beginner I doubt you want to undertake that costly change.
|
As many have pointed out in comments and answers, bike sizing is not an absolute but a “fit window,” where it is possible more than one frame size could work for a particular rider. The most important thing to remember is not size but fit.
|
What can I expect within a year? I've just started road cycling 1.5 months ago, I'm a 15 year old guy with no serious experience, my avg speed on a road bike is 16,8mph is that a good speed?, what can i expect in one year in terms of my speed? <Q> It really depends on your training. <S> I think nobody can give a definitive answer, especially since we don’t know your starting point (your average speed doesn’t tell much without knowing the duration, track, bicycle, conditions, effort etc. <S> etc. <S> etc.). <S> Since you seem to be focused on speed: Speed mostly depends on your power output versus weight (yours+bicycle) and aerodynamic drag. <S> This table gives an overview on how much power cyclists of various categories should be able to output (in watts per kg of body weight). <S> To compare bicycle performance it’s really best and easiest to use power or power per unit of mass. <S> If you want to track your training and progress you should consider getting a power meter. <S> You can play around with this calculator if you want to see how power affects speed: http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm <S> The “bad” news for you is that it’s a game of diminishing returns. <S> Using the default values for a road bike you can see that increasing power by a reasonable amount from 148W for 16.8mph (27km/h) to 180W only increases speed to 18mph (29km/h). <A> You're still young - at 15 <S> you are still growing , so work on endurance and technique, and not too much on raw power. <S> And remember its not about ultimate top speed, there's got to be an element of enjoyment too. <S> So work on enjoying your time on the bike, but also have a life off the bike. <A> This is really an unanswerable question. <S> You might have only moderate potential or be the next Peter Sagan. <S> We also know nothing about the area or environment you ride in - that ~17pmh/27kph in dead flat roads is not as good as on roads with a lot of climbing. <S> Also, how long are you holding that average speed for? <S> All you can really do is focus on getting better. <S> Start using a ride tracker such as Strava <S> so you can track progress. <S> Decide what type of riding you want to do: short fast rides, serious climbing or long distances?
|
Research cycling training for what you want to do, make a training plan and execute it.
|
Can non-tubeless-ready MTB tyres be used to go tubeless? I'm trying to understand whether it's necessary to buy a new tyre marked as tubeless-ready in order to go tubeless on my new MTB. Initially, I thought that going tubeless simply requires a sealant, tubeless-ready rims (or rims properly prepared with tape) and valves, and furthermore greatly benefits from having an air compressor at hand for easy assembly. However, upon closer inspection of the description of the bicycle I bought (Decathlon's Rockrider E-ST 900), the following is stated: "TUBELESS READY rims: you will need tubeless tyres, Presta valves, and puncture sealant". I didn't expect I would have to purchase new tyres, retailing at ca. EUR 50 each. Is it really necessary to buy tyres marked "tubeless-ready", or is the above list of requirements (i.e. valves, rims, sealant and an air compressor) sufficient for making tyres tubeless? If so, are there additional comprises or preparations to be made when using ordinary (non-tubeless-ready) tyres? On a side note, the tyres on the specific bicycle I bought are of the type Taipan Koloss (Hutchinson), 27.5x2.8in, and according to the manufacturer's website these tyres are already marked "tubeless ready", which introduces additional confusion. Another note, I noticed there are a few similar questions, but they do not seem to address the need of tubeless-readiness of tyres in particular. <Q> In general: It is beter to have tubeless ready (TLR) tyres, but the large volume MTB tyres often work well even when not explicitly TLR. <S> It is much less sensitive than road tyres. <S> However, it should not be a supercheap thin model, that obviously would not hold the air. <S> Also, wired models are less likely to seal well. <S> To your specific bike: Decathlon does sell some of the bikes with tubeless ready tyres (e.g., the gravel Triban). <S> And it is the case with your bicycle too. <S> If the manufacturer says it is TLR, there is no reason not to believe them. <S> It is also confirmed at the Decathlon page for the tyre <S> https://www.decathlon.co.uk/taipan-kolos-mountain-bike-tyre-275-x-28-id_8511989.html <S> Most better quality tyres for MTB are TLR, because it is a must these days. <S> MTB really needs tubeless for good performance. <A> Tubeless-ready rims have "shoulders" on the bed. <S> These hold the tire bead against the sidewall. <S> source <S> As the comparison of rim profiles shows, you can have a tubeless rim without hooks--which you need with tubed tires--and this suggests an important difference: <S> Tubed tires are held on at the top of the rim sidewall by the hooks, but tubeless tires are supposed to fit tight against the bottom of the sidewall. <S> Tubeless tires fit on the rim differently than tubed tires, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that tubeless tires are harder to mount. <S> I'm sure you can find people who have run tubed tires as tubeless and lived to tell the tale, but even orthodox tubeless tire setups are known to "burp" air sometimes--if you burped all the air out of an unorthodox setup (which has been known to happen) <S> you could wind up in the hospital (which has also been known to happen), obviating any savings from not buying new tires. <A> It's not strictly necessary. <S> In the early days of tubeless, one might have run a Stan's rim with whatever tire, and the resulting combination would be much like what you propose. <S> But, then and now, the quality and trustworthiness of the bead lock will be whatever you get. <S> It might burp, and will likely be able to under the right circumstances. <S> It will likely not be anything like equivalent to the grip of a proper contemporary tubeless tire on the same rim, i.e. difficult to get loose even when you try. <S> You can get some sense of this simply by how hard it is to unseat one bead now. <S> You may be able to improve things slightly by screwing around with extra layers of tape. <S> Not having to worry about inferior bead locking is a pretty big quality of life improvement. <S> So is only having to mess with setting up your tubeless once. <S> And also so is having good tires, which non-tubeless ones are not anymore. <S> You can rest assured that very little of the price tag went to what you've got. <S> Just get the real thing.
|
Tubeless technology is still evolving, but at least one rim manufacturer (Zipp, IIRC) argues that if your tubeless tire is riding up to the rim hooks, it's not fitting correctly anyhow, so hooks are redundant (this opinion is not universal).
|
Bike temporarily feels like it switches into a lower gear when rapidly braking? It’s hard to describe this, and I’m not sure whether there’s something wrong with my bike. Say I’m cycling along a long straight in sixth gear. If I brake enough to slow down rapidly (like round a corner) my bike suddenly acts as if it is in a lower gear (i.e. first gear), then after a few rotations of the pedals the bike snaps back into sixth. I find this infuriating as I suddenly need to pedal faster temporarily otherwise I will lose my speed. I spoke to a friend about this but they insisted it was intentional and due to the bike’s “Shimano gear system”, but I haven’t experienced this on other bikes at all (they remain at sixth at all times). Is there something wrong with my bike? And if so, what? Edit: Added some photos. It seems to be an Apollo bike from Halfords. <Q> This seems very much to be a case of freewheel/freehub pawls (the mechanism which allows the wheel to rotate without turning the cassette and pedals) sticking and not springing back into drive mode immediatly, after coasting. <S> You say when braking, but it might be when coasting or backpedaling before a corner, which happen alongside braking. <S> It usually happens when the lubricant in there gets old, thick and sticky. <S> Or if it's been contaminated somehow. <S> "I suddenly need to pedal faster temporarily <S> otherwise I will lose my speed" - this may be a sign of some partial pawl engagement, or it just seems like engagement because of excessive friction in there. <S> You can do it at home, there are instructional videos on Youtube on how to service freehubs and freewheels, but you'd need special tools, and sometimes they are not worth servicing. <S> I don't think the bike actually shifts gears. <S> You say the bike "feels like " and "acts as" if it is in a lower gear, and I'm pretty sure you'd have noticed the sound and feel in the pedals if actual shifts were taking place. <A> That is not an intentional feature and it should not be happening. <S> Check to see if the chain is in fact moving onto a larger sprocket under braking. <S> Find a area where you can ride safely in a straight line while looking down between your legs at the rear derailleur, hit the brakes and see what happens. <S> Alternatively have a friend ride behind you and observe (probably a different friend than the one who made assertions about intentional shifting). <S> If the derailleur is shifting, possibly what is happening is that movement of the suspended rear triangle is causing effective shortening of the gear cable which is pulling on the derailleur and shifting into a lower gear. <A> Gear 1-6 is a big jump - its roughly all the way up/down the cassette. <S> So I'm wondering if your bike's front mech is getting involved somehow. <S> Does this happen equally when on the big chainring as on the small ring? <S> When you reach for the brake levers, is it possible your hands are accidentally actuating the shifters ? <S> If they were road bike brifters <S> I'd wonder if the braking action is also rotating the shift part of the lever, but the front gears would make it harder, not easier, and the rear gears need 2~3 full swings to jump 6 gears. <S> This is a good puzzling question, thank you for asking it.
|
I would suspect not on a pod/trigger shifter, but your bike has grip shifters/twist shifters which might be reacting to the rotational input from your hands while braking. I'd analyse this carefully with the bike in a bike stand or upside down, or have it checked at a local bike shop and get the faulty part serviced or replaced.
|
Change Shimano GRX 1x to 2x This may be a stupid and uncommon (definitely seems so) question. Also forgive me for potential etiquette violations, as this is my first one on bike stackexchange. I'm thinking about buying a gravel bike ( nukeproof digger comp 2020 ) which has the Shimano GRX 1x11 drivetrain. Having almost no experience with gravel bikes, I'm just trying to understand, whether it would at all be possible in the future to "upgrade" to 2x11 - should the need arise. So consider this a thought experiment: what would be necessary for such a conversion and what are the potential problems/showstoppers? Thanks! p.s. The rather scarce relevant posts here (see below) did not help me definitively. Also there are might be some GRX specifics claud-butler-tandem-add-a-front-derailleur Adding front derailleur vs upgrading the rear one on a (ladies) bicycle I've also read several articles on extending 1x11 range with aftermarket cassettes and hardware, such as this excellent one on bikepacking.com and understand that something like that might very well be the (significantly easier if more limited) solution too <Q> It depends. <S> For most gravel bikes it will be an easy, yet expensive, swap. <S> A couple of gravel bikes frames are built in a way that makes shipping a front derailleur as good as impossible. <S> There may not be enough room for the chain stays to clear a second chain ring. <S> A minor obstacle might be cable routing. <S> Many gravel bikes come in 1x and 2x configurations. <S> Only the group is different while the frame is identical. <S> Migrating on these bikes from 1x to 2x is easy to do. <S> The costs involved are substantial though. <S> You will need to replace crank-set, brifters, rear derailleur, chain, bar tape. <S> Unless you use SRAM's wireless group you also need to rout a cable. <S> As before, gravel bikes that come in a 2x configuration make this easy. <S> Bear in mind though, for internal cable routing you might have to remove the bottom bracket. <S> With so many components to replace, a good way to estimate component costs is to look at the price of a group set. <S> It is typically at about 1/3 to 1/2 of the complete bike's price. <S> Together with small parts and finishing kit you can expect the cost of modification to exceed the value of the bike after a year of riding. <A> gshenk's post is excellent general answer, here's the specific answer for the setup on the Digger Comp. <S> The Digger comes with an RX-600 40t crank, RD-RX812 <S> derailleur and CS-M7000 11-42 cassette. <S> It's not designed to be used with a double crank. <S> This of course means that converting the bike to 2x would involve replacing the entire drivetrain. <S> You can compare the RX-810 2x and RX-812 1x components and see which other components they are intended to be used with on this Shimano component line-up page . <S> Note that the 812 setup with a 42 tooth crank gives you 0.9 - 3.6 ratio spread and the 2x 810 with <S> a 11-34 cassette gives 0.9 - 4.3, with smaller gaps between ratios. <S> The 1x drivetrain sacrifices gear ratios for simplicity and chain retention and control. <S> Think what you want to do with a gravel bike. <S> If you want more flexibility and to use the bike on road as well as off a 2x bike would be better. <A> I can't speak to GRX specifically, but one of the Old Saws of cycling is "Buy the bike you want" which means to avoid buying a bike with the immediate intention of upgrading/replacing parts. <S> Generally speaking, a new bike will work well together - by swapping things about, that new-bike feel may diminish. <S> Unless your LBS is really nice and credits you for take-off parts, the cost penalty of buying the bike with bits you don't want and additionally buying more parts at retail will soon add up. <S> However all this goes out the window if you're talking about a used bike, where there are no warranties and parts come pre-bedded-in (or worn out) <S> Upshot, Buy the bike you want to ride, in the spec you want.
|
If you want to ride rougher off-road trials exclusively a 1x bike may be better. If you intend to swap the parts yourself then this may make any warranty claims later problematic. What is more, some frames lack mounting positions and the shape or material of the seat tube does not allow clamping. Cable routing can be substantial and frustrating work, and may be expensive in a shop. The RD-812 derailleur is compatible with wide-range mountain bike 11 speed cassettes (which have different spacing that 11 speed road cassettes).
|
How can I reach upto Olympic level competitions? I am 20 years old. My height is 1.7 meters (5 foot 7 inches). I live in India. I have cycled since I was a kid just for enjoyment. I have no idea how I will reach to world level competition like Olympics. It is my dream. or is it too late? Is there something which will tell me early on whether i am capable of doing it or not, like a first test whether I am gifted with cycling skills? <Q> There's no way we can answer this question for you. <S> The people who reach elite-level competition in cycling have extraordinary natural gifts, dedicate enormous time and effort to training (20+ hours per week), and are incredibly motivated (to train intensively for 20+ hours per week, etc). <S> If there's a local cycling club you can ride with, do that. <S> See how you like racing, and see how you do. <S> Start reading up on training methods and learn what you can. <S> Usually the people who have those exceptional gifts rise to the top pretty quickly, but even if you don't, don't let that discourage you from having fun with racing at a local level. <A> It is mostly too late indeed, unless you are already a world class or at least national-level athlete in a different sport - like Primož Roglič who was a ski jumper. <S> The competition is too large. <S> I absolutely support the recommendation of Adam Rice to join any local race and see how you compare with others. <S> If you are really gifted, you would see that you can easily compete with most other people. <S> Where I am from, there are many MTB amateur races for all age groups and abilities. <S> The possibilities of road or track racing, on the other hand, are very limited. <S> Your country or even your state may be different, see what is available in your area. <S> For the start it really does not mater too much if it is road, track, cross-country or cyclocross. <S> You are looking for the signs of exceptional physical strength/endurance even if you see that your technical skills are holding you back. <S> If you have the genes for excelent physical condition, some coach may even spot you at these races because you would start winning soon. <A> You need -- <S> Natural ability <S> Training Persistence Support
|
You could still perhaps get to some very high levels if you have the right genetic predispositions, but the Olympics are very unlikely and professional cycling likely as well. If there are any races in your area, enter some races. Human bodies need the right level of physical training during their growth, that means some reasonable training during childhood and especially during junior levels to get to world class levels.
|
What's the strongest way to bond a cable stop to an steel frame? I have a steel single speed bike and want to add a rear brake. All is good expect there is no cable stops on the top tube. I want to bond two cable stops to the under side of the top tube. <Q> Don't use cable stops. <S> The biggest load those stops will ever see is when you grab your brakes hard for an emergency stop. <S> So you're likely to find out that whatever you did to bond the stops to the frame wasn't strong enough or fatigue-resistant enough at the absolute worst possible time. <S> And you'll never be able to know if your work is fatigue-resistant enough. <S> You can only find out that it wasn't - and you'll know that only after it fails. <S> Run the outer housing the entire length of the cable. <S> All you need then is a few tie wraps to hold the cable near the frame. <A> <A> Do you already have the cable stops? <S> If not, then you might consider looking for ones that are attached by rivets. <S> That will reduce the amount of skill and tools you'll need and will still give you a pretty strong bond (although it probably won't be the strongest as per your question, that is still probably welding or brazing). <S> You'll need to make sure the rivets are the right size for the depth and diameter of the hole, as well as being thick enough to withstand the shear forces. <S> The ones sold here have holes for two 1/8" rivets. <S> If you go this route, I strongly encourage you do your own calculations, but as a rough guide according to NASA the 95 percentile maximum grip strength for males is 729N. <S> On my bike the brakes have a lever ratio of roughly 1:3, which says we can assume a conservative estimate of 2200N of maximum force applied to the cable stop (if you're a 95th percentile male, squeezing at maximum grip strength in test settings that is!). <S> I'm pretty sure this is within the capabilities of commercially available rivets ( <S> the fact that these things are even available for sale, not to mention being commonly used on carbon road bikes is testament to that!).
|
Beside a professionally done welding, clamp-on cable stops should be a reasonably reliable solution.
|
Bottle Cage Mount on Carbon Bike I have fitted a frame bag to my carbon bike frame so I have lost my water bottle mounts. As it's carbon frame I'm aware that you can't mount clamps on the carbon like you would for steel. However, I have come across the Top Peak Versamount, do you think this will be ok? All help and views appreciated. Mike https://www.topeak.com/us/en/products/accessories/1093-versamount , <Q> There are also seat-post mounted bottle cages. <S> See Profile Design Aqua Rack ii Dual Water Bottle Cage (Black) <S> (Seatpost Mount) for an example: <S> That one even has places for screw-in CO2 cartridges. <A> There are also clamps to fix cages to the handlebars (remember those pictures from olden days) unless those are carbon as well. <S> Cages may also be attached to the rear of the saddle or to the seat-post. <S> The frame material is likely too thin and will not resist crushing from clamps. <A> Whether they will work will depend on the shape of your frame. <S> Many carbon frames are tapered, being wider near the headtube and narrowing as the go back. <S> This will mean the clamps will have a tendency to slide toward the narrow end of the tube. <S> A small wrap of inner tube under the clamp may help some <S> but I think it will still be problematic with the weight of the full bottle. <S> I would recommend either a saddle or seatpost mounted cage similar to a Skekane Elite which can hold three cages. <A> As you probably know intuitively, a metal tube has the same properties in all directions (the technical term is that it is isotropic). <S> This is one of the main selling points of carbon. <S> Carbon frame tubes aren't generally engineered to withstand significant clamping force. <S> That said, this item looks like a pair of ratcheting straps made of nylon or some other plastic. <S> They probably don't close tightly enough to damage the carbon. <S> They should be fine. <S> The question is how securely they will hold the water bottle. <S> While we don't make recommendations for specific products, if you were thinking of mounting a bottle on the underside of the downtube, <S> then the Apidura Expedition Downtube Pack <S> fits a bottle in a pouch, and has one thick and durable Hypalon strap to secure to the frame. <S> While Apidura is a premium manufacturer, it's likely that other manufacturers will put out similar designs at lower prices. <S> You can mount one on each side of the stem. <S> These may be called feed bags as well <S> (Apidura uses this term for their own bag). <S> One potential minor downside is that depending on your physical proportions and your bike geometry, your knee may hit the bag when climbing out of the saddle. <S> One 2015 review of a few feed bags is here . <S> Depending on your cockpit setup, some handlebar bags have space for water bottles at either end of the bag, although I believe this arrangement is more common for long-distance road touring than for gravel or bikepacking. <S> Do note that an overly loaded handlebar bag can alter your bike's handing, whereas feedback I've heard from stem bag users is that they don't really change the handling much. <S> You also can't fit that many items in a stem bag.
|
Another easy option for water bottle carriage is stem bags, which strap to the handlebar and the stem. A carbon tube may not have the same properties in all directions, i.e. it can be engineered anisotropically.
|
In need of guides to maintain the bike that I'm about to get I'm about to get myself a cheap hybrid (costing ~200 USD) and I'd like to be able to learn how to maintain it on my own without having to go to a bike shop every now and then (and also because I'm a student who can't really afford to do that). If there are any books that could be suggested, that'd be really helpful! It'd have alloy (6061) frame and rims (double walled). Shimano tourney groupset (3×7), adjustable handlebar stem, quick release seat post as well as both wheels. <Q> Link-only answers are frowned upon here <S> but I'm going to provide one anyway <S> https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help <S> Park Tool Company's Repair Help web site is the most comprehensive, professional and understandable set of articles and videos on bike repair and maintenance that is out there. <S> If you run into specific problems, Bicycles Stack Exchange is of course a great resource. <A> In short, ride your bike. <S> Do a basic M check for safety, monthly. <S> Wash your bike when its dirty. <S> Lube <S> the chain periodically (depends on your riding conditions) And ride safely. <S> As components and consumables wear, ask specific questions (if we don't already have that covered in a previous Q&A.) <S> Enjoy riding ! <A> Your area may have some kind of "bicycle collective" with tools, education, and parts (typically used but with some life left), e.g., [1]. <S> Universities may have one. <S> [1] https://corvallisbikes.org/ <A> I've been in the same position before, and I'd highly recommend reading through some of the articles on https://www.sheldonbrown.com/ as you come across problems you need to fix. <S> Sorry for providing just a link <S> but it is very much like a guide book. <S> I'll often refer to the website when checking for compatible replacement parts, for example! <A> I think that the mountain bike version would probably be more suitable for your hybrid bike <S> and it is the version I own. <S> Many of the topics are universal. <S> The author also often answers questions at his https://zinncycles.com/tag/ask-lennard-zinn/ or other websites. <S> On a different note, there are many highly instructive videos on the web, like on the GCN Tech channel, <S> GMBN Tech , the Park Tool channel and many more. <S> Usually it is best to just search for the particular problem you have and try several different videos. <A> You must definitely buy an air pump and some instruments which help you to tight or loose your brakes,adjust you seat <S> etc.(They come most of the time free with the bicycle).Air pump is important in my opinion Because tires keep on loosing air due to temperature changes because tires contract and expand and also due weight of the rider. <S> Maintain your cycle. <S> Have a quick check of your bicycle before every ride,maybe once in a week. <S> check your brakes whether they need some lubrication in cable,whether chain needs some lubrication. <S> Again most important for long time cycling is to have your own air pump. <S> That is not so costly and is easy to carry. <S> Take every body's advice on maintaining your bicycle because I know very little about it . <S> Thanks you. <S> " ENJOY CYCLINGSTAY HEALTHY"
|
Keep your bicycle clean this help you to see whether there are not any hidden defectes which might be left unnoticed because of dirt on your bicycle. I can certainly recommend books by Lennard Zinn, namely Zinn & the Art of Road Bike Maintenance and Zinn & the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance
|
New suspension fork - how much should I care for locking on the handlebar? I'm putting together a bike that will allow me to go to work. I work in a warehouse outside of the city I live in, and I want to avoid roads trucks take because I haven't ride a bike for about ten years. So my road will be bumpy, a bit off road. I was planning to get a suspension fork with air shock absorber, one that can be locked from the handlebar. I'm on a budget and it was on ~30% sale, but the seller can't find it. Like, literally isn't sure if he has it in his warehouse. He has a similar one, slightly cheaper, but lock is on the fork itself. I never had a fork that was anything more than stiff steel or aluminum, I'm ten years behind, or more, when it comes to riding technique and bicycle construction. You may well assume I know nothing . So, how much should I care about having suspension locking on my handlebar versus on the fork? Both in terms of money and time spent looking for something in my budget? My usual route would be half by paved roads, and other half by unmaintained roads, dirt track, mud, stones and a shortcut thorough the woods. I could, in theory, ride asphalt, but I will not dare to use the same road big trucks are using. And I want to be able to take it sightseeing in Bieszczady, Polish low mountains with woodlands paths. Please don't advise me a stiff fork here. That may be a sound advice but it would be outside of the scope under this question. Thank you for your answers. I managed to get one with lockout on the handlebar for a price of the one with lockout on the fork - the piece seller couldn't find was put away due to imperfectly printed manufacturer name. Win-win, I got a "nice to have" feature for free, seller does not need to send it back for repainting. <Q> An ideal suspension system would tune the closed/open states by its own, and there are attempts to achieve that (Specialized Brain, Magura Elect etc.). <S> Rider's mental energy spent on making lock/unlock decisions translates to lost joy of the ride. <S> Unless every second counts, i.e. one is racing against the clock, and needs all the efficiency all the time. <S> An always open suspension fork will not turn a ride over a smooth surface into suffering. <S> Similarly, a proper fork, even when locked, will have a blow out valve to open up by itself when a rider encounters a bumpy segment. <S> However, this situation is more dangerous than leaving the fork open all the time. <S> It is better to foresee the need to open the suspension than to rely it to happen on its own. <S> The difference between lockout control placements manifests itself in how much time the cyclist needs to spend to switch it. <S> When commuting, touring or leisure riding, lost seconds to slow down, find a knob on the fork and turn it are really not that critical. <S> When racing, slowness is of course unacceptable and a lockout placed on the handlebar is preferable. <S> Not that it does not have its negatives: 1. <S> One more knob on the handlebars to mess with; 2. <S> One more cable and housing to periodically replace; 3. <S> Additional weight of additional components. <A> My MTB has lockout on the fork, and recently I've been using it on a mixture of road and trail, unlocking/ <S> locking the fork several times. <S> On smooth surfaces without traffic, it's easy enough to operate the lockout without stopping (it's on the right fork leg for me, and <S> I'm right handed; I'd rather do it with my left hand <S> but that's a little far to reach). <S> With a bit of forward planning that's fine on my regular route. <S> If I forget and end up on a trail, even one that doesn't need suspension, unlocking going over bumps is more trouble than it's worth <S> and I either stop or do without. <S> Having lockout on the bars seems nice to have, but not worth saving up for. <A> A good quality fork from the likes of RockShox or Fox will have the lockout (which is always on the right, damper side of the fork) designed to be upgradeable to remote. <S> The lockout switch on the fork is on top of the right fork leg--very easy to reach. <S> It takes minimal pressure to turn the lever about 180° right to lock out or back left to open. <S> Especially one well tuned to the rider style and environment being riden in. <S> Skip the remote for now. <S> Invest the money saved into getting a higher quality of fork, and, if you must, take 2 seconds to reach down with your right hand and flip the suspension on or off. <A> My personal perspective on this is as follows. <S> I have two bikes, (n+1 rule I guess) one with a remote lock out and one on the fork. <S> I do very little riding on paved roads. <S> Originally I used the non remote lockout option only on the steepest climbs. <S> While first riding the bike with the remote lock out I found myself using it much more often, long smooth straight sections locked it out, moderate climbs,locked it out,etc. <S> As I got more miles on the bike I found myself using it less and less. <S> Now I am back to using it only on the steepest climbs. <S> If all things were identical, same quality of components but 20% more for just the lockout I would pass on the remote. <S> Things however aren't always that simple. <S> The bike with the remote lockout likely has better quality components. <S> In theory the better components should last longer and perform better. <S> So the real issue is are you willing to pay more for better components.
|
It's fairly unnecessary for the casual rider to 1)require the lockout feature at all and certainly not often or urgently enough that a remote would be beneficial 2)benefit from the energy savings derived from locking out the suspension. Any fork lockout per-se is a sign of suspension design limitations, one would argue. A little loss, not unlikely unmeasurable, of pedaling efficiency will happen, and that is it.
|
What's the better option to buy? I am about to get myself a hybrid bike, but being tight on budget (~ 200USD). I didn't really have many options to choose from. I'd initially thought of buying this particular bike, Mach City Munich after reading good reviews about it online, but it's been unavailable for the past month, without any surety about when it will be. So, the shopkeepers suggested I get myself another bike, named Montra Downtown. I live in a city where roads have potholes and bumpers more frequent than lighting poles, (but not the kind that'd require an MTB). The bike will primarily be used for commute (~15 kilometres, 6 days a week), but I'm also thinking of taking it out for long rides (about a hundred kilometres or so) on weekends. Both of them have a triple chain ring system. Downtown has an alloy (6061) body with a steel fork whereas Munich has both the body and fork made of steel. Both of them have a 21 speed system with triple chain ring system. Downtown has Shimano TY300 whereas Munich has TZ40 rear derailleur. Munich has Shimano TX 50 where Downtown has Shimano TX 500 front derailleur. Both have Shimano easy fire shifters with integrated brake levers, with Munich having a three finger braking, and Downtown having a two-finger. The brakes, however, on Downtown are disc brakes, whereas on Munich are V brakes. The cassettes on both are the same too. Downtown mentions BB Cartridge-Sealed Bearing-Cold Forged Boron Axle, Plastic cups, Steel Body for the bottom bracket whereas nothing is Mentioned for Munich. I've never ridden a bike with gears as of yet, this will be my first time. I'm confused between which one to buy for a multitude of reasons. I've been told that a steel body has a give, it flexes, which allows for a more comfortable ride in a place that has roads that aren't very smooth, which does not happen with an aluminum (alloy) frame. I've heard that disc brakes are harder, require a lot of maintenance and are more expensive to maintain compared to V brakes too. Downtown has alloy rims, double walled. Munich previously had "double walled rims" specified but currently their website only says that the rims have an ED black finish so I'm not sure if they still have double walled rims. The bike will most likely be stored about two storeys high, where it'd need to be picked up and carried through the staircase. And last, but not the least, the cost of Downtown is about 20% higher than Munich. (both are in the budget nevertheless). If I buy Munich, is it a good idea to swap components and use? For example, the rear derailleur? Moreover, since I've chosen to buy a rigid bike (because my limited scope of knowledge tells me that a suspension frame with such a low price tag will only be a pain), is adding a suspension seat post a good idea? <Q> Ultimately, you're comparing two entry level bikes. <S> The differences are small and mostly irrelevant. <S> So bare minimum is to get a leg over each one and ride it around. <S> Most bike shops will let you pedal around, which is enough to rank them in immediate comfort. <S> If you're buying online, then you're stuck and have to make the best guess you can. <S> This is one reason for buying from a real LBS and not a boxmover. <S> This question is pure shopping and is off-topic for Stackexchange, because there's virtually no chance of this question being useful to anyone else. <S> For example, neither of these bike brands exist in my area. <S> The transmissions are Tourney grade, which is shimano's second bottom groupset in terms of cost or quality. <S> It will work fine, but comparing variants is like comparing pebbles in a stream - in detail there are differences but up close, they're all much the same. <S> And no, if you were asking about expensive top-end bike comparisons, that would still be off-topic. <A> A touring bike from the 90s might be in that price range (they are in Europe, I'm not sure about the USA) and it will be tough enough to deal with any commute while also being set up for longer rides too. <S> If you can find one which hasn't been modified by the owner then you can depend on fitted components being dependable in quality. <S> And a tourer may have come fitted with a rear rack and panniers, ideal for commuting. <S> The downside will be the weight - these older steel touring frames aren't designed to be light weight. <A> It comes down to personal fit, like Criggie said. <S> Another option is buying used. <S> If you aren't married to the Munich or the Downtown, used is the way to go. <S> I'm in the United States where, unfortunately, $200 just won't get you much brand new. <S> You should be able to find a capable pre-owned bike for that price, though. <S> If you decide to purchase a bike on Craigslist or some similar service, do not ride it without first having it checked out by a professional. <A> Downvoted because the question is off-topic, but I will give you a few pieces of advice... <S> You do not need disk brakes. <S> They add cost, add weight, and you will not need the braking power they provide in the city. <S> You (probably) do not need suspension. <S> You should not care about shifting components. <S> Even though they are lower end Shimano products, they will still function absolutely fine . <S> Only idiots who buy $6000 road bikes should care about shifting components. <S> I would suggest tires which are at least 1.5 inches (38mm) wide, and not knobby. <S> Instead of buying a new bike, use the money to buy an older (steel frame) mountain bike. <S> Do you need a mtn bike if you are going to be riding in the city? <S> Yes. <S> Most city streets provide rough terrain. <S> I do not know where you live, but I spent a few minutes looking through a local online marketplace (craigslist), and found this old mountain bike which would absolutely kick ass as a commuter bike. <S> I have commuted thousands of miles on bikes similar to this one.
|
For your price range it might be wiser to get an older higher quality second-hand bike. If you are able to lift yourself out of the saddle when you go over bumps, you don't need suspension. I tend to agree that the differences between the two bikes you listed are minor. The one thing that really matters is how they fit you - ride both and figure which one is more comfortable to you . Mtn bikes were made to be ridden on rough terrain. I'd advise going to a local shop, because they won't sell you a bike that isn't safe.
|
Why can't I use my new pedal indoors? As seen below, I got a paper slip telling me not to use my new pedals on indoor equipment. I don't want to anyway, but I wonder — if threads would fit, is there any real reasons not to do it? Probably there is, because they wouldn't limit their own market without a cause, but what reason is it? Silvery studs on pedals are fully removable. <Q> As other have commented it appears to be based a legal opinion. <S> While there is no physical reason they would not work the safety side says having sharp pins sticking out would not be a good idea. <A> My indoor exercise cycle specifically cautions against using pedals which are not designated as being strong enough for indoor cycles. <S> Supposedly, the stresses put on pedals on exercise bikes are greater than those on real bikes. <A> Probably due to the fact that many indoor bikes, particularly spin bikes, are fixed wheel inc. <S> a heavy flywheel which is why they always have toe-clips and/or clip in pedals - to make sure foot says on the pedal. <S> If your foot slipped off with pinned flats, the pedals will still be whizzing round and then potentially cause an injury. <S> Here's an extract from a warning sticker from a spin bike: <S> Flywheel momentum will keep pedals turning even after you stop pedaling. <S> Do not attempt to dismount bike or remove feet from pedals until pedals have completely stopped. <A> I believe this has nothing to do with the pins, or with any special mechanical stress that indoor cycling involves. <S> In my opinion the issue is the possibility of corrosion due to sweat. <S> Indoor bikes get a lot more sweat on them because they don't move. <S> It's a huge problem that can quickly ruin components and even create the possibility of a sudden and dangerous failure. <S> https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/training-guide/training/save-you-bike-from-sweat/ <S> It's probably fine, but without specific testing they are wise to avoid any guarantees.
|
The potential for someone to strike a shin against the pedal warrants the warning. I bet the pedal manufacturer's legal department is worried that they never specifically tested for breakage due to corrosion from all that added salt.
|
What tyres would be better suited? 32c or 35c I'm from, Kolkata, India, and the place isn't best known for its roads, at least. Thinking of getting a new bike.. But I happen to be someone who's got absolutely no knowledge about any, and I'm even yet to ride a geared bike! I don't want to run into many punctures and still have a comfortable ride. The bike would mostly be used for commute and then for longer rides during the weekends (100 kilometres or more). I'm guessing if I have thinner tyres they're very likely to get punctured often. So I chose relatively thick tyres, but not too thick since that'd get me lower speeds.. Would 700×35c tyres be better or 700×32c? The attached image I'd of how typical roads here happen to be, if there arises a need for reference. <Q> If you have to go slow because of bad roads it will slow you down much more (and be much more uncomfortable). <S> I’m not sure what’s available in your area <S> but I’d get something like the Schwalbe Marathon Racer or Marathon Almotion or Continental Contact Urban or TopContact. <S> Punctures are not directly related to tire width. <S> Pinch flats are mostly related to low tire pressure (i.e. your pressure being so low that the tube gets pinched between tire and rim). <A> On this poor road, if you have the choice between 32mm and 35mm, definitely pick the 35mm, but I would advise an even wider tire, something between 45mm and 60mm at least. <S> You could also consider >100mm fatbike tires. <S> The road doesn't look so bad that a fatbike is a necessity <S> but it's something for you to consider. <S> Don't select the bike based on the stock tires it has (unless you want fatbike tires in which case you have to buy a fatbike). <S> You can always change the tires. <S> Other components may be more difficult to change. <S> However, the rim width can constrain the width of tires you can mount on them so avoid bikes that have narrow rims. <S> However, do note that bikes tires suffer from punctures more than car tires. <S> Especially on this road! <S> There are two approaches to punctures: <S> Always carry the tools required to repair punctures with you (tire levers, mini pump, patch kit, spare tube) and select tires based on their low rolling resistance which means low puncture resistance Select tires with high puncture resistance which means high rolling resistance. <S> In this case, punctures are rare but they still happen so you'll probably still have to carry a puncture repair toolkit with you unless you ride only distances short enough to walk. <S> Usually for strategy (1) I would recommend the widest low rolling resistance tires you can find (which in today's market seems to be Continental Grand Prix 5000 32mm). <S> For strategy (2) I would recommend some truly puncture protected tire like Schwalbe Marathon Plus. <S> It still occasionally suffers from punctures but more rarely than low rolling resistance tires. <S> In my opinion, on reasonable roads strategy (1) is better because the time you lose repairing punctures is only less than one tenth of the time you would lose because of the puncture protection increasing rolling resistance. <S> For this road, I might consider strategy (2). <S> The widest Schwalbe Marathon Plus tire seems to be 622-47 <S> so it's 47mm wide. <S> Unfortunately, for fatbikes, tires as well puncture protected as Schwalbe Marathon Plus don't seem to be easily available (or at least I couldn't find such tires), so if you select a fatbike you'll have to sacrifice on puncture protection. <A> The general rule today is that wider is usually better , up to the point where it exceeds your frame's and rims' limits, taking you into a different bike type. <S> Your photo shows what would be considered a gravel road by Western cyclist standards. <S> Such roads are best served by 32 to 47mm tires, on the wide side of road tires, what's known as gravel bikes today. <S> 42mm will be better than 35. <S> Tire rolling resistance, as measured on a flat surface, is of most concern on good quality asphalt/concrete roads. <S> Elsewhere, the better traction provided by wider tires, and especially tires with some thread, wins hands down. <S> Narrow tires are vulnerable to surface irregularities and don't save much except for weight and drag. <S> Since bikes that are "just right" might be expensive, if cost's a concern, you could also consider a mountain or hybrid bike, which tend to use ~2" wide tires. <S> They're not as well-geared for speed. <S> The main reason 2" tires are "slower" than <S> 47mm is that they're usually fitted to "slower" bikes, and tend to be knobbier. <S> A hardtail can make the ride easy on your hands, eating up all the bumps, but a suspension fork is still very optional here. <S> Against small potholes, 2" tires at moderate pressure are sufficient suspension by themselves. <S> Wider than 2" is off-road tire territory, and any increase over 2" won't add value here. <S> I often have to ride asphalt (to the actual trails) on a 3" tire, and you begin to feel the extra weight and rolling resistance there. <S> Wider than 3" is fatbikes, and these are for snow or very loose terrain. <S> With 35-47mm, the loss vs narrow tires is just a small amount of weight and drag. <S> At your level, the "engine" is more likely to limit the speed than the bike. <S> The differences comes from road, CX or gravel bikes having faster gears and a more aggressive riding position, which saves on drag. <S> But this position also takes some effort to get used to. <S> All in all, it's not SUV vs racecar; it's maybe 1-2 km/h of average speed between a "fast" cyclocross and a "slow" mountain/hybrid bike, for a rider that's just starting out and doesn't take either to their limit. <S> Pick the bike you're comfortable with, both riding and maintaining, not the one you think might be faster.
|
I’d consider going even wider than 35mm or at least get a bicycle which has the option of fitting wider tires. Good wide tires don’t necessarily have bad rolling resistance.
|
How do you compare chainsets on MTB? Which is better? I'm looking at getting a decent mountain bike that will probably spend quite a bit of time on the road. I found that the most common types of chainsetsare either: Shimano Altus 2x9 Shimano Deore 1x10 (on the more expensive models). SRAM SX Eagle 1x12 (on the much more expensive models). When I compared the ratios of these three chainsets, the Shimano Altus seems to have lower low end speeds and higher high end speeds, so in general it seems like the better option to me. Yet I can't understand why the 1x Deore and 1x SX Eagle are the more expensive options, aside from the weight loss, is there any other benefit to them or is this really just a case that the Altus is better? At least in terms of speed (which is what I am mainly interested in). Am I missing any other important comparisons? Aside from weight and I guess it being easier to switch gears in a 1x setup (i.e. chain not crossing and stuff). <Q> You are mixing quality with quantity (on this case gear range). <S> 1x in a true MTB setting gives more than enough range for a majority of riders most of the time. <S> Reality is if a technical MTBer is going fast than spun out speed, they are concentrating on lines, jumps and landings, speed is far from a priority. <S> The advantages (listed in the answer by @MaplePanda) <S> out weight <S> the loss of top gearing. <S> 2x is useful for those who ride big hills on roads and need a low gear for climbing and a high gear for high speed descents, or weaker riders than need super low gears for hills. <S> Until recently 2x has also been a viable choice for budget, but 1x is now avaible as some quite low price points. <S> The 1x fanboys often come with a 1 eyed view of its advantages, most of which suit experianced rider significantly more than inexperiacned riders (eg. <S> Anyone thinking about Altus or SX is not a weight weenie, probably cannot afford a dropper and almost certainly buying a hard tail where there is plenty of room for a front derailluer) <S> There are many other group set options on bikes - if you cannot find what you like at the price point you can afford, keep looking. <S> In terms of quality, Deore is (IMHO) <S> the best in the list you have given. <S> Altus is considered too low quality for reliable operation MTB standards, but is suitible for road and occasional light offroad use. <S> SX Eagle is somewhere close to the Deore in quality - probably comes down to personal preference. <A> First off, the higher end stuff is lighter. <S> Much like how cheap bikes are known as "bicycle-shaped objects", SX is known as a "groupset-shaped object". <S> You also need to take into account your riding style: just how much gear range do you need? <S> Seeing as you intend to ride on the road quite a bit, I would definitely go for a 2x system. <S> So why is 1x better for MTB? <S> The shifting pattern is much simpler. <S> You don't have to to worry about cross chaining or redundant gear ratios or any of that. <S> It's simply "bigger number = <S> faster, smaller number = slower". <S> With a 2x or even worse a 3x, it is easy to lose track of which gear combo you're currently in. <S> It's also less fun to be constantly thinking about gearing. <S> Having exactly the perfect gear ratio is not as important because of the constantly changing terrain. <S> You also don't need to pedal as much on the downhills, so really all you need a drivetrain for is the climbs and flats. <S> Better frame design is possible without having to accommodate for the front derailleur. <S> Lets you run an under-bar dropper lever. <S> (no need to adjust the FD anymore too). <S> The "narrow-wide chainring" and "chainguard" are two examples of devices you can use on a 1x system to stop the chain from falling off as much. <A> Might I suggest two shopping options you may not have considered? <S> Buy a higher-quality used bike, say 5 years old, and have it thoroughly checked and prepped by a bike mechanic. <S> You should be able to find a lighter, better frame and a good quality 2x drivetrain (or whatever you want). <S> For example, a better quality rear derailleur (my Shimano rule of thumb is Deore or better). <S> There are plenty of quality "NOS" (New Old Stock) components available from past model years, so a bike shop should be able to find and install (e.g.) <S> a new Deore 2x drivetrain in place of a stock Altus. <S> The shop will then later sell the "take off" components, so you should get somewhat of a discount on the NOS components or their installation.
|
If buying new, see if the bike shop will swap out stock components for those more to your liking. Lighter weight and more reliable as it has fewer moving parts MTBers on 1x tend to elect a chainring that gives the lowest low gear they need for climbing, and accept the limited loss of time that occurs the few times they are spun out at high speeds. SRAM SX is built extremely cheaply, it is worse than Deore by far.
|
Waterproof overshoes: am I using them right? As part of my "in case it rains" gear, I have waterproof jacket, waterproof trousers and waterproof overshoes. The first time I used them I had the "brilliant" idea to tuck the trousers into the overshoes, with the result of pouring all the rainwater directly into my shoes. What a miserable day it was. Last time, remembering the previous experience, I have fastened the trousers Velcro straps around the overshoes making sure that the overshoes were under the trousers. At the end of the rainy day my socks, shoes and feet were nevertheless drenched in water. Am I missing something in the way I should use overshoes, or is it simply unrealistic to have really waterproof overshoes? I use cleats, leather mountain-bike shoes and when the above happened I rode about 6 hours, the first 4 under the rain, on mostly paved roads and some white roads. <Q> I've got a couple of pairs, and have had similar experiences. <S> The best I can do is with my better pair (with a reasonably tight but comfortable ankle strap) underneath my splash - resistant leg warmers. <S> That keeps out a short heavy shower, or light drizzle for a few hours, but persistent rain always gets in (and anyway feet get sweaty in overshoes). <S> Short socks (well below the ankle band) help as they don't provide a part for water to wick. <S> They'll never seal well enough if your feet dip in a puddle, even if, like me in winter, you tape up any vents in your soles. <S> Even splashing from underneath can get in eventually. <S> The overshoes are still very beneficial in cold wet weather, as the water in there is much warmer than the rain, and wind chill is reduced. <S> In warm weather I often don't use them (e.g. Saturday I was riding all day, mostly in rain, but would have been too hot with overshoes). <S> I only cycle in waterproof trousers <S> well below freezing, as a third windproof layer over bike tights and running leggings. <S> Even breathable ones are too hot and get very sweaty. <S> In fact, in summer rain I'm reluctant to wear any form of jacket. <S> Breathable ones are too warm and aren't breathable enough, so I carry something thin and light, but end up just as wet from sweat. <A> Water gets in through the cleat holes. <S> And, as you've discovered, through the ankle holes. <S> All you can do is minimize the amount of water that gets into your shoes and delay how long it takes before you're soaked. <S> First, if you're going to use shoes with cleats, you need shoes that are specially designed to have waterproof cleat holes. <S> These are usually sold as "winter cycling boots" or similar. <S> Otherwise, water works its way in through the cleat holes. <S> Second, as you've already discovered, you need to put your tights/rain pants over the tops of the shoes. <S> If you don't water will run down your legs right into your shoes and rapidly fill your shoes so that every pedal stroke squirts water out. <S> Third, you need a good front fender with a spray flap. <S> Your front tire throws up a lot of spray <S> - much of which goes right onto your feet and lower legs along with right into your cleat holes. <S> It <S> WILL work its way into your shoes and soak your feet quite rapidly. <S> So stop as much of it as you can with a fender that has a good spray flap. <S> And after all that, if you ride in a solid rain you'll be lucky to get an hour into your ride before your feet are soaked anyway. <S> Also, truly waterproof pants don't breathe at all. <S> So any sweat from your legs won't evaporate. <S> If you're riding hard and/or long enough you'll wind up soaked anyway. <S> And pants or tights that do breathe will let some water through. <S> Been there, done that. <A> As other answers have said, water will always get into your shoes. <S> If this is a problem for you, then the best answer is to not care about it! <S> In warm weather, you might simply not wear socks, and your bare feet will sort themselves out. <S> The biggest problem for wet feet is socks holding cold water next to your skin. <S> In the extreme case, sandals with cleats exist - of course you would need to be sure your toes weren't going to contact the ground, so not ideal for trails, but you get the idea. <S> If bare feet aren't acceptable, waterproof socks are the best alternative. <S> The best known brand is probably Sealskinz, at least in the UK, but others are available. <S> The downside here, of course, is that they keep the sweat in as well as the rain out, so you need to be pretty scrupulous about your foot hygiene and about keeping the inside of the socks clean.
|
Overshoes over the top of normal bicycling shoes with cleats are not "waterproof".
|
Properly sizing a frameset online (Ritchey Road Logic)? Longtime lurker, first-time poster. My frame is cracked and I have mostly decent parts so I am thinking about just buying a frameset and paying the LBS to move stuff over. A friend suggested I look into steel frames since I want a metal frame and don't race a ton, climb hills and long distance. After Googling I am now enamored with the Ritchey Road Logic frame. But the closest dealer is 200+ miles away. So now my challenge is to buy this frame online in the right size. Height : 6-6'1" Inseam : ~31.5", 800 mm Current bike stack/reach: roughly 570 mm, 400 mm; not provided by the manufacturer). According to the Ritchey guide that would put me at roughly a 55 cm frame (stack/reach 567/395). The next size down (53 cm) is 549/391, and the size up (57 cm) is 587/401. Current non-Ritchey bike is a 53 cm. The head tube and seat tube angles mostly match up with my current bike, less than ~1 degree difference. The standover height (797) is 20 mm higher on the Ritchey but that's probably because my bike has a sloped top tube. But the 53 cm is closer to my current bike. So two questions: What else can I compare between the measurements to make sure 55 cm is more or less in the ballpark of what I need? Should I aim for smaller? What's easier frame-wise to make adjustments with as far as stem length/angle/saddle position? Sizing up or down? Many thanks. <Q> I happen to be the exact same size, so I'll answer. <S> I have a custom built road bike with 55cm c-t height and 57cm top tube. <S> I'm using a 120mm horizontal stem and classic drop bars that have more reach than so-called ergo shape at the drops. <S> If I for some reason wanted to have a stem with rise and ergo bars, I'd need even longer and lower frame. <S> The 55cm Ritchey is a bit shorter and has a bit taller head tube but isn't that far off. <S> So, if you absolutely have to buy Ritchey, 55cm is probably the correct one unless know that your current frame fits perfectly <S> and you want to change as little as possible. <A> I've found ordering frames measured based on stack and reach have yielded the best results vs. using a height chart. <S> I'd also compare bb height and horizontal head tube length as that will also influence your body's position on the new frame vs. old. <S> Looking at other posts on the subject, sizing down seems to give the most flexibility but it may depend on what you have currently. <S> For example, if your current bike has a 120mm stem you may be able to adjust to a 140 if you need more reach or a 100 if you need less. <S> But, if you are already at 100 going down to 90 will start to limit how much more adjustment you can do. <S> The same logic would apply for saddle position, is it maxed out in the fore or aft positions? <S> but you should measure out the Ritchey's stand-over and make sure there is some room between your crotch and the top tube. <A> If your body measurements are accurate, you've got an unusually long torso and short legs for your height, so fitting is going to be a little tricky. <S> 55 cm would be about right for your inseam, but your arms would hang way out in front. <S> For reference, a typical endurance bike, which would suit your style of riding but probably not your physique, has a ratio of about 1.5:1. <S> This Ritchey has about 1.43:1, but my guess is you could go lower. <S> I would not get a smaller bike because your reach would be even more cramped on that. <S> It's easy to raise/lower a seatpost, and doing so doesn't really change the bike's dynamics. <S> It's harder to lengthen/shorten a stem (since you need to replace it), and that does change the dynamics. <S> There's limited adjustability for raising/lowering a stem, especially if you cut the steerer tube to size. <S> You might try e-mailing or calling Ritchey to get their advice.
|
The "stack/reach ratio" will tell you how laid out your torso will be on a given bike, and for someone with your build, you'd probably want a low ratio. Based on your info it seems like the 55 is the right size
|
How is this damaged aluminium frame likely to fail? I had an unplanned collision with a car yesterday (everyone is fine, thankfully) but my bike – a Giant Revolt 1 – now has a lovely new pair of dents. I cycled it home from the collision (~6km) and it seemed “fine” although I was probably still in shock. Looking at it today, and having looked at several other questions regarding dented aluminium frames, I’m trying to ascertain what the most likely failure is? Is this frame likely to continue degrading/cracking over time (i.e. I might get several more months from it)? Or is it more likely to fail catastrophically and fold in on itself? I exclusively ride on paved roads although there are often small potholes. <Q> How is this damaged aluminium frame likely to fail? <S> Sorry. <S> It's not going to fail, it has failed. <S> The head tube is near vertical making the steering very unstable and the front wheel has been pushed back and will overlap with your toes. <S> The frame tubes are not dented they are buckled and severely weakened. <S> If you ride it the frame will catastrophically fail (either when you hit a bump or brake hard) resulting in a nasty crash. <S> I hope that if the car driver was a fault you got their details. <A> Oh, that frame is done. <S> It’s not worth saving a few hundred bucks now and spending thousands in the hospital later. <S> Make sure to check over the rest of the bike, especially the fork. <S> It might have cracked from the impact. <A> The problem with aluminum is, that it tends to break abruptly. <S> Aluminum can bend under pressure, but it does no stretch significantly under tension before being ripped apart. <S> You get no warning, you simply get a tube or two breaking apart. <S> In this, aluminum behaves much worse than steel which is known for plastic deformation under tension, long before breaking. <S> With your frame, the failure mode would be that the down tube suddenly breaks off. <S> Riding your bike puts this tube under tension, and tries to unbend the already weakened area. <S> This will suddenly place the entire load on the bent top tube alone, which will likely immediately break apart itself. <S> This may happen in the fraction of a second at any time . <S> Effectively, your bike would vanish from beneath your butt, leaving you to fall onto the road at speed. <S> Face down. <S> If you value the look of your face, don't ride this bike a single meter. <A> You don't really have a "frame" anymore. <S> I am sure you can deform it visibly with your bare hands just by pulling the two wheels together. <S> You don't have to believe me, just try. <S> The same happens as you ride. <S> The bent metal is not rigid anymore, it "works" and deforms near the dents. <S> But the material was never meant to work by deformation <S> , it is not a spring (and even springs sometimes break). <S> It will develop cracks, more cracks, deeper cracks and will ultimately break. <S> Chalk it as "shit happens" and send it for recycling. <S> And count these 6km as "lucky". <S> If it was for 6km, I would walk them. <A> Two things not mentioned in the other answers: you might have another accident and or the frame just breaks while riding and then it could hurt your legs or stomach, depending how you fall on it. <S> read on whipslash injury, can also happen at small speeds, you never know. <S> so you are probably not okay, even if you think you are and might feel the consequences a few years later. <S> go to the doctors, document any tiny health problem like stiff neck, any pain, even if small. <S> also, don't trust people on the internets, none of them will come and take care of you later. :-)
|
The vibrations from riding are likely to quickly trigger cracks to form, and soon the downtube breaks apart at the buckle area. It's no longer ridable.
|
What to get? How do I know whether what I'm looking at is a BSO? (Bicycle Shaped Object); what should I do about the multiple chainrings? I'm about to get a ridiculously cheap bike (~$200) sometime soon and have limited my options to two bikes. One is the BTwin Riverside 120, which people here in India who have put up reviews don't seem very happy about.. https://www.decathlon.in/p/8389398/bikes/hybrid-cycle-riverside-120-grey-yellow Another one is Mach City Munich 21 speed. https://machcity.com/munich-21-speed/ The reviews I've read about it are great everywhere I've read them on the internet, and the bike store guy also said that it's a great bike (he's trusted). However, since both are different brands, he couldn't draw out a comparison of which one would be better.. Anyone who can help? It'd be primarily ridden on bad Indian roads (image attached for reference, that's not how all parts of the road are, but significant enough to be considered). Both have 700×35c stock tyres and can accommodate 38c tyres as well. If I choose to buy a Mach City Munich 21 speed, I'd also like to know if I should simply remove two chainrings of three (if they're detachable, which I am yet to find out) to help "ease" my riding? It'd be mostly ridden on flat terrain with maybe a 50m 5-6% climb, so I'm not sure, but I don't really think I have any practical use of three chainrings.. By ease, I mean I want to eliminate the risk of putting the chains through a lot of stress and risking the chain falling off every now and then while also causing more wear and tear to the parts than is supposed to happen. I happen to be a student who doesn't really want to go to a bike repair shop all the time, so I'd try maintaining it myself, I've obtained resources for the same in a previous question of mine, thanks to the community here.. If the suggestions still remain to keep the triple chainrings, how to I "properly" shift gears? Is there any guide for the same? Since I'm buying a rather "expensive" bike for the first time, what else should I be getting with the bike? I've currently understood that I should be getting a helmet, a good quality lock, mud-guards that cover the whole wheel (we actually have a monsoon season), a bottle stand, and a bell. I won't be buying lights because I am not thinking about riding in the dark. I want the bike to last as long as it can, so should I also get a chainstay protector? Anything else that I should be getting? How do I know something is a BSO (Bicycle Shaped Object)? I also want to know whether any of them are a BSO? I don't even clearly understand what BSO means, given the fact that I don't have a "proper" bicycling experience (I've only ever ridden a ~$60-70 ss bike as of yet).. Are BSOs bad to have? I've read various questions related to BSOs here but none seemed to answer my query.. I may have missed out on a relevant one though, but I tried not to. <Q> That Munich "21-speed" is really a 7-speed. <S> It doesn't have a triple chainring or front derailleur (and doesn't seem to have a planetary-gear rear hub). <S> Not sure why they call it that. <S> Both bikes seem pretty comparable. <S> Decathlon is well-known in Europe as selling cheap but decent products. <S> I've never heard of Mach City. <S> If a brand's reputation is worth anything, that's something to consider. <S> One of the hallmarks of terrible BSOs that I've seen in the USA is thin stamped dropouts with tubes that are pinched onto them (see below). <S> Neither the Mach City nor the Decathlon bike seem have this kind of construction. <S> Another hallmark is the one-piece crank . <A> Regarding the term " BSO " for bicycle-shaped object: in a city where some bicyclists can afford top-quality bikes, if you were to make a list of models of new bicycles for sale locally and sort by price, there would be a few models that are very expensive, several that cost much less, and typically not very models in between. <S> I rode BSOs for years and depended on them as my primary mode of transportation, and learned to love bicycles in the process. <S> I would recommend that you not waste much time trying to figure out if the label applies to a particular bicycle. <S> Just understand that the term as used here applies to lower-quality bikes. <S> Even cheap bikes can provide efficient and reliable service for years if they are used carefully and maintained well. <S> Here's my advice: <S> If you don't know much about bicycles, a knowledgeable friend can be very valuable when buying a bicycle, especially if the bicycle is used. <S> Buy essential accessories at the same time you buy the bicycle, so factor the cost of the accessories when you calculate what you can afford. <S> Don't skimp on safety, unless you have absolutely no other alternative. <S> For non-essential accessories, consider riding the bike for a while first before buying the accessories so that you get a better understanding about what might be worth the money. <S> Advice from people who understand your specific situation is worth more than advice from people who live in different climates and different situations. <S> If you are at all mechanically-inclined, learn to maintain and repair your own bicycle. <S> Having friends that you can learn from and share tools with is a good thing. <A> Both look like perfectly decent bikes for low requirement riding, like commuting or recreational riding. <S> I would take into consideration two things: fit and the reseller. <S> For fit, it sounds like you can try both. <S> Typically Decathlon will allow fitting the bike (even if only in the shop) and the local bike shop might even allow you to ride it outside. <S> As to the reseller: if the local bike shop selling the Mach has a good reputation, you might have a bit more recourse on the shop if a problem occurs. <S> I also think it's good to support a LBS by buying a bike and accessories from them. <S> Decathlon on the other hand sells tons of accessories that are typically compatible with the bikes they sell. <S> That means you can always buy parts later on. <S> That also makes it more suitable if you intend to do most of the maintenance on the bike yourself. <S> Good luck and enjoy the riding!
|
Buy the best quality bike that you can afford. The term "BSO" is an insulting term for the models in the lowest group.
|
Aerodynamics of cycling behind a bus If cycling directly behind a bus that was travelling at 30mph on a flat road on a windless day, how far would the rider have to move away from it to receive zero drafting benefit? Is the distance-to-benefit relationship linear, or does the benefit decrease more quickly the further away from the bus the rider is? Is it possible that at certain distances the rider would be worse off, i.e. they would suffer from being in the wake of the bus more than they would if there was no bus at all? If it makes any difference, assume the bus is 10m long, and the front and rear faces are 2.5m x 2.5m, and the cyclist is average height riding a road bike on the drops. <Q> The zero benefit will theoretically only appear in infinity. <S> In practice, it will of-course be non-measurable in a finite distance. <S> The wake of a bluff body (like a bus) will consist of a recirculation zone, where the Reynolds-averaged streamlines are closed and the flow is actually reversed (in the coordinate system fixed with the bus) in some volume, and the rest where the flow is only slower. <S> It will be relatively constant within the zone and it will be slowly decreasing in the wake farther behind. <S> The length of the recirculation zone will be comparable to the lateral dimensions of the bus. <S> I do not have time nor resources for a proper literature review at the moment <S> but I recommend looking at Figures 3 and 4 in Longa et al. <S> JFM 866, pp. <S> 791, https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2019.92 <S> that show typical wakes for two lorry-like bodies. <S> (© 2019 Cambridge University Press, CC-BY 4.0) <S> The figures show that the region of decreased wind velocity can reach far behind the depicted region but is the strongest in a small blue region with dimensions comparable to the lateral dimensions of the vehicle, where the U velocity component is actually reversed. <S> That means that the bus traveling in the still air effectively sucks the particles in that region towards its rear wall. <S> The flow in that region can be complicated, the paper itself is about that <S> (bistability etc.). <S> Be aware that the details strongly depend on the shape of the rear of the body. <S> For a cyclist we have to consider the dimensions of the cyclist too because the low-momentum region is becoming lower and lower, see Fig. <S> 4a. <S> That means that it is difficult to predict the drag of the cyclist in that complicated region. <S> It would be a difficult simulation. <S> But we can still look where the flow is fast and where it is slow. <A> The distance-to-benefit ratio would not be linear. <S> There is a pocket of still air close to the back of the bus, followed by a very turbulent area farther back where the airflow from each side of the bus rejoins, followed by a less turbulent wake. <S> The buffeting in the turbulent area can be dangerous. <S> You can read about a more extreme case of this in this article about Denise Mueller Koronek's motorpace record attempt . <S> If you picture a boat with a squared-off stern traveling through the water, you can picture how the water will not immediately fill the void behind the boat. <S> The cyclist is in the equivalent of that void. <A> The airflow behind a bus is turbulent, so there isn't a simple answer. <S> You might find this link to be interesting - especially page 13. <S> https://www.grandmarq.net/blaze/Blaze_Pics/AE%20507%20lect%207%20Aero%20Drag%20of%20Autos.pdf
|
The benefit will be decreasing the most at the boundary of the recirculation zone.
|
How old is too old for aggressive cycling? Downhill, freeride, dirt jumping, BMX. Am I too old for complete experience of these styles at 28 ? Have no prior experience, but think to jump in. I did extensive reading on this topic, forums, blogs and reddit mainly, it usually starts off with how it is never too late, but when I scroll to bottom, there are horror stories like chronical aches, bones never healing properly, repetitive stress injury and other things I don't want in 30s and 40s. <Q> I'm 65, and doing 60-70 miles a week on local roads, trails and hillsides. <S> I'm not a kamikaze biker anymore, but it's still wholly worthwhile. <S> Injuries just take longer to heal, and I'm not so patient anymore. <S> You're only in your 30s and you're wondering if you're too old? <S> Find a safer sport, buddy. <S> Ironically, I'm wondering when I'll be too old. <S> Not even close, yet. <A> No, age will not restrict you. <S> Age-related losses have not set in. <S> In short, you're fine. <S> One problem, though, is that people charge into a new activity and overdo it. <S> That's not an age thing; that's a human thing. <S> I'd strongly recommend joining your on-bike training with off-bike strength and conditioning, and maybe even emphasize it over on-bike work for the first couple of months. <S> Your body can strengthen and be well-adapted for when the on-bike work starts in earnest. <S> Whatever discipline you choose, run its drills relentlessly, learning form over speed. <S> Speed will come, but (sigh...) <S> it royally sucks to have to go back and unlearn something you've committed to muscle memory incorrectly. <S> Rest enough. <S> "Enough" will vary depending on activity, but a muscle that didn't recover has more chance to be injured and is less capable of saving you in an "oh, poop" situation, allowing more severe injury. <S> Learn to wrench on your own bike. <S> Not that you have to, <S> but there's a peace of mind that comes from being able to figure out what's going wrong for yourself instead of waiting for a looming verdict from the bike shop about how much cash you're about to give them. <S> Some of those disciplines use armor. <S> That's a good idea. <S> Use sunscreen, listen to your parents, and don't talk to strangers. <S> Those are just generally good advice. <S> Sorry, that got wordy. <S> That's basically an excerpt from the speech I give the kids on my MTB team at the start of every season. <A> It depends a lot on your previous life style. <S> Whether you have been practising sports on a regular basis or led a rather sedentary life. <S> Anyway it will not be something that you are going to enter at full speed. <S> It would be comparable to skiing where you won't go to the top of the most difficult track and try to go down without ever being to basic instruction. <S> Begin slowly and with enough caution and see how far you can reach. <S> Also adhere to a local cycling club that has a 'dirt' section. <S> Most have instructors to guide your first steps. <A> At 28 years of age you are still quite young and actually many freeride pros are in their 30s. <S> Well sure maybe they started MTB & BMX when they were 10 or 15 <S> but you still have at least a decade to make progress! <S> Here is my personal anecdote: I had done lots of mountain biking, wheelies etc. <S> when I was 10 - 20 years old but then other stuff got on the way. <S> But when I was 28 I wanted to get back into MTB for the thrill and exercise. <S> This was my progress, I hope you find it useful on what to expect: 2016, Full suspension XC bike:General MTB on local trails. <S> 2017, Full suspension XC bike: <S> Same stuff as last year, bought a full face helmet and did few visits to bike park later in the season. <S> I was terrified but excited :D <S> I also rented an enduro bike and was happy to find extra suspension and stiffness (29" 9mm QR wasn't that great!). <S> 2018 <S> , Enduro bike: <S> Enduro & Downhill, max. 3 - 5 meter long jumps. <S> Bought body armor and had my first crash the same day, broke 4 bones but got back to MTB in 3 - 4 months. <S> Naturally I drove a lot slower the remaining season. <S> I also bought knee-pads and good shoes after the crash. <S> 2019 <S> , Downhill bike: <S> Downhill & Freeride, max. 5 - 8 meter long jumps. <S> 2020 <S> , Downhill bike: <S> Freeride, max. 10 - 15 meter long jumps (but not that high on the sky yet and no tricks). <S> My friend started at the same time and we've driven about the equal amount and is maybe 1 year more advanced than me, but he hasn't crashed yet. <S> Some people advance slower and others faster but some people try to advance way too fast and take extra risks. <S> That may cause a 1 - 2 year long set-back or even put the hobby to an end.
|
You're not as young as you used to be, but in a good way: you won't have physical limitations of age, but you'll be more observant and thoughtful about what works for you and what doesn't, and less likely to take a "walk it off" approach to injury. First you'll have to acquire the necessary riding technique, skills and bike handling knowledge.
|
Shift lever tight when cable clamped in derailleur, adjustments seem futile I have a 2020 Giant Trance 2 I purchased new at the beginning of June 2020. Recently I had to replace my shifter cable (I broke a ferrule and the cable was fraying and very short, so I figured the best way out was to throw a new cable in to the system.) Prior to this, I have clamped my shifter cable into my derailleur and indexed with no real issues twice before. This time around I am having great difficulty shifting to lower gears only when my cable is clamped. Observations / General Info Shifter cable appears to be seated properly. https://imgur.com/a/iV0nsw5 I unhooked the cable and set the H-limit, manually set L-limit (as close as I could tell), and double checked the B-limit (same position it has been in, given the dust rings.) I replaced the (new) shifter cable just to make sure something wasn't wrong with the cable. These are the shift cables I am using Cable Unclamped With the cable unclamped (so swinging freely but still through my outer), the shifter lever feels clean and responsive. Additionally, I can manually push the derailleur into all positions. Derailleur hanger looks fine. Cable Clamped With the cable clamped, shifting from the highest gear towards the lower gears starts to get difficult around gear 10 -> 9 / 9 -> 8 (so just a few clicks in.) I can get all the way up to gear 2 with progressing stiffness, and then the system is so tight I usually cannot push into gear 1.If I start with the cable particularly loose, I can usually click to gear 1 if I really press the shifter lever, but the chain doesn't move. If I click back to gear 2, I'm often not able to click back to gear 1 again. I keep reading online that either the cable tightness needs to be adjusted (I have tried varying degrees of slack- / tautness) or to replace the outers (which should still be fairly clean- they are only 2 months old and I shift with no resistance when unclamped.) Does anyone have any suggestions? I can upload additioanl pictures if it sounds helpful. <Q> It sounds like the cable is not routed correctly, putting force on the cable where it was not intended and thus adding more friction than normal. <S> This would explain why the cable moves freely when there is no tension on it, and why it gets harder when you shift to bigger cogs. <S> Run down the cable from the shifter to the derailleur to see if the routing is wrong along the frame (or inside the frame). <S> I can imagine that the routing towards the cable clamp is the most likely problem, as it's often not obvious what the correct routing needs to be. <S> Download <S> the manual of the rear derailleur and double check your installation. <S> -- <S> Edit below <S> I can't be sure which model derailleur you have, but the relevant manual should show how to route it correctly. <S> As an example I have included an image from a Shimano derailleur dealer manual. <S> Purely as an illustration you might note that the routing is different depending on the model. <A> I'd initially suspect improper cable routing as other answers have stated. <S> By the way, there is no such thing as adjusting the cable tension . <S> The only tension on the cable comes from the derailleur spring and the cable does not stretch. <S> The cable length <S> relative to the housing is what matters as that affects the derailleur indexing. <S> See https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/how-a-rear-derailleur-works . <S> Also check out <S> https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/rear-derailleur-adjustment <S> to ensure the derailleur is set up properly. <A> If you feel confident you've eliminated cable friction, incorrect routing, limit screws, and the b-tension screw as possibilities, that leaves hanger alignment, poor clutch function, and physical damage to the derailleur as possible contributing factors. <S> Contemporary mountain bikes are just plain sensitive to hanger alignment. <S> Checking and correcting it at the first sign of trouble is how the world works now. <S> Disengage the clutch and see if it's any better. <S> If so, follow the steps to lubricate it and adjust the friction in the dealer manual for your derailleur. <S> If you don't have Nexus grease handy <S> you'll have to make your own decision what to use instead. <S> If you've done all of the above and the problem persists, I would begin to look pretty hard at whether the RD is tweaked. <S> Depending on what lead to you breaking the ferrule, this wouldn't be altogether surprising.
|
Then check in more detail the routing of the cable from the last outer towards the cable clamp on the derailleur. Looks aside, putting an alignment tool on the hanger would ideally be the first step.
|
Correct way to shift? So I went to a bike shop to check out the options that I could buy and came across this board that has the gear using system explained for beginners (I guess?). Is it not literally suggesting cross-chaining? The bike I'd most likely buy will have Shimano tourney derailleurs, both front and back.. Is this the best way to go about using the setup? The setup is a 3×7 and would be used mostly on flat roads. I'm also thinking about removing two of the chainrings since only one chainring makes more sense. (probably keeping only the middle). Say, I make it a 1x setup after removing two chainrings, (keeping just the middle one), will I still meet with cross chaining? Yes, I've looked at options that have a 1x setup, but they aren't very reliable, and most of them have cheap suspensions and cheap disc brakes on them, both of which I want to avoid. <Q> Is it not literally suggesting cross-chaining? <S> Cross-chaining is putting a chain at extreme angle between front and rear cogs. <S> The picture above illustrates correct ways to use the front triple. <S> Incorrect ways would be: the biggest front ring with the biggest rear one, and the smallest front one with the smallest rear one. <S> I'm also thinking about removing two of the chainrings since only one chainring makes more sense. <S> I've seen/used the Tourney group and agree that the ratio range it provides is unnecessarily big for flat road applications. <S> However, removing all but one front chainring, in my opinion, will leave you with a very narrow range at the back. <S> Most people will be comfortable with existing two front chainrings of the Tourney setup (the smallest and the middle one), as the biggest front cog only makes sense for quite steep descents and high speeds, unusual for leisure cycling (or at least for non-mountainous terrain). <S> Note that chainrings on Tourney are riveted not screwed to the spider, so removing them will require some drilling or smashing. <S> Putting them back on will become problematic as well. <S> That is why I do not recommend it. <S> Say <S> , I make it a 1x setup after removing two chainrings, (keeping just the middle one), will I still meet with cross chaining? <S> Strictly speaking, yes. <S> The 7-speed chains were not designed to bend through the whole range of the rear cassette. <S> It will most likely work, just that it will not be in the intended use/range of the setup, and might lead to decrease in chain/drivetrain life, decrease in shifting reliability, may produce additional noise etc. <S> On top of that, you may start experiencing chain drops if you remove the front derailleur cage, serving as a chain catcher. <S> True 1× setups have additional measures to increase chain retention, which Tourney does not provide. <S> Again, in the Tourney case, the gearing range will just be very limited. <A> Cross-chaining is a mythical beast. <S> Yes, it's best to avoid riding significant distances with the chain at a wide angle, but you pretty much can't shift a bike without doing it occasionally, and there are advantages to being able to quickly access the full range of rear cluster gear ratios, without having to constantly fiddle with the front. <S> Plus, it may be that the "perfect" gear ratio for a given situation may be one that provokes this dreaded beast. <S> Note that cross-chaining wasn't really a "thing" with old 2x5 setups, and only gained note when the rear cog count surpassed 8. <S> Plus, with a single front you can't use the full range of gearing without crossing the chain. <S> Finally, note that the diagram in question isn't even suggesting cross-chaining. <A> In general you want to avoid extreme chain angles. <S> This gear calculator has a typical 3x7 setup with 50/40/30 crank and 14-28 7 speed Shimano freewheel <S> https://gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS&KB=30,40,50&RZ=24,22,20,18,16,28,14&UF=2215&TF=90&SL=1.5&UN=KMH&DV=teeth <S> The max chain angle is set to the smallest possible . <S> It shows that 50/28 30/14 and 40/14 and 40/28 are all cross chained. <S> In general the chain wants to be straight which is achieved by using middle gears in the middle chainring, small gears in the top and large gears in the small chainring . <S> 1x setups can be considered to leave the smallest and largest gears cross chained because there is only one chainring position. <S> Possibly with modern 1x setups this isn't a problem, but with a cheap 3x crankset, removing chainrings won't help anything.
|
Having a middle front cog with either the biggest or the smallest rear cog will constitute cross-chaining, albeit less grave.
|
Smartphone app that alerts when a rider is left behind I belong to a few off-road bicycle in groups. We ride during the day and at night. Does anyone know of a smart phone app that would alert the bicycling group leader when one of the group is left behind, meaning when they are more than certain distance far away? <Q> I don't believe there's such an app, so here's an app-assisted approach. <S> It doesn't alert but <S> both clubs I ride with have used WhatsApp location sharing to meet up on the road. <S> Other location-sharing tools exist too. <S> If you use a back marker (a role I've often taken in the slower of my clubs, being fairly strong and well equipped, with maps and a loud voice), their job is to stay with the slowest rider and they could share their location with the leader. <S> They should have the route and good lights if darkness is an issue. <S> You could run location sharing all the time, or you could rely on starting it if you're dropped - this would be more suited to mechanicals when you're stopping anyway, as I can't really recommend that much fiddling with your phone while riding, even with it clamped to the bars. <S> Setting up a group for the ride (or series of regular rides) would be necessary. <S> In fact the messaging alone is useful - I've received a few "you ok ChrisH? <S> " messages when I've been dropped from a faster group for reasons including cramp, a last minute reroute, and of course simple slowness. <S> These are best if the leader says where the group is waiting (assuming they are) as you don't want to stop to reply, then come round a bend and see them. <S> Location sharing relies on a data signal, which is fine for local road rides, or my nearest trail centre, but not much use for wilderness cross-country. <S> Without it there may be push-to-talk radio apps that use a WiFi signal. <S> That should give you enough range. <S> Whether any can display location is another matter <A> This is an inadequate solution to the OP's problem, which I suspect can't be implemented practically. <S> Garmin and Wahoo are two major brands of bicycle computers, and I suspect that they have the largest and second largest market share for GPS cycling computers (with Wahoo trailing Garmin considerably, and with many other cyclists using non-GPS computers or no computer). <S> This is almost certainly proprietary to Garmin. <S> It requires all riders to connect on Garmin Connect Connections, and it probably requires all individual participants to opt into live tracking. <S> This would enable the ride leader to see the positions of the other participants during the ride - but, as pointed out by @ChrisH, this is contingent on an adequate GPS signal, which may not be true on all rides. <S> I believe this shows all other Wahoo users, provided their (GPS-estimated) distance <S> is greater than 50m from your position <S> (NB: I think that GPS position estimates may have a margin of error of up to about 50 yards/45m). <S> But again, this is limited to Wahoo users. <S> While this doesn't meet the OP's use case, both companies above enable individual users to share a live tracking link to friends and family. <S> This enables other people to see their friend's position live on a web link. <S> However, this is also contingent on a GPS signal. <S> Additionally, I recall a recent spate of posts that Wahoo's live track functionality was breaking mid-ride, and I believe I've heard that Garmin's live tracking functionality may have been intermittent as well. <S> A more dedicated option here would be the SPOT satellite tracking and messaging service . <S> I believe that long-distance racers may use this; for example, a friend in the North Star Bicycle Race, which goes from St. Paul, Minnesota to the Canadian border and back (over about 4-6 days of cycling), advised people to rent their GPS trackers early (and no, I am not even remotely near her level of long-distance cycling, so I didn't rent one). <A> Thank you all for the information. <S> The closest gadget/app that I can find to what I'm looking for is a digital child leash app. <S> The kid wears a special bracelet and if the child is further than a predefined distance from the parent's phone, the bracelet emits a sound alert. <S> The leader can wear the bracelet and the group riders can use the app. <S> Its not really set up for groups, but it might work for me (one on one), since our group rides off road in the dark and the leader can't keep looking back to see if I'm stuck in the sand. :( <S> Waiting and sweeping is good, but doesn't always work.
|
With big groups, designating a back marker (or pair of back markers) is worthwhile. While I'm not familiar with Garmin, they appear to have a feature called GroupTrack , which enables users to opt in to a group ride with tracking. Wahoo has similar functionality , which I believe is called Find a Friend.
|
Will running an LED designed for batteries on a NEXUS dynamo hub damage the LED? I have a question about LEDs on 6V Shimano dynamo hubs. I built up an old Schwinn with a Nexus dynamo hub, and the headlight I'm using is based on an LED 6V headlamp. The LED is a Chip-on-board design, and I've wired it directly to the two terminals on the hub without using the frame as a ground. I have the pulses set up to alternate between the headlight and the tail lights. The light works great, but I wasn't aware that the Shimano dynamo is putting out reverse-polarity pulses as well as the ones properly oriented to light the LED. Is this bad for the LED bulb? Will it burn out prematurely because of the reverse pulses? <Q> Reverse pulses at low voltage probably won't damage the LED, but the COB (chip on board) that gives the flashing modes might not be able to cope with the full reverse voltage. <S> The problem is that the hub dynamo is more accurately a constant current source , and will supply about 500mA. One common trick is to run two 6V lights in series off a hub dynamo, and most dynamos will give full brightness from both... <S> they put out 12V. <S> The actual voltage you get out of it might be clamped by a zener, but it's unlikely to be a 5W zener that can take the full power of the hub forever. <S> Not that you want that anyway <S> , it's extra drag. <S> I have run bare 5W star LEDs straight off a SON hub dynamo (well, with a diode and capacitor to reduce flickering) because they're designed to take 500mA and that's what the dynamo supplies. <S> It worked really well, just using a chunk of aluminium channel as a heat sink/weather sheild/reflector. <S> I don't really know about longevity, after ~10,000km/a year <S> or so I got a proper light cheap so switched to that. <S> So if your 6V LED is actually a 1W light it might be getting 12V or more. <S> Whether it survives that is anyone's guess. <S> Worse, even a 5W light is likely to be getting +6V on that half of the wave, then -12V on the other half when it's not drawing any power. <S> I suggest a basic diode or bridge rectifier in series, capacitor in parallel to give you DC. <A> LEDs don't like negative voltages. <S> They generally fry at some 3x-5x <S> their normal forward voltage. <S> Then again, you don't have a bare LED, but a LED and a LED controller <S> and it is the controller that is likely to suffer first. <S> The bad thing is, we don't know much about it. <S> Another bad thing is that the 6v hub is actually 6v when properly loaded w/ 6V, 3W bulb. <S> Otherwise it can go very high, like 50V. <S> You'll get prettu much extra complexity if you try to do the proper thing. <S> You can as well opt for a simple & stupid solution like hub = <S> > bridge rectifier = <S> > <S> 1.5W white led (bare, without controller). <S> It will behave almost like a bulb, except for the brighter light and about half the drag. <A> You could use a regular diode in series to help protect the headlight. <A> I think the best solution is to get a light built for that particular hub. <S> That way I can be sure that it's engineered to work properly with that system. <S> It's a shame-- <S> that light looks so good with this bike. .
|
6v is probably low enough to not damage the LED, but you might be vulnerable to a voltage spike.
|
What saddle rail clamp should I get? I just got a new supercycle bike that came with everything, including the saddle rail clamp (the part connecting the double-railed saddle to the shaft beneath). After riding about 20km on it, the bike seat began tilting backwards randomly, without me adjusting it. I took it apart and found that the ridges on the insides of the saddle clamp had been ground down, and that the whole thing was useless. So far, I've only found one rail clamp that fits with both my saddle and the shaft underneath, and that's the exact same clamp as the first one. Is there another better clamp that won't wear down as fast as my initial one did? <Q> Those style of saddle clamp only slip like you described if they’re loose. <S> Make sure you tighten the side bolts really good ( <S> it’s hard to break those things) and use threadlocker. <S> A better option is to buy a 2-bolt <S> (also known as “infinite adjust”) seatpost. <S> Those use a better design where that slippage is not possible. <S> Simple aluminum posts are not too expensive. <S> Make sure you get the right diameter and length for your bike. <A> Is there another better clamp that won't wear down as fast as my initial one did? <S> No, there isn't. <S> High quality seatposts use an entirely different design with an integral clamp. <S> Thus, you need to change the entire seatpost, not the clamp. <S> Almost all clamps sold separately are complete and total garbage, failing very easily and being impossible to adjust in the perfect position. <S> You should only consider infinitely adjustable seatposts. <S> Some cheap seatposts with integral clamp still may have the groove-based mechanism that allows only some positions. <S> The grooves are not durable enough! <S> This prevents a dangerous failure mechanism where the failure of the only bolt drops your butt onto the rapidly rotating rear wheel that tears your backside in a such horrible manner you will never want it to happen to you. <S> Of course, if your bicycle has something to cover the rear wheel like a pannier rack, this failure mode is not as important to protect against. <S> Still, I would prefer two-bolt seatposts where the failure of a single bolt is not dangerous. <S> Of the seatposts available in the marketplace <S> currently, I have identified at least the following two as having a safe clamping mechanism (this list is subject to change as time passes): <S> Ritchey Classic <S> Procraft Classic <S> and you can't adjust the saddle front/rear position to the desired one). <S> Not all seatposts with two bolts have safe clamping mechanism. <S> For example, I had a hard time finding a good quality 25.4mm diameter seatpost with a safe clamping mechanism. <S> The best I could find is Ergotec Skalar, but its clamping mechanism fails when one of the two bolts fail. <A> As others have suggested, an aluminum-alloy seatpost with an integral clamp is a better solution. <S> The clamp you describe is made of steel, is hard to adjust, and most probably sits on a steel seatpost (the "shaft" you described) which together weigh a good deal more than a quality alloy seatpost. <S> The ones with the integral clamp are easier to adjust and hold up well. <S> I don't believe seatposts wear out -- one of my bikes is 37 years old, and the seatpost is one of the few original parts. <S> Be sure you get the right diameter and that the seatpost is long enough so that you have about 5 cm of it in the frame. <S> Good luck! <A> This style of seatpost is quite common on low-end bikes -- I have serviced dozens of them. <S> Never known one to fail, though we have swapped out a few of them (using parts from scrap bikes) <S> that were a little "iffy". <S> Likely your local bike shop has several of these in their spare parts bins.
|
When selecting the seatpost, prefer designs that have two bolts where the failure of a single bolt does not cause the seat to become loose. When selecting a seatpost, be sure to have sufficient length (too much never hurts, unless it's ridiculously long which no seatpost I know of is), and the correct diameter (use a caliper to measure your old seatpost), and least importantly, the correct setback amount (there is some adjustment room in the saddle but too much error in the setback Good-quality seatposts start at around $20-25 (US), and if you can find a shop with used parts, you may be able to score a seatpost for about half that.
|
Is it more difficult to mount non-tubeless tires on tubeless-ready rims than non-tubeless-ready rims? In the summer I bought an e-road-bike that has tubeless-ready rims. I wanted to change the tires to better ones, so I bought a pair of Continental GP 5000 (non-tubeless) 28mm tires, and installed them on to the rims. It was a very hard job! I even punctured one tube in the process. Yesterday, I finalized a 36-spoke replacement wheel for the e-road-bike, because I was not satisfied with the stock non-Shimano hub and the spoke count of the stock wheel (28). The replacement wheel uses a non-tubeless-ready double-eyeleted rim (DT Swiss TK 540). I mounted a GP 5000 28mm tire on the replacement wheel, and it was very easy! I started to think whether this could be due the tubeless-readiness properties of the rim. Are all rims similar? I.e. is it always hard to mount a non-tubeless tire on a tubeless-ready rim and easy to mount a non-tubeless tire on a non-tubeless-ready rim? <Q> There is always the potential for tolerances to make a particular tire, rim, or combination hard to mount. <S> A rim being tubeless or not per se does not dictate how hard it is to mount a tire on. <S> Tubeless rims aren't made tighter, i.e. their target diameter for the bead is not a larger number than non-tubeless. <S> There has always been a cat and mouse game in cycling where no manufacturer of tires or rims wants their parts to be subject to tires blowing off. <S> So sometimes they make decisions that nudge things in the tighter direction; ie smaller bead seat diameter for tires and bigger for rims, and truly difficult mounting situations can result. <S> You can find some tubeless parts that show this phenomenon, but it's not categorical to tubeless. <S> It's probably less common if anything if I had to guess. <S> In practice, almost all problems people have mounting tires on to tubeless rims relate to them not being deliberate enough in getting the beads sunk in the middle well of the rim. <S> Doing this all the way around is how you make the final tight spot easy. <S> This has to be done on purpose with tubeless rims in a way it didn't so much before. <S> If you gathered data you might find that tubeless rims had a larger BSD on average and are harder to mount by that definition. <S> Or, you might find that the tighter tolerances are working in both directions, and average BSD is the same. <S> That data doesn't exist. <S> Another definition of which is harder to mount is for which type is it more common to encounter a rim with a BSD that's simply too large and has to be brutally fought to get a tire onto. <S> In my experience that would be non-tubeless, presuming one has good technique with tubeless center wells, as above. <S> I very rarely have that struggle with tubeless rims. <S> You'll read that Conti road tires err tight and there may be some truth in that, but only to a marginal effect compared to the difficulties you'll encounter if you don't do the above. <A> In order for tubeless tire setup to work you need tight tolerances as the bottom of the tire bead needs to be in firm contact with the rim bead seat in order to make a firm seal. <S> As such the bead seat diameter (BSD) should have less variability and be closer to specifications. <S> Regular non-tubeless rims are not under such tight constraints. <S> Manufacturers often undersize the rim (or have less concern about batches that are slightly undersized). <S> Depending on who you believe this is done in to make mounting non-tubeless tires easier or to ensure good batch yields - no one will want to release a rim that is out of tolerance and too big as no one will be able to use it <S> and it would become a warranty nightmare. <A> @NathanKnudson already mentioned the well in the middle of tubeless rims. <S> This merely illustrates why it's necessary to use that well. <S> The picture below is from Slowtwitch.com . <S> For readers not used to tubeless rims, the well or center channel has a narrower diameter than the rim's bead shelves, where the tire beads sit when inflated. <S> I'm not sure what the optimal sequence of events is. <S> However, when I mount the first side of a new tire, I get that side's bead in the well. <S> Then I work the other bead across the rim's sidewall. <S> If I get stuck, I go around the rest of the tire and make sure both beads are pushed into the well, then I return to the bit of bead that I couldn't move earlier. <S> I don't follow rim standards, but I suspect the bead shelves have a larger diameter than the equivalent but of a traditional, non-tubeless rim by design.
|
Of course this isn’t a complete universality, as there have always been tight tire rim combinations (when tolerances collide) long before tubeless, but with the tolerance improvements we are now consistently closer to the true BSD specification making tire fitting a little harder. Typically yes, but I am sure there are edge cases (read poor manufacturing tolerances) where this isn’t the case.
|
What are velcro alternatives for frame mounted bag? I don't like velcro straps on my bike. They are constantly shifting and rubbing against it. They catch dirt. They cover frame stickers ;) A few days ago I've seen a frame bag that appeared to be connected to the frame without any straps at all. Just like one in this answer : Photo Bikerumor I wanted to ask how is that possible, but I believe the more useful question would be what are alternatives to velcro? Preferably without its flaws, that is: Not sliding, rubbing and moving against the frame With less potential to build up dirt deposit Less visible For the sake of completeness, please include ones that require specifically built frame. I don't have one, but future readers might. <Q> I do not know of any commercially available products alternative to velcro, but I'm a DIY-er, And have successfully mounted some accessories to the frame and handlebars using hose clamps. <S> Their advantage over velcro straps is that they can hold more weight and can better stabilize the load. <S> A strap of old inner tube is enough to protect the paint. <S> Since the clamp does not slide, it does not rub against the paint. <S> The clamps are ugly, but allow for semi-temporary solutions. <S> Another option can be specially made plastic clamps (Similar to the ones used to mount reflectors and accessories). <S> Maybe 3D printed. <S> They would also be "visible" but could be designed to be more eye pleasing and to clamp on areas that do not obscure the logos. <S> Some frames have two sets: on the upper side of the down tube and on the front of the seat tube. <S> The bag would need an inner frame to be bolted to these eyelets. <S> A simple aluminum flat bar should be enough. <S> If only one pair of eyelets is available, only a smaller bag should be used as to not overload the bolting points. <S> For those who order a custom frame, this could be a serious option (ordering specially placed eyelets). <S> For those willing to modify a frame, eyelets can be installed appropriately. <S> (Depending on frame design and material). <A> One possibility for what you saw is bag attachment bolts. <S> Much like bottle bosses and rack attachment points, they are part of the frame. <S> One interesting non-velcro option was what appeared to be a slender extending bar, resembling a very thin frame pump. <S> I only saw it in passing and never had a chance to examine it, but I think the top and down tube sides of the frame bag had one of the extending bars, but not the seat post. <S> I could be wrong. <S> Another clever alternative is thin elastic banding (shock cord) about the width of paracord. <S> It requires modification of most frame bags, but creates a very cool web appearance. <S> How about frame protection stickers? <S> It seems like that would solve some of the concerns. <A> Can you sew? <S> Its possible to make up a custom frame bag for your bike using relatively simple box-construction techniques. <S> The ones I've made have been triangular and sit at the front of the main triangle, held up by two velco straps and held down by one. <S> However you could put a double-pocket along the top, feed in a length of stiff plastic, sew it in permanently, and then put in two or more small brass or plastic grommits, with one at each end and enough across the top to provide the necessary support. <S> Finally you would use the finished bag to mark out hole locations on your bike. <S> Drill at each hole and install a suitably sized rivnut into the frame. <S> Mount your bag using stainless steel bolts, and then fill your bag with stuff and ride on. <S> If your frame is made from Steel, I'd suggest installing rivnuts. <S> More info on that <S> How to fit rivnut / nutsert to frame? <S> where there's a discussion of the pros and cons/risks of drilling into a frame. <S> The red one pictured is Aluminium so I wouldn't drill that, nor would I drill a Carbon Fibre frame Bike is rotated 90 degrees, hanging by its front wheel in this photo, so the tools are all slumped toward the rear giving it a sack-of-potato look. <S> Its nicer than this, and <S> the zip is on the other side, being right-handed is good for me. <S> This frame is Aluminium, so bag is using velcro ties. <A> Much thinner (so less obvious) and less prone to rubbing than velcro straps are cable ties (zip ties). <S> You can get a range of colours but in black or white you can also buy releasable ones that allow you to take bags off and put them back on reproof being wasteful. <S> They can often be used as a direct replacement on your favourite bag.
|
Another option is to fabricate a bag that can be mounted to the water bottle cage eyelets.
|
What is the best way to keep everything organized and spend less time setting up? When playing Dominion, how do you go about organizing all of the various cards and sets while maintaining a priority to getting games started quickly? <Q> For card selection, I highly recommend the iDominion iPhone app . <S> Lets you specify which sets to include, blacklist individual cards, require Reactions if there are Attacks, and even re-roll one card of the 10 if you just hate the Smithy. <S> There's also a "lite" free version. <S> (Mine are sleeved as well, but that's not required). <S> It's easy to have one person take each box and pull out the cards you need, and for others to chip in parceling out the gold, VPs and starting decks as they're pulled from the boxes. <S> You can divide up the work this way with the original boxes, but card boxes take up a LOT less table space and the ordering of cards in the original boxes <S> can be highly confusing. <A> I find Dominion setup much faster than many (most?) <S> board games, but generally we have: <S> One person who pulls out the gold and VPs and deals out the starting hands One person that chooses the kingdom types (there's an iPhone app <S> that will make a random selection for you, which probably saves a lot of time) <S> One person that pulls out the types as they're read off the iPhone <S> It takes maybe three minutes and we're ready to go <A> Fine the way it is? <S> I don't feel that Dominion's out-of-the-box card storage, setup, or clean-up need any improvement. <S> The box comes with clearly labeled and organized trays: cards are grouped by type (kingdom, victory point, etc.) <S> and then alphabetically. <S> I have basic and two expansion sets and keep everything in the original boxes. <S> It might be a little big if you were flying, but to go over to a friend's house via car <S> it's hardly cumbersome. <S> Plus, once the game's set up the boxes don't have to take up table space. <S> Put them on the ground or on another table or stack them on top of each other. <S> All the ideas for divide and conquer during setup and cleanup make perfect sense. <S> I assume that almost all play groups do this without even thinking about it. <S> Several answers have mentioned an iPhone app for selecting Kingdom cards. <S> This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem, and I'm curious why the app is so popular. <S> lilserf explains it's capabilities well, but why is an app easier than the randomizer cards designed expressly for this purpose? <S> What's easier than selecting 10 cards at random from a deck? <S> I can do that before the app even loads. <S> In fact, the old-school method is probably quicker because each card can be handed to someone as it's selected so the deck can be retrieved. <S> Natural division of labor. <S> If you like to play with cards from all the expansions then shuffle and store the randomizer decks together; otherwise, pick a few from each expansion set based on what kind of game you want. <S> If you pull a card that folks don't like (Smithy for example) just draw another. <S> If you all hate it, remove the card from your randomizer deck. <S> If you're playing with black market, the unselected randomizer cards are the black market deck. <S> As for tailoring to ensure games with attack cards also have reactions, that undermines some of the charm of the game: learning to adapt to any situation that comes up. <S> Prohibiting something a priori is doing your group a dis-service. <A> Mine is similar to Michael Mrozek, but up until recently, we'd had 5-6 people on average playing, and we've had 8 show up before at once <S> (we split into two games then). <S> We used to divide responsibilities like this: One person chooses the kingdom types (using an app) <S> One person has Dominion to pull out cards the first person names. <S> One person has Intrigue to pull out cards the first person names. <S> One person has Seaside to pull out cards the first person names. <S> If we have any more people, they pull out the treasure and victory cards. <S> If not, either the person who has Dominion or Intrigue does. <S> Now, two of our usual players left, leaving us with 3-5 at any given time. <S> Plus, we now have Prosperity. <S> We handle this by having the people pulling cards out of two sets instead of just one, alternating between the two pulling cards. <A> We do a bit of houserulery and slowly change the game between each session. <S> At the end of a game each player will pick one kingdom to remove, and then we'll split the randomisers about equally and everyone picks a kingdom to replace the ones they've removed. <S> We wait to pick the replacements until everyone has selected the ones that are going away, and generally try and keep the various costs between 2-5 in play. <S> After a 3 player game whomever came in third gets to remove and replace 2 kingdoms. <S> In a two player, both player removes two. <S> This way there are four new cards each time.
|
Use one of the many dividers on BoardGameGeek to assist in locating cards. I have all of my cards (Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside, and Alchemy) in two collectible-card-game "long boxes", sorted by set and by name.
|
House rules to make the cloister less of a game winning tile in Carcassonne? In my experience, cloister tiles in Carcassonne are often "too lucky". If you draw a cloister tile in the beginning of the game, it will typically still require an investment of quite a bit of "meeple" time to obtain the full 9 points, which makes it a fair trade-off. However, after about half of the game, it's relatively likely that you can "parachute" a cloister tile in some spot and get 8 or 9 points immediately. This adds a lot of randomness to the game. What house rules work well to diminish this effect? <Q> There are a couple of expansions that reduce the usefulness of cloisters. <S> You don't get the points until all the surrounding squares are filled, which is a safe bet in 'vanilla' Carcassonne, but not such a sure thing with expansions. <S> The Tower expansion makes it less attractive to leave meeple on the board for any length of time, because they are sitting ducks for capture by a tower. <S> The Catapult expansion makes it possible to remove Meeple from the board, or replace them with your own. <S> The Princess and the Dragon expansion also encourages Monk removal as dragon-food. <S> You could ban the 'instant cloister' case, disallowing the dropping of a cloister into a hole for an immediate 9 points. <S> I personally don't find this a huge problem though. <S> You have equivalent 'instant city' and 'instant road' cases. <S> Ultimately, there is quite a lot of luck involved in Carcassonne, by design, I think. <A> Knowing that cloisters can have this effect is half the battle. <S> Rather than adding a house rule to a very popular game I would advise you to alter your strategy a bit to account for future cloisters that you may not control. <S> Examples: <S> Leave a good cloister spot next to an open road that you own. <S> When considering placing a tile between two relatively equal spots determine if one or the other creates a better cloister opportunity. <S> Keep track of how many have been played! <S> If you get down to 10 tiles left and 4 of them are cloisters, make sure you have the meeples available to use them. <S> Alternatively, keep your opponent from freeing his meeples from the board. <A> I have never had this experience with Carcassonne either - typically in our games <S> it's more likely that a late-game cloister will be wasted because the player doesn't have the meeples to spare for it. <S> Even an 8-point late game cloister will be outpaced by a decent sized field, and it will tie up that meeple too. <S> The other factor that can affect this is experience of the players - experienced folks are wary of creating an easy 9-point-parachute-cloister spot on the board and will avoid it if they can. <A> I don't have bad experiences with cloisters. <S> But if they count too heavy, you can rule that an unfinished cloister counts as 0 points in the end. <S> Which makes it harder to spend too much meeple on them. <S> But use them wise. <A> One option that I've used before is to disallow placing cloister tiles in spots where they are adjacent to more than three existing tiles. <A> You could borrow the "Abbey" idea from the Abbyes and Mayors expansion. <S> Abbeys are special tiles (6 of them divided equally among all players) which you can play rather than drawing and playing a random tile. <S> The abbey counts as a cloister for scoring and playing a meeple on, and has a solid edge, so that it ends a road, and walls off citys and farms that it borders. <S> Abbeys can only be played in holes - spaces that have tiles on all four sides. <S> The effect of this is that areas that are prime "gotcha" cloister locations at end game are a little less likely as they either get Abbeys dropped into them, or players shy away from letting such places appear. <S> Without Abbeys and Mayors, you could allow each player once or twice a game, the option of playing a tile face down in a whole rather as an Abbey than as a normal play, and otherwise following the normal Abbey rules. <A> In my experience, the cloisters are punishment for people that don't have spare meeples. <S> I have seen people get into a bidding war over farms and then draw several cloisters and not have meeples available to claim them. <S> Also, without cloisters, there would be far less to lose by committing all of your meeples in the late game. <S> With them, you must chose between taking a small number of points for a partial city or road, versus hold out in case you draw one of the remaining cloisters. <S> That said, simply using the base set compatible tiles from the expansions mitigates the power of cloisters somewhat due to the odd features that show up on those pieces. <S> This makes the situation of a nice all-farmland hole much rarer and also not compatible with all the cloister tiles.
|
It makes it harder to drop a cloister into an empty spot, due to more city tiles with attached roads and cloister tiles with roads or cities on them. Another possible rule is that cloisters must have unique 9 squares, not shared with another cloister.
|
What is a winning strategy for Italy with Diplomacy Italy is almost the worst country to start with. But that makes it a nice challenge. What is your winning strategy with Italy? <Q> Hopefully this will lull them into a false sense of security, so that you can actually get somewhere with your beleaguered green armies. <S> Certainly if anyone starts picking on you, you are entitled to complain loudly: "C'mon! <S> Everyone knows that Italy doesn't stand a chance of winning this game! <S> Stop hassling me!" <S> Of course, this meta-strategy can easily backfire: if you become just too annoying and whiny, people may start attacking you just in the hope of shutting you up! <S> But generally I think it's perfectly reasonable, given the common knowledge that Italy is far from the strongest position in the game, to present yourself as an underdog and no real threat... <S> until you've rallied your forces sufficiently to strike. <S> It's all part of the fun of the game! <A> The Diplomacy Archive has a large number of strategies for Italy and all the other countries . <S> It also has some articles by Allan B. Calhamer (the inventor of Diplomacy). <A> You absolutely need to have some dirt on Austria; it will be very difficult for Italy to do well in the face of a hostile Austria. <S> Even if you join a coalition against Austria early on, you'll find that most of the SCs wind up falling into Turkish hands, rather than yours, leaving you with little better in the way of options. <A> I'm a big fan of the Lepanto opening: Spring 1901: <S> Rom - Nap, Nap - IonFall 1901: <S> Nap - Ion - TunBuild F NapSpring 1902: <S> Ion - Eme, Nap - Ion <S> Setting up a fall 1902 convoy into the heart of Turkey. <S> The main weakness is that this leaves your defenses entirely the responsibility of your northern army, and so requires that you use diplomacy to keep your neighbors from attacking you. <A> You'll probably have to backstab Austria at some point - certainly, I've never got to 18 without Trieste - but that's the usual backstab timing question. <A> Don't worry about "backstabbing" Austria. <S> Try to follow the real life World War <S> I strategy of making peace with France, and ally with Russia against Austria and Turkey. <S> If necessary, let Turkey in the initial alliance against Austria, then convince Russia to side with you against Turkey, who would otherwise be stronger than Russia. <S> Trieste is HUGE for Italy. <S> You will have a line of four connected supply centers (Naples, Rome, Venice, Trieste). <S> Five, if you say that Tunis is "connected" by sea with the others (I'd call it 4 1/2). <S> If France won't make peace and Austria will, ally with England and/or Germany against France. <S> Hopefully, you'll end up with Marseilles and Spain. <S> But they aren't connect to homeland supply bases like Trieste, Serbia, etc. would be. <S> The other problem is that while Russia is a natural ally with you against Turkey, she isn't against England. <A> I am a big proponent of playing as Italy. <S> Here's how I do it: no diplomacy for the first year! <S> A Ven - Pied & A Rome - Ven! <S> Attack Marseilles and Trieste! <S> (also grab Tunis) <S> If you get both SC's, try to ally with Eng/Germ/Russ. <S> If you fail to get allies, promise to vacate one and focus on the other. <S> It is easier to ally with Austria than France in my opinion at this point, because it is harder for Austria to not care and attack you all out. <S> France can swing south and make it hurt. <S> Ideally, you want to get a Fleet in to the English Channel by 1904! <S> This way you own the EAST. <S> Do not ally with Turkey unless he becomes a land power, because his fleets are dangerous. <S> Good luck!
|
One winning strategy is to make an early alliance, preferably with Austria and then knock out Turkey and turn on France. Make sure EVERYONE knows that Italy is the weakest country, by reminding them of it constantly, both during the game and every time the subject of Diplomacy comes up in conversation generally.
|
Is castling still done in the openings in modern chess? I have read in a somewhat old book that castling was to be done as soon as possible, but some of my playing friends don't bother to do it in the opening. What's the modern usage? <Q> It's normally a very good idea to castle early, but 'as soon as possible' is not really a correct rule. <S> It depends on a number of factors, including your choice of opening, and your opponent's response. <S> Leaving your king in the middle of the board is a bad idea. <S> Your pieces can be pinned, you're much more vulnerable, and your rooks can become isolated, trapped on the sidelines. <S> One exception to this rule sometimes arises if you have exchanged queens. <S> Once this happens it is considerably harder to mount a successful direct mid-game assault on the king, and it may sometimes be reasonable in this situation to treat the king as an additional fighting piece, rather than as a delicate thing to hide away on the sidelines and protect at all costs. <S> There are a couple of rare openings where not castling is a valid strategy, but they are unusual. <S> Castling does not occur, or occurs very late, in some variations of the French Defense . <S> See for example Kramnik-Anand, 2008 . <S> Similar things can happen in the Sicilian Taimanov and the Hedgehog Defense . <S> Sometimes giving up castling is a valid line for white, as happens for example in some variations of the King's Gambit Accepted such as the King's Bishop's Gambit, where Black checks on h4, and white plays Kf1. <A> "In the old days" (until about 30-40 years ago), the accepted practice was to develop as quickly as possible, castle (usually kingside), and then start an attack against the enemy king. " <S> Nice" for White (who gets the first move), not so great for Black. <S> With increasing frequency, Black started to play for positional compensation elsewhere on the board other than kingside (center or queenside). <S> Such maneuvers often required extended sequences in which (early) castling would be a wasted move. <S> White, in turn, sometimes delays castling to counter these maneuvers. <S> And there are other sequences in which Black waits for White to start an attack on one side of the board, and <S> then castles on the OTHER side. <S> The idea is to cause those attacking moves to be "wasted," thereby nullifying the advantage of White's first move. <A> Castling early is still a good general rule of thumb for beginners. <S> I believe it is more related to actual playing strength than playing "modern" openings (which I don't believe in either, I only believe in modern lines). <S> Strong (or very strong) players, with their better and more precise understanding of the game, know when and how to identify exceptions and break the rules with very clear justifications, such as: <S> they get sufficient compensation (particularly king safety) for late/not castling, such as in cases where the center is blocked <S> the a/h files for respective rooks will become open/semi-open through exchanges/pawn captures, thus removing a need to develop them by castling the opponent hangs a piece that can be captured by moving the king or the rook, it never hurts to win material this wway
|
Castling is still done in "modern" openings, but it doesn't quite have the urgency that it used to.
|
Can I play a Beer to no effect in Bang? Is it legal to play a Beer card in Bang! even if I am at full life? Some scenarios where I might want to do this: I don't want someone else to "Panic" it from my hand I'm Suzy Lafayette and I want to empty my hand so I can keep drawing more cards <Q> You can only play a beer card off-turn if you've taken a lethal hit. <A> Yes you may, but only on your turn. <S> Playing this way is not considered a discard. <S> Emiliano Sciarra (the game's creator and designer) posted some answers on his site as follows: <S> Q. <S> Can I play a Beer if I am at full life points? <S> A. <S> Yes: the Beer will simply have no effect at all. <S> [...] <S> Q. <S> Can I play a Beer card if there are only two players alive? <S> A. <S> Yes, <S> but it has no effect at all. <S> [...] <S> Q. <S> Can I voluntarily discard my cards? <S> A. <S> [T]he character Sid Ketchum can discard exactly 2 cards when he chooses so to regain one life point. <S> Also, the creator explained that other cards with the icon are not the same as a Beer card. <S> They can be used to restore life points when only two players are in play, and can also be played without effect when your life points are full. <S> However, they can't be used to restore your last life point (or played outside of phase 2 of your turn for any other reason). <A> I think yes, because it's like using a Panic on a player with no cards. <S> Here is why: Beer has an effective range of [Casting Player]. <S> It automatically hits the person who plays it without fail. <S> Panic has an effective range of [1]. <S> If you are going to compare the two, you must assume that the player being targeted is also in range, just as the Beer casting player is in range of the card "Beer". <S> This is a more fair comparison than Tycho's because both cards can technically be played at this point, but neither will be able to have its intended effect; Beer wont be able to restore the health point since the player is at max and Panic wont be able to draw a card from a player because that player doesn't have a card to draw. <S> The new question is "Can you play cards that have no effect?" <S> The answer to this is most likely yes. <S> One in game clue to this is that the character "Apache Kid." <S> He is unaffected by diamonds, yet this does not mean you cannot play a diamond on him. <S> The diamond card will simply have no effect. <S> If we carry this rule on to normal play, one should be able to Beer them self when at full health.
|
To the best of my knowledge... You can play a beer card on your turn, even if it has no effect. Since it is not out of range, it can be played. No, neither cards from your hand nor cards in play in front of you. ...
|
What do you recommend to learn Go? I am a beginner at this great game, and I would like to improve my skills at the game of Go. What resources would you recommend? <Q> If you don't have a friend or neighbor to play with, then I highly recommend the American Go Association. <S> They have a great resources page , links to clubs, books and teaching software . <S> The AGA maintains a list of Internet <S> Go <S> Turn-based servers are good for beginners because there is no pressure to move quickly — you play via email. <S> The Dragon Go <S> Server is dedicated to Go. <S> The great thing about Go is that it is easy to handicap. <S> You and a much more accomplished player can both enjoy a game together, you just have to handicap the expert player. <A> The interactive way to Go . <S> It is only rudiments, but helpful at the beginning. <A> Only one advice: Play on small boards ! <S> Just start by understanding a "simplified-but-faithful" formulation of the rules, like Strasbourg Rules , and then practice with a partner (either a beginner or an experienced player) on a 5x5 board . <S> Once you both feel too cramped on 5x5 (typically after 5 to 10 games) then move to 7x7, and so on. <S> Only after quite a long time does it become enjoyable to play on 19x19. <S> Don't try it too soon, or you'll be disoriented by the many possibilities and loose interest in the game. <A> GoGrinder is a free desktop program for practicing Go problems. <S> There's also a (paid) version of GoGrinder for iPhone on iTunes. <A> Mac Software . <S> It hasn't been updated in a while, and I have no idea if they're interested in porting it to iOS, but a company in Switzerland called Sente have produced a very nice, and free, Go client for OSX called Goban <S> (and it still works on Snow Leopard, despite not having updates since 2006). <S> It lets you play against the Gnu-Go program (which it bundles), and it lets you connect to internet <S> Go servers that support <S> Go Modem and Go Text protocols. <S> How good you think the opposing play <S> AI is, well <S> , I'm not sure an experienced Go player would appreciate it, but I sure do as a learner. <S> At one point, I was able to download and compile up a simple Go Server for OSX on my own, so I could host my own Go Server and then people at my workplace could connect to it and we could play games over our intranet, but I wouldn't recommend that for the non-technical. <S> Books . <S> Kiseido publishes a series of books on Go, in English. <S> I have K31 ("The Second Book of Go"), which I thought was quite useful, and most of the Elementary Go Series (K10-K15), and, again, I found them quite useful. <S> K31 says that it assumes that "you're new to the game, but you've already read a newbie intro book on Go", but I didn't think it was necessary. <S> Once you know the rules, I thought that K31 was a perfectly fine place to start your studies. <S> I don't consider myself anything more than a beginner, and I also am not the sort of person who enjoys reading series of problems and such, so I haven't progressed past these books from Kiseido, but they do offer a whole raft of books for players of all skill levels (ostensibly). <A> Start by playing with "strong" (or at least stronger) players if you can. <S> You'll get whipped, but at least you'll learn some of their "typical" moves. <S> After you have served an "apprenticeship," then look for opponents close to your own strength. <S> Try to beat them with the techniques you have learned from others.
|
Once you have learned some basic strategy, the best way to learn is to play. Servers for on-line play, including some turn-based servers.
|
In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement? In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement? In a lot of games of Catan I've played, initial settlement placement seems to really make or break the game for a player. Are there any good strategies for overcoming a weak starting placement? <Q> If you don't have abundant brick and wood, don't even bother going for Longest Road. <S> Even the worst placement will have some resources they are rich in. <S> If you're rich in... <S> Brick or Wood -- try for longest road and build plenty of settlements Grain or Ore -- upgrade your starting settlements to cities and buy development cards Sheep -- go for Largest Army via development cards, or depending on your next best resource, you'll probably follow one of the other two basic strategies Of course even with all of this, sometimes the dice just won't drop your way :) <A> If your initial placement is bad, hopefully you can still build a little. <S> The first couple road placements are critical. <S> By then you should be able to figure out which commodities are in short supply this game . <S> Either because they haven't been rolled yet, or they're sitting on a 3 and an 11. <S> Use your first two roads to build for that scare resource, claim it, and then see who will overtrade you for it! <A> If you find you're often badly placed, initially, it may be that you're either making errors there, or misjudging where other players are going to place their initial settlements. <S> It's easy to pick your optimal placement when in a four player game you place fourth-fifth, and you can usually figure where the fourth player to play will go when you place third-sixth. <S> If you go first you usually grab one of the two best producing junctions, and should aim for brick and wood since if you have those two with your first settlement, if your options are limited when it gets back to you at least you're able to move, and other players are often hungry for brick and wood early in the game, meaning you're the trading king. <S> Going second-seventh is often the toughest slot, since the first player to go typically grabs the best brick and wood combination (assuming there is one), and there often isn't another good brick and wood combo on the table. <S> Then, of course, by the time it gets back to you pickings tend to be slim. <S> Still and all, given the good advice people have offered, above, you really shouldn't run into setup situations too often at the beginning of the game that seriously handicap you. <S> One of the three main lines of play should be open to you. <S> It's unusual to be stuck with setups where all you get are ore, sheep, and brick; or wheat, sheep, and wood; those triumvirates that leave you unable to move, unable to build, and unable to pick up development cards. <S> Avoid those scenarios if you possibly can, since you're absolutely dependent on the tender mercies of other traders to bail you out and let you progress. <S> Even so, if that's the best situation available to you, you may need to try to build to the nearest 2:1 port of a resource you're rich in, just to get the flexibility that'll get you back in the game. <A> Diplomacy. <S> During the mid game, constantly point out how badly you are doing, encouraging others to trade with you in preference to other players - even offering you better deals. <S> This can allow you to develop a couple of settlements and get back in the game while the others are playing stop-the-leader. <A> Initial placement is critical, but once you've seen the layout, you can devise a strategy that will get you something. <A> When there is a valuable resource(the average amount of pips for each resource is 11.6) that has less than 10 pips, and there is no red hex corresponding to that resource, and there is only a 4 pip for that <S> resource(ie there is only a 9,3, and 12 hex for wheat, then try to claim the 9 and block other people from it) and don't trade with people for that resource unless it's 3:1(and usually if you want to trade 3:1 <S> they have a harbor, else usually at least 4:1). <S> So if you don't have that resource as initial placement, you should try to get a port and trade what you have(for example you have 2 cities and they correspond to a 8 and a 9 for sheep, get a sheep port) with the bank.
|
Try to get a port that capitalizes on your resources, and make the necessary trades with other players to get the resources you're poor in. I think the main thing you need to do is correctly identify your strengths and weaknesses, and don't try to force a strategy you're not set up for. One of the big goals you should be going for is number diversity, so that you're always getting something.
|
Power plants in Power Grid I've played Power Grid once so far. What is a good beginner's strategy in the initial accumulation of power plants? <Q> Some mix of the following: <S> Buy the biggest one you can afford - Remembering that you have to afford fuel as well. <S> Try to get a plant that has dual fuel sources <S> Don't buy a coal only plant if 2 other people already have coal fired plants. <S> Don't get into bidding wars with more experienced players <S> If the above isn't working out, switch tactics - save your money and get the cheapest one <S> you can this turn and get a better plant next turn. <A> Assuming you're playing with 3 or 4 players, use the 1-2-3-4-5-6-6 strategy. <S> That is, first power plant should power 1 city, second 2, etc. <S> Then you'll grow your capacity in a measured pace, and you'll end up with a capacity of exactly 17. <S> A bad strategy would be: 1-1-3-4-4-5-... because that will make it very hard to reach 17. <S> Also, by not buying top-of-the-line power plants, you'll probably never be in first place and having to pay most for fuel. <A> Part of it will depend on your long term strategy; buying a low power plant puts you up first for the cheap resources and the prime places on the board. <S> While more expensive and efficient power plants can give you a leg up in accumulating cash early in the game. <S> is my rule of thumb to start out) until I've seen the board locations and then focus on keeping my power plants close to the number of cities I actually own. <S> With the auction system don't be afraid to let one go if it gets too expensive - the green power plants can be a real bonus if you aren't paying an arm and a leg for them. <A> I don't mind to, in the first turn, buying a cheap plant with a lot of storage space (say, three coal). <S> The cheap plant will help you in the turn order. <S> Now I stock up on cheap resources (cheap because we are in the start of the game) <S> so later my one-coal plant can run for 6 turns. <S> This has the additional bonus that resources become more expensive for the other players. <S> If you can get a city where you can connect to the next city for free, the money saved allows you to stock up nicely. <A> Do not waste your money on plants up to plant number 13, you'll ned to change them soon. <S> Later ones are better. <S> And also you don't have many cities at the begining. <S> Later I'm trying to get plants which could electrify as many cities as possible. <S> These plants waste a lot of resources, but you will not need to change them until the end of game. <A> Four is thought to be one of the best ones to start with. <S> You'll be assured of going first or second (though I'd avoid three), and you can buy a full boat of coal that will tide you over until turn 3. <A> Very hard to say really. <S> It depends on so many factors. <S> The best strategy is to have the power plants that use the resources that your competitors do not use. <S> This then makes the cost of goods cheap to buy, and therefore cheap to fire up.
|
Personally I prefer to start with a relatively inexpensive power plant (as low and cheap as feasible - never more than 2x than the initial value
|
How can I counter Merchant Elves? In Small World , the only combination we've encountered that we consider "broken" in any way is Merchant Elves - the Merchant property doubles the value of every occupied area, while the immortality of the Elves means that eliminating that race becomes impossible. Especially deadly is the situation where Merchant Elves are taken by a player who put his first race into decline early. Has anyone found a counter for this (admittedly rare) problem in Small World? <Q> In Small World , as soon as you discover that someone has a combo that seems powerful you need only to do a couple things <S> Kill off any declined empire of his Regularly snipe a territory or two of his every turn. <S> If at least one other players agrees with you, the declined empire should be gone by the start of his second turn with the powerful combo (at the latest). <S> Without a declined empire regularly gaining a few VPs/turn, it is very hard to win. <S> Next you have to deal with the elves. <S> You definitely don't want him expanding to 8 territories and taking 16VPs <S> /turn! <S> 8 elves can be knocked back pretty easily. <S> He has no combat bonuses on either offense or defense, so you should be able to reduce him to a max of 2 territories at the start of his turn pretty fast. <S> Bottle him up with stacks 2-3 high, this will limit his expansion and should keep his VP generation below yours. <S> Don't be afraid to go into decline early and often. <S> Grab any combo with a combat advantage of some sort and exploit it. <S> Once it plays out, get another one. <S> The Merchant Elves will be stuck fighting for the same 2-4 territories every turn until he goes into decline. <S> Merchant only gives +2 troops, everything else except Fortified (+3) gives at least +4 troops. <S> This means that Merchant is meant to be a very powerful ability, on the other hand, you will almost certainly outnumber him. <S> Grab a combat oriented power on top of that and the battles should greatly favor you. <S> Some combos that might be particularly annoying to the merchant elves are: Flying Ratmen or Amazons (attack his soft underbelly with a ton of troops) <S> Mounted Skeletons should have him restricted to the mountains in no time <S> Stout anything - just throw them at him and go get another empire while he cleans up the carnage Commando Giants - grab mountains, anything around them will probably fall to 1 attacking giant! <A> With only 8 tokens, ME's are not terribly strong (but are rolling in VP's). <S> If they have ANY one token space, get next to it, and convert an Elf. <S> The Elf player drops a token, and can't get it back, and further, just lost 2 points of maximum potential income. <S> If the Sorcerers are not to hand, just beat up and reinforce the heck out of the edges. <S> "Place the substituted opponent's Race token back into the storage tray." <S> SW rules page 9. <A> When an overpowering combo like that appears, you need a game-wide coalition to form, where players focus more on stomping the winner than growing their own empires. <S> Most overpowering combos gradually experience attrition, so the coalition gets to dissolve over time. <S> Merchant Elves are exceptional because the coalition never gets to dissolve (unless, as Michael pointed out, Sorcerers manage to convert some Elven singletons). <S> This isn't necessarily bad, but it does mean the game will be dominated by a standard game theory defection scenario. <S> If the coalition is strong enough, the players who 'defect' and see to their own empires win, but if too many players do that, the Elves win.
|
The "Solution" to Merchant Elves is anything Sorcerers.
|
What are the most useful Major Improvements in Agricola? What Major Improvements do you see as most useful in Agricola, and why? <Q> For a grain-based strategy the Clay Oven is key. <S> It's incredibly efficient (1 grain-> 5 food), and crucially, requires only one stone, so you can get it early (guaranteed before the second harvest). <S> In most of my Agricola games, one player will take the fireplace/animal eating option, and the other will go for a grain/baking option. <S> My other key improvement is the Well. <S> The in-game effect (5 food) is marginal, but the 4 points at the end make a huge difference, and are great value (often equivalent to renovating your entire house, for example). <A> Here are my rankings of the Major Improvements: <S> Fireplace (2 clay) <S> : Hands down, the best Major Improvement. <S> The person who gets this has an easy food engine. <S> In most cases it will take 2 actions for someone else to get into the action giving you time to collect your sheep. <S> You also are first in line to get a cheap cooking hearth. <S> Well : 4 resources for 4 victory points, and it comes with food! <S> This should be taken every game Cooking Hearth : <S> The default food engine of the game. <S> No matter what you have, you can probably produce food with a Cooking Hearth. <S> You should try to get one of these unless your minor improvements grant you a decent food engine. <S> Clay <S> Oven : <S> Overrated by many, still 5 food for one grain is hard to ignore! <S> Takes a lot of actions to get up and running, but will then produce a lot of food. <S> In 2-3 player games coming up with stone can be an issue. <S> With 4-5, the one sow/bake action can be problematic to obtain when you need it. <S> Paying extra to be the second person in a food engine isn't great. <S> Better to get the extra clay and go straight to a Cooking Hearth in most cases. <S> Stone Oven : <S> Taken late in many games for the VP and the free bake action Basketmaker's Workshop : Collecting all the reed can deny other players house expansion, buying this gives you something to do with all the reed. <A> Do you play with the Farmers of the Moor expansion? <S> I've been finding, with that in the mix, that the Forester's Lodge is pretty amazing, definitely a valid alternative to grabbing an early Fireplace. <S> Played <S> early it's a win-win Improvement: either it puts your Wood production into overdrive, or you get a ton of VPs for conserving Forest tiles on your board till the end of the game. <S> The Peat-Charcoal Kiln might be similarly good in a game where Stone is available from Turn 1, but unfortunately I mostly play 2 player, so I don't see enough of those! <S> In the standard game I agree with Pat that the 2-clay Fireplace is the best, but only if you can grab it straightaway and then be the first to grab and slaughter 4-5 sheep! <S> It's not like it's much good later on, if you weren't the "early bird". <S> Aside from that, see my comment on his answer. <S> Don't underestimate the potential power of the Basketmaker's Workshop! <A> Baking with ovens is more of a bonus than an early goal to shoot for and rely on. <S> Livestock and even food from occupations/minors is a better deal than baking. <S> Especially in 4 or 5 player games it's WAY too easy to be blocked out of huge baking action when you need it. <S> Pat's list has the right idea, although Pottery is by far the best of the "workshop" improvements. <S> Clay is the most abundant resource in 90% of games. <S> You can never have enough wood between building rooms, fences, and improvements. <S> Reed is also scarce to the point that it's the primary bottleneck for development. <S> Why would you eat it? <S> Clay is almost as abundant as wood and is mostly only used for a cooking improvement and renovation; there's plenty of it <S> and it's not too difficult to get food out of the Pottery <S> every harvest and the full +3 bonus points.
|
Fireplace (3 clay): Less important than the 2 clay version. Pottery : With the right minors you can make something of this, otherwise it is just 2 VPs Joinery : It isn't too many games that you have much extra wood. The victory points are the main thing here.
|
History of board games Is there a good book about the history of board games? Preferably the book would cover all the way from the ancient games to the newest fads in the market. <Q> The Oxford History of Board Games is a very thorough book that discusses board games from their ancient inception to the (almost) present-day dividing into Race Games, Space Games, Chase Games, Displace Games, and War Games (such as chess). <A> While not a direct answer, check out the recent " Hobby Games, the 100 best " book. <S> It has games from the last 100 years and there is a lot of history contained within its page. <S> Each entry is written by a game designer as well. <S> I enjoyed the book very much, learned a ton. <A> The Library Thing page I linked to also has several related books to check out. <A> R.C Bell wrote several books on board games, though I don't think they were as structured as the Oxford book that Jeremiah already mentioned. <A> Dork Tower <S> #34: <S> A Brief History of Gaming is a comic book featuring the early history of board games. <S> John Kovalic is the author/illustrator (he is also a game designer) who created Dork Tower, a comic book that frequently features gaming of all kinds. <A> I am currently reading (and very much enjoying) A World of Chess: <S> Its Development and Variations Through Centuries and Civilizations , by Jean-Louis Cazaux and Rick Knowlton. <S> It's very much specific to chess, but of course chess was and continues to be a big part of the history of board games. <S> What I'm finding particularly awesome about the book is that it goes into the mechanics of chess in each of its many incarnations over the times and places its been played. <S> Anyone interested in this topic (history of board games) will absolutely find it fascinating.
|
I think A History of Board Games Other Than Chess is one of the definitive books in this category.
|
What's the name of the move where the player swaps King and Rook/Castle in Chess? Why is this move important? I'm a chess beginner, and I was wondering: why was this movement introduced to chess, and why is it important to the game? <Q> It's called castling . <S> See this related question: Is castling still done in the openings in modern chess? <A> The Wikipedia article has information about the origins of the move. <S> The move is important to build a fortress for your king, and to free the rook for attacking the enemy king. <A> The name of the move is castling. <S> The history of the move is explained well on the wikipedia page . <A> The main advantage is that you move 2 at the same time. <S> It's important to note that the 2 castlings are not the same. <S> The long one is more aggressive and if you do it right, you get your rook in line with your queen. <S> Traditionally, taking the center should be an objective. <S> Castling enables this. <S> I don't consider myself a strong player, but in my experience, Castling is best used for positioning rather as a defense for your King. <S> Remember, you need to have the Initiative... <A> About the importance of the move: (Usually) Helps to get your king to safety. <S> Very often, center line is not safe in a battlefield. <S> Brings the rook closer to the center line. <S> Oftentimes, the fight will be around those lines. <S> You could read on "importance of center" if you are interested. <S> Only move that lets you move two pieces helping in tempo <S> Only move that lets you move your king two squares <S> Allows one to connect the rooks. <S> We say rooks are connected when they protect each other. <S> Of these, the first two are the most important. <S> King safety is essential by the very nature of the game. <S> Getting the rook out in the game is also important. <S> For example, in many queen side castling moves, players intend to bring the rook for the attack. <S> Many people use this move in almost all their games. <S> And when was it included in chess? <S> Obviously, it was not in the early versions of the game. <S> It is an addition to the fast European chess for sure. <S> 14th or 15th century is an estimated time. <S> The wikipedia entry for castling looks nice. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling This related question is on the history of castling. <S> It is a nice read. <S> https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/486/how-did-castling-originate Happy Castling. <A> The main purpose of castling is to "develop" the king, not the rook. <S> The king is easier to defend towards the end squares but can be in danger anywhere. <S> However around the e-file the king also gets in the way of the other pieces, in particular blocking the rook in. <S> Thus the castling move "swaps" the positions of the king and rook simultaneously. <S> The normal sequence of opening moves is to first get minor pieces out and a few pawns, castle, get the queen out and that leaves the two rooks alone in the back-rank aside from the king near the end where they can move around freely between the files. <S> In highly "attacking" chess games, the two players may castle on opposite sides, i.e. one does the king-side and the other the queen-side. <S> You then launch an attack on the side where the other play has his king by moving the pawns forward. <S> However you also need to defend your own side from the opponents attack. <S> Such games often suit white better. <S> I therefore once had a rule that if I was black I would wait for my opponent to castle first. <S> I'm not sure about the general validity of that rule, but something to consider.
|
This is called "castling". It's important because it gets your king out of danger (the centre is not safe), while simultaneously moving your 'tower' (also called a Castle, or a Rook) into the centre, where it is much more useful.
|
What are “Outs” in Texas Hold'em Poker? What are Outs in Texas Hold'em Poker ? <Q> "Outs" are the cards left in the deck that could possibly make you win. <S> Usually these are discussed most when players are all-in and the cards have been revealed. <S> If the only way you can win is to draw one of the 3 Aces left in the deck, you have 3 Outs. <A> To expand on @lilserf's answer... <S> An out is a mathematical probability that one player has to win the hand depending on the situation, and they are always used, not just mostly in all-in situations. <S> You have to treat them as probabilities because there is always the chance for runner-runner cards which produce a winning hand. <S> For instance, if you have three to a flush, and making a flush is your only opportunity to win the hand on the flop, you still have outs even though there isn't a single card in the deck that will put you in the lead on the turn. <A> Outs <S> So, for example: You have [Ac] [8d] in the hole. <S> The flop is [7h] <S> [3d] [Ks]. <S> You have an Ace-high. <S> Based on his betting in this hand or earlier in the game, gut instinct, the fact you've seen his cards, whatever, you think your opponent has a pair of Kings. <S> So you think are currently in a losing position. <S> However, if you hit an Ace on the Turn, you will have a pair of Aces, which beats a pair of Kings. <S> There are four Aces in a deck, you have one of them, so there are three unaccounted for, so you have three outs. <S> A more complicated example: <S> You have [Ah] <S> [Qh] in the hole. <S> The flop is [5h] <S> [Kh] [Qs]. <S> You have a pair of Queens, and a four-flush in Hearts. <S> You think your opponent has a pair of Kings, so you think are currently in a losing position. <S> However, there a number of cards that will improve your hand sufficiently to beat a pair of Kings. <S> Specifically: any of the three remaining Aces will give you two pairs, Aces and Queens; either of the two remaining Queens <S> will give you three of a kind, Queens; any of the nine remaining Hearts will give you a Heart flush; <S> So, you have 3+2+9 = 14 outs. <S> Of course, if any of these happens, your opponent still has at least five outs - the two as yet unseen Kings, which would give him three Kings, and the three cards of the same rank as his second hole card, which would give him two pairs. <S> The reason this is of interest to you is that it enables you to calculate what chance you have of improving your current hand to a winning hand, which in turn enables you to calculate how much you can bet (as a percentage of the pot) and still have a positive expected value for that bet. <S> See here for a more comprehensive explanation.
|
If there are one or more cards still to be dealt and you think your hand is currently inferior to an opponent's hand, the "outs" are cards not yet revealed to you that will improve your hand from a losing to a winning position.
|
What well designed Icehouse games are available for two people? Recently the Icehouse game system has caught my eye. I've looked through a ton of rules on the Icehouse Wiki but haven't found any really engaging game for two players. What well designed Icehouse games are available for two people? The amount of stashes is not really and issue for me. I'm looking for games that flow well, are not too complex, and are enjoyable for two players. <Q> The game requires 6 stashes of different colors. <A> My favorite two-player Icehouse games are Volcano and Binary Homeworlds . <S> You can find a list of 2-player games on the Icehouse Wiki, but of course, that has tons of games of varying quality. <S> You can find some of the best and most popular games on the Existing Games page, which points out out games that have been published and games that have won competitions to help guide you to the games most likely to be good and well known. <A> Gnostica is an excellent Icehouse game for two players, but it might fall foul of your "not too complex" restriction. <S> The Rules Reference helps, but even so, it's not really simple. <S> I'd highly recommend Binary Homeworlds . <S> Although multiplayer Homeworlds has an explicit political element and some hidden information, the two-player version Binary Homeworlds loses those to become a pure-strategy game, with eminently simple rules, but astonishing depth. <A> My favourite two-player icehouse games are Zendo and Volcano. <S> Zendo is an excellent game for two players in two styles. <S> The first is when competition isn't particularly difficult. <S> Then the game is played normally and is functionally one person posing logic puzzles to the other. <S> The second is the Dharma-duel which is an excellent way for both people to be "master" <A> Just take a look at my own game here: http://pages.videotron.com/remneb/binary.html
|
My favorite 2-player Icehouse game is Volcano , you need to print out one sheet of paper with the "board" (though you could still play without it), rules are simple but the game is quite deep in strategy.
|
Interaction in Race For The Galaxy In Race For The Galaxy, I'm usually focused on my own cards, and only find out who wins during the scoring at the end of the game. Is this a feature of the game — that is, is it low on interaction? Or is my strategy inadequate? <Q> First, I'm assuming you're playing the game without the Brink of War rules which add direct player conflict to the game. <S> Second, a large part of the subtlety of the game is the need to very carefully make decisions about role selection - optimally, you want to balance your selection against the roles you think other players will select while avoiding selections that benefit other players more than they benefit you (in other words, you want to maximize the value/activity you achieve during a term while minimizing the value/activity of your opponents). <S> Another subtle point is the need to review other player's tableaus for point scoring combos - when you see someone else's combo fall into place, it's generally advisable to move the game to its end (unless of course your own combo is up and running and superior). <S> The last tidbit that is typically overlooked is card denial. <S> In most games of RftG, the deck will be shuffled a few times, increasing the odds that your opponents will get the chance to play rarer cards that can shift the victory point totals significantly. <S> Holding on to cards that you intend to spend for a bit longer can mean that a useful card never sees play due to the timing of shuffles! <A> I think it is worth extending the answers already here, As a big fan of RTFG, I do not think there is low or no interaction with other players. <S> The thing is, that after the learning curve has been surpassed (it is a bit extended) you will find yourself responding to opponent actions or forcing him to do the same. <S> The model simply doesn't feature card taking (until extensions) nor a visible pool of card that players compete for. <S> As the game states, it is called Race For the Galaxy, thus you are all racing to build a better empire. <S> To anyone reading this, if you are a new player: Ever thought that "the game is too fast" or "I was about to play this or that card"? <S> That's precisely the point <S> , you shouldn't look at your hand only and devise the most point combo, but rather look at your hand and your opponent's tableu: that's the race condition right there; any advantage in developping, settling, trade, etc may give him the edge. <S> Finally about the takeovers , I will add that <S> while it is true that they allow for direct interaction, they are used rarely at least in all the games I've seen, simply because there's always an alternative to them. <S> Even if there are takeovers it doesn't happen more than 1 or twice <S> in a 4+ players game. <A> The key interaction that we've found has been the timing of production and consumption roles. <S> If your opponent is always playing the consumption roles, they're getting a bunch of extra cards and points that you aren't. <S> Sometimes you have to play these roles a bit earlier than you would like, just to avoid getting scooped. <A> You can certainly place Race while in your own "bubble". <S> Many newbies do this since they're still learning and have too many things to worry about. <S> However, even though there's no direct or negative interaction (well, exp #2 and exp #3 add takeovers, but you can't always count on that anyways), being able to anticipate what others will call so you can leech off of them, and avoiding phases that help others, while calling phases that help you more are what separate those who win disproportionately more games vs. luck. <S> heck, uou can even play war games or their rough equivalent like Civilization the Board game, Small World, or Eclipse in your own bubble, but you especially want to pay attention to others here too. <A> There's no "negative interaction" in this game. <S> Well, with Rebel Vs. <S> Imperium and Brink Of War expansions, the Takeover mechanic can be optional, and even when it is on, players need the appropriate cards for the TO powers, opponents need to be vulnerable (have certain conditions), and the aggressor needs to have sufficient military strength. <S> However, there are plenty of other interactions that'll help you play a better game by paying attention to others... <S> --obviously if someone has 10 to 11 cards on tableau, there's a good chance the game will end in 1 or 2 rounds, so you're better off "mad grabbing" for points than improving your engine. <S> Especially if those players have larger hand of cards --If <S> the VP pool is low, and players are collectively sitting on mountains of goods with Consume powers, better pick an action card that'll get you the VP you need (e.g. II to build that 6-cost dev) <S> --If <S> someone has no cards in hand, there's a decent chance Explore will get called. <S> If they have goods, you can likely count on a Consume Trade --If <S> you're looking for specific cards, like a 6-cost dev.. <S> seeing it on another player's tableau means you won't be getting it. <S> Likewise, the other devs only have 2 copies, so seeing both of them out means the same thing --If players have powers, they're likely to pick those to exploit those. <S> For example, military strength tends to do more settling of Military worlds, or Produce bonuses for the sheer card draw. <S> --player specific ones too, like how some people may call Explore a bit too much
|
While low interaction is a frequent critique of the game, I think most experienced players would tell you that you're not playing the game as effectively as you could.
|
What's the proper etiquette when a Euchre trick is earned? When a team has 3 tricks and the other scores a trick, you can throw in all the cards because you know the team of 3 tricks will get one point only. There is no sense playing out the final trick. I have played both ways and do not have a preference as long as everybody is consistent. What's the best way to determine the "speed" at which the game is played? <Q> When I used to play a lot of Euchre the side that didn't call trump would often toss in their cards after taking one trick conceding the rest of the tricks to the caller. <S> Sometimes all it would take is to show the left bower after the right had been played on the first trick. <S> Each group has to decide what they are comfortable with, but I think the more you play the faster you will get. <A> Edit : I just realized I misread the question and answered a way more complicated case than what you asked. <S> In the case where you literally already have three tricks and the other team has one, definitely throw it in. <S> My answer below is for the more complicated case where you know what the final score will be without having played enough tricks to actually decide it <S> It depends on the group, and it can get complicated. <S> You can be in a situation where you each have one point <S> and you know that you can win two of the next three (without knowing which two), and in my normal group that plays all the time showing your hand is generally fine, since everyone else can figure out pretty fast how you were guaranteed to win. <S> In a new group I've only played with maybe three times <S> I did that <S> and there was mass confusion <S> and I ended up spending about a minute explaining why I was guaranteed to win, which is much longer than it would've taken to just play the hand (and probably just annoyed people) <S> As long as it's a friendly game <S> and it's obvious to everyone why it's a win I would do it; if you think you'll need to explain it I would probably just play the hand out anyway, unless you're trying to teach someone how to tell that a hand is won <A> I agree with others that the speed of play and the acceptance/willingness to throw in cards increases with the more you play and the more comfortable you become with the game and your partner/opponents. <S> I usually play the way you describe in your question. <S> Sometimes, if I am playing an intense game with beginners or suspected cheaters, I want to see all the tricks played one-by-one so that I can make sure no one gets an unfair advantage by reneging.
|
We play out all the tricks until the remaining cards no longer have mathematical significance.
|
What are some good house rules to balance the sides in Saboteur? My group of gaming buddies, after playing plenty of Saboteur , has found that the "good dwarves" can pretty easily win consistently once they learn which pieces are most valuable and how to best respond to revealed saboteurs. What are some good house rules to even things up? <Q> One technique we've used is to ensure that the saboteurs know each others's identities before starting the game. <S> After everyone has checked their role cards, everyone puts their heads down. <S> One player calls out for the saboteurs to put their heads up and identify each other. <S> They put their heads back down, then everyone puts their heads up and starts playing. <S> This lets the saboteurs be much more effective and strategic - if one of the other saboteurs reveals himself, you can play more cautiously to reserve for sabotage later. <S> You can also collaboratively lie about Map results if you want. <S> With my group of (fairly experienced) players this rule has resulted in a much more balanced ratio of wins for the good dwarves and the saboteurs, while not going so far as to outright allow the saboteurs to directly communicate. <S> Otherwise the saboteurs are typically screwed when they're one man down. <A> (8 players) Move the gold farther away <S> My group plays Saboteur most frequently with 8 players, and we've developed some house rules for that size that are probably not applicable for smaller groups. <S> We were already playing with a guaranteed 3 Saboteurs in an 8-player game and with the Saboteurs having knowledge of each other, but wins for the Saboteurs were still very rare and highly dependent on an ideal draw for the Saboteurs' hands. <S> We recently started moving the gold in this case - the middle treasure card moves back, so it is now 8 cards from the starting point. <S> The two side treasure cards move out, so that they are 7 cards away in the "forward progress" direction, but 2 cards away from the middle. <S> We unanimously agree so far that this has led to some extremely fun games - the wider board gives more space to improvise, but punishes good dwarves who dig all the way to the wrong treasure card. <S> We had one win where the Saboteurs didn't even play any "dead end" pieces, but used their near-monopoly on Map cards to confuse the good dwarves and get them to dig to the wrong treasure. <S> At that point the good dwarves couldn't QUITE make it back to the correct one with the pieces available, but it would have been a trivial correction in a standard game. <S> Spreading the board out like this also makes the pieces that make "sideways progress", especially the one that splits three ways ( ), much more useful. <S> Under the normal rules I will almost always consider a straight-sideways piece to be useless as a good dwarf (though obviously it occasionally comes in handy), but with the spread board these pieces can be very key. <A> Although I agree with the ways @lilserf listed to make it less difficult for the saboteurs to win, the game is intended to be difficult for the saboteur team. <S> From my experience, the saboteurs shouldn't be able to win any more than a third of the time. <S> It is because of the difficulty that if the saboteurs win, each saboteur gets 3 gold. <S> A win by the good dwarves may result in one or more receiving three gold but it is likely that only 1 or 2 gold will be handed out to each since the gold cards are drawn randomly for good dwarves. <S> This alone has been sufficient to keep play balanced and fun in my many plays of this game.
|
Another house rule we use is to always guarantee the maximum number of saboteurs, rather than having a chance for one fewer as in the normal rules.
|
How do you prevent deliberately losing in Republic of Rome? In Republic of Rome, if Rome falls, everyone loses. Some gaming groups I've been in grok this concept completely and players will make major sacrifices of their positions (donating lots of money from personal treasuries to the state to fight off the Punic Wars in the Early Republic, for example), while others regard Rome falling as a draw, and deliberately play to cause Rome to fall if they think they can't win. If you have a mixture of both types of player, then the fall-of-Rome-is-a-draw players can exploit the fall-of-Rome-is-a-loss players by threatening to bring Rome down and demanding concessions for saving it. This tends to provoke resentment on both sides. Does anyone have any suggestions for (a) how to prevent this conflict and (b) how to resolve it before punches start being thrown? <Q> The solution, then, would be to play it in the context of a ranking system or tournament. <S> I don't know the game in question, so I don't know what the possible outcomes are, but you could assign different point values to different results; winning gets you 1 point, losing gets you 0, and Rome falling gets everyone -1. <S> Then people will have an incentive not to let Rome fall; if they do, they will lose rank compared to other players not in that game. <S> By the way, this sort of brinksmanship between the fall-of-Rome-is-a-loss and fall-of-Rome-is-a-draw <S> crowds may be an intentional feature of the game. <S> After all, it's not all that uncommon for some politicians or political parties to focus so hard on winning their own particular issues that they're willing to put the whole country at risk (state, nation, empire, what have you) if they don't get their way. <S> It sounds like a pretty realistic political situation, if you ask me. <A> The fall-of-Rome-is-a-draw players are right: they realize that, like all games, it's a zero-sum game. <S> To solve this the other players should make sure that any players that can bring Rome down still have a chance of victory. <S> They have power and deserve the concessions they ask for. <S> It's very interesting from a game theorical perspective. <A> It could be that the 'draw' players aren't thinking creatively enough; IIRC, the victory conditions become more fluid as crisis approaches (you can, for example, win by being in rebellion when the state goes bankrupt: presumably you then get called in, Monti-style, to sort out the mess). <S> And if your position is strong enough for your actions to bring the country down, you should be able to finesse that into some chance of a win. <S> Perhaps more importantly, the game is about dirty politics; if the word 'Senate' doesn't make that clear enough, the history (turning a semi-democratic republic into an Empire with you in charge) should. <S> One of the rules of politics is always to keep the minor players happy (literally, in this case), so if the 'loss' players think the game's purely about building up votes and victories, they need an urgent re-think. <S> You need to play so that everybody thinks they have a chance of winning, until your masterplan goes into action...
|
If it's not part of any sort of larger tournament or ranking system, then there's pretty much no difference between everyone losing and a draw, so it's just going to wind up being an issue of perception.
|
What are the mechanical differences between Doom and Descent from Fantasy Flight Games? I know that FFG's Descent and Doom board games use roughly the same mechanics, but my understanding is that there are numerous small differences that lead people to prefer Descent over Doom. Beyond the differences in theme, what are the mechanical differences between these two games? <Q> One significant difference that leads me to prefer Descent over DOOM is Ammo. <S> In DOOM, Ammo is "full of fail". <S> Ammo scarcity is a thematic element that happens to be implemented in an abstract way that is often flat out not fun. <S> The surge mechanism in Descent is really novel and can give you a lot of interesting tactical options in battles. <S> DOOM has no analogue. <A> I think this BGG forum topic is a great comparison of those two games. <A> Games of Descent take MUCH longer! <S> This may be because of the added complexity of a 'role-playing' style game I guess. <S> Base mechanics of both games are mostly the same, so if you need to pick one, go with the one which has the theme that suits you best <S> (fantasy dungeon-crawling or sci-fi/horror shooting).
|
The breadth of characters and skill and item combinations make Descent really come to life compared to the relatively lackluster variety in DOOM.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.