Rolling backwards while pedaling forward on a Freecoaster Can anyone tell me what happens when rolling backwards while pedaling forward
on a freecoaster bike? I mean does it gradually slow it down, or does it come
to an abrupt hault? I have not tried it yet.

I think there is some confusion about the difference between a Freecoaster hub, a Freewheeling hub, and a Coaster brake hub. So briefly:

A freewheel hub is by far the most abundant and utilized piece of bicycling technology and relies on a ratchet and pawl mechanism (or similar) to engage the drivetrain while pedaling forward, but allows coasting when not pedaling. Any freewheel or cassette hub uses this technology.
A coaster brake is a type of brake that is built into the hub shell that turns backward pedal force into braking force.
A Freecoaster hub uses a clutch mechanism to engage the hub shell while pedaling forward, but disengages the hub while pedaling or coasting backward. This allows you to coast backwards without having to move your pedals. They are totally silent because there are no pawls!

Above is a hastily drawn sketch of a freecoaster hub. There are no pawls...instead is a cone shaped clutch which is threaded onto the driver body which extends over the axle. The driver cog on the left is supported on the axle by bearings on either side (there are also lots of other bits and pieces, but these are the general parts.) When pedaled forward the driver threads through the clutch and pulls it into the wedged surface of the hub. The friction between the hub and the clutch is what drives you forward. When you change directions (or pedal backwards) the driver threads the clutch to a backstop which adjusts the play from freecoasting to pedaling forward.

If you were to pedal forwards while coasting backwards, your pedal force would engage the clutch into the hub shell. -- As @Daniel R Hicks pointed out, this is pretty much the same mechanism that a coaster brake utilizes except in reverse. Pedaling forward ought to engage the clutch and slow you down. --

However...I'm not sure that I recommend that you do this because neither the clutch surface nor the hub shell are designed for slowing, only for engaging. (If anybody has more info on the actual construction of the hub shell...whether there is a steel insert to bear against and provide braking support, or whether the driver and hub shell are forward motion only, please edit away.)

Here is a fantastic video about freecoaster anatomy.

Unclear whether the question is about "freewheel" hubs or "coaster brake" hubs.

With a freewheel hub, if you roll backwards, the pedals will necessarily turn backwards.  If you "lock" the pedals with your feet it will be impossible to roll backwards.

With the standard coaster brake hub, if you roll backwards and do not exert any force forwards or backwards on the pedals, the pedals will not move and you will roll freely backwards.  "Back pedaling" will apply the brakes, and pedaling forward even a little will engage the pedals with the wheel and hence convey the motion of the wheel to the pedals (and vice-versa).

(Though I have to admit that it's been so long since I've used coaster brakes that I may be misremembering some details.)


How can I stop a saddle from creaking in a spinning bike? My housemate bought a spinning bike since all fitness places are closed due to corona.
It has an ordinary (non-road/mtb) saddle which creaks when pressure is applied on its edges (nose, back, left/right).
The sound appears to originate from the saddle rails itself.
We've tried replacing it with another saddle, but the sound remains.
We've tried taping the rails, hoping to reduce metal to metal contact, but the sound remains.
How can I reduce the creaking sound of the saddle? I've included a picture of the saddle below:

Possibility 1: Take the clamping system apart and clean the parts. Then reassemble with the metal to metal contact surfaces properly greased.
Possibility 2: Replace the saddle with one of better quality as the most probable cause for creaking could be the saddle itself, especially where the rails are lodged in the shell. If you want to go a step further and if the bike allows for this, replace the seatpost as well with one of better quality to get rid of the ancient one bolt clamping device.
The kind of clamping device that holds your saddle has come out of use and has been replaced by one-piece posts for mainly two reasons: weight, though this is not a problem on a spinning bike but also because the serrated surfaces work against each other through the dynamics of the moving cyclist, thus bringing in play into the system and requiring constant tightening, hence the squeak. They also permit incremental tilt adjustment only which is less precise than with two bolt seat-post heads.

Lube will work. Just make sure you do it regularly.


Can I copy my u-lock key? I have an OnGuard u-lock with only one key.  I contacted OnGuard about getting a backup, but it requires a serial number which was included with the original packaging.  The number is not on the lock or key itself.

So now I'm wondering if some locksmiths can copy such keys.

I realize this description is inadequate, but for what its worth, the shaft of the key is fairly rectangular.

Not sure what kind of key is used on your specific lock.  The only image I can find of a OnGuard key shows it to be a slotted key similar to recent automotive keys, so most locksmiths should have the equipment to duplicate it.  The only question is whether they can get the correct blank.

Locksmiths can also duplicate the barrel-style keys used on many older bike locks, if they can find the right blank.

But I see a cheap OnGuards available at Target for $19.95 (with others ranging up to $80), while the new key is likely to cost upwards of $10.  So it may be best to just buy another lock (which comes with at least two keys, sometimes four).

For Kryptonite: if you know the key # and the lock name/type they can duplicate it for $12 - one key; $20 for 2. $5 for each additional key


Headtube dent, how safe is it? See picture below, I am in this situation with a new alluminium frame (don't ask me how I ended up here, it's a heartbreaking story.) It’s a Cinelli Mash Parallax.

The headtube has a dent and I don't know exactly what caused it, but the frame has allegedly never been used.
With a bit of a stronger push than usual, my lbs mechanic managed to fit the headset. As for now, the bearings don't seem to be compressed by the dent, but I am still worried. I am going to ride this bike on the track, so I want it to be very reliable.

How safe is it? Do you suggest I try to fix the dent or will I only make it worse?

More photos here: https://imgur.com/a/JdZKwU1

The dent is not in a high stress area.

If the headset turns OK, I would ride it.

Inspect regularly for cracks, both near the crack as well as the welded side of the headset.

I have some experience with similar damage.

My local bike mechanic told me to take my aluminum bike with the dented head tube to a machine shop to have them take a look, to assess whether they would be able to repair the damage.  The feedback was that the machine shop would use custom and standard tools to restore the shape to receive the headset bearing.

Bottom Line:  Take it to a machine shop vs. experimenting with some of the speculative suggestions.


Can this frame be used or is it done? I have a cheap mens Huffy mountain bike which I noticed has 2 holes in the frame. Would this be too unsafe to ride?

If it were mine I wouldn't ride. It appears there is a crack connecting the two holes. This would indicate there has been enough flex to cause the frame to crack.

Bike frame is the main part of the bike, this rusty bike frame can't ensure your riding security. Even if you replace other components, it also is a very dangerous thing whlie you riding this bike on the road.


How much cheaper is cycling than driving? How much does a rider spend, on average and totally, with the bicycle per unit-distance? And with the car per unit-distance? Are there any official or academical data?

I commute by bike around 8,000-10,000 km per year and based on my book keeping it is at about 1/5th (or less) the cost of running a car.  After accounting for paying for the bike (i.e., devaluation) and maintenance (e.g., consumables such as chains, tires, etc), and under the working assumption that I will sell and buy a new bike in 5 years time. I projected the total cost of ownership on a per month basis about $136.  By comparison the Canadian Automotive Association suggested running compact car will cost you about $735 per month after insurance, fuel, devaluation and maintenance.

As an aside, an interesting tidbit on bicycle cost of ownership was that consumables cost 3x as much as the cost of bike devaluation once you amortize over 5 years.

  NOTES

  All calculations are in Canadian Dollars and Local Bike Shop prices.  Clothing has not been included, nor has food costs.

  Feel free to change or modify the Google Spreadsheet as these calculations are for the higher end of the commuter spectrum.

Bicycle cost of ownership

This cost break down is for a higher end commute bike with high quality racks, fenders and lights (vehicular quality due to the need to ride at night down unlit paths).  These calculations assume the bike will be sold and replaced after 5 years of loyal service.

Below is a photo of the bike  used to derive the cost calculations. It is pictured carrying a full load that includes work cloths, shoes, change of bike cloths, rain gear, computer, various papers, and food for the day.

1) Fixed Costs

These are the costs of buying a new bike and adding all the necessary components to make it a proper transportation machine, then the amount of money lost due to devaluation over the 5 year period.

Full purchase price

This was for a steel "all roads" road/touring bike that could take racks.  Because most bikes in North America are sold naked, metal fenders and good racks along with "vehicular quality" lights were added to make this a complete bike.  This put the total coast at $3230

Devaluation

After 5 years the bike (and all components) will be sold for approximately 40% of its original cost due to the higher devaluation in bicycles relative to cars.  This gives us a devaluation cost of around $406 per year or $33.83 a month!

2) Variable Costs / Consumables

These costs will depend on how much you ride and under what types of conditions you ride in. These costs are for a temperate rain forest where 30-40% of the riding is on dirt roads or paths which wears parts faster. Replacement mileages are on my records and are averages rounded to the nearest 500 km.  Some are conservative estimates and have been indicated as such.

For the riding I do the cost in consumables is about $103 per month.

3) Final Costs

Just add (1) and (2) to derive the final cost.  On a monthly basis it will be about $136.41, compared to $735 for a compact car.  This is about 18.5% of the cost of vehicle ownership, i.e. the total costs of riding a bicycle per unit-distance are roughly 1/5th the total costs per unit-distance of driving a car.

Excellent answer from Rider_X, but all answers so far are seriously flawed in not accounting for food to fuel the rider.

To give a somewhat worst case scenario consider the following.
A small family car returning 50mpg vs a cyclist producing an average of 125W on a 15mi each way commute to work.

The car burns 0.6 gallons of fuel, which at current UK prices of approximately £5/gal = £3 per day.
5 days per week for 45 weeks a year = £675/year fuel costs.

On the other hand our cyclist pushing 125W travels at 15mph giving him a ride time of 1hr in each direction.  At the given power, this translates to approximately 500kcal/hr or 1000kcal/day.
He somewhat unwisely chooses to fuel this effort by isotonic energy gels bought singly at supermarket prices (Approximately £1 per 100kcal).  He therefore spends £10/day fuelling his commute.
5 days per week for 45 weeks a year = £2250/year fuel costs.

In this case it costs an incredible £1575 per year more to fuel the bike.


Are runners or pedestrians allowed to use the bike lane? This morning on my commute I encountered a runner in the bike lane I was riding in.  This irked me because:

The bike lane was on a busy street, with three lanes of motor vehicle traffic in each direction.  (I was northbound on Embarcadero in San Francisco, for those of you familiar with the city.)  To go around the runner I had to enter the car lanes, which makes me a little uneasy.
There is a very wide sidewalk available to runners and other pedestrians along this street.  There were no obstructions on the sidewalk, and it was not choked with other pedestrians.  In other words, there was plenty of room for this runner to run on the sidewalk.  (I'm guessing that he didn't want to run on the concrete sidewalk based on the misguided belief that the asphalt roadway would be easier on his joints.)

So when I was about to pass the runner, I called out, "You're in my lane!"  His reaction was... not positive.  He started yelling and cursing at me.  I don't know exactly what he said; probably something about runners being entitled to use of the bike lane, too.

So my question is this:

Do runners or other pedestrians have a legal right to use the bike lane (not that SFPD would ever enforce this even if it were a violation), especially when there is a sidewalk available?  If this varies with the jurisdiction -- and it probably does -- then I suppose I'm most curious about what the law says where I do all of my riding, in the San Francisco bay area.

(Irrelevant detail: I'm a runner myself -- I do a lot more running than cycling, in fact -- and I've run on this route many times.  I really have no sympathy for those who want to run in the bike lane, just because I feel like the sidewalk is perfectly adequate for runners when it's available.  I don't ride my bike on the sidewalk, after all.)

Most US State and Local laws are based on the Uniform Vehicle Code and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines. They will normally have a phrase like:

  Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

And a phrase like:

  Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the shoulder on the left side of the roadway.

So, the short answer is "no", but may be different wherever you are.

The longer answer is that just like cyclist are allowed to take the lane when conditions warrant, pedestrians are allowed there when conditions warrant.

Ultimately we are all trying to share a limited amount of space. Courtesy from all parties is always appreciated, and usually returned.

I get irked when people are running/walking on the road WITH traffic, in general. I think it's a law, albeit unenforced.

I think the general consensus across most jurisdictions is that it is illegal for a pedestrian (this includes rollerbladers, skateboarders, etc) to not use a sidewalk when it is available. And if one is not available, to move against the flow of traffic. It's safer, anyway...


Best type of headphones while riding I'm starting to commute on my bike soon and was looking for suggestions or advice on what type of headphones I should use to listen to music while riding?

I am aware of the dangers of listening to music while riding and intend to only ever have one earpiece in at a time (so thinking in ear / over ear headphones).

I'd imagine that headphones that just "fit" into the ear (Example) would fall straight out. Those that go deeper into the ear (Example) wouldn't fall out but would also reduce outer sound (bad?).

So with this in mind I believe the best choice for cycling would be those that go over the ear (Example)

Am I right in thinking this? Is there anything else I should be considering when choosing a pair?

Many thanks.

N.B. All links are from Play.Com (UK) and are just the first examples of each I found.

I'm not sure there's a best type for cycling, but the latter two examples have their pros and cons and I think you pretty much nailed them.

The last type you posted is going to give you a good snug fit but without the noise isolation of the in ear type (2nd example) which isn't great for listening to music given the wind noise, but for safety reasons is preferable. So if you're riding on public roads and safety is your primary concern, go with the earbud style with the around the ear clip (last example). If you're more concerned about blocking out wind noise and listening to your music the in ear (second example) is the way to go.

i ride my bike all the time. I use the in ear headphones that came with the iphone. I have no need for anything better since it only takes about 15 minutes to get to my workplace. But if you really want one, I would go with the beats solo. You can see more about it here at http://www.thehonestreviews.com/audio/beats-solo-hd-on-ear-headphone-review/


How to clean rim brake track efficiently? What are the most efficient and effective ways to clean brake tracks on rims?
It is generally understood that rim brakes work better and pads last longer on clean brake tracks. Dirt on brake tracks tends to tenaciously sit in grooves.
Any method must meet the following criteria:

Work Safety: no exposure to toxic or carcinogenic substances
Easy Disposal: if cleaners cannot be disposed with household waste water or rubbish, or contaminate the ground in one's yard they are out
sufficiently clean: the method ought to lead to sufficiently clean rims, if your method is a wipe with an oily rag, explain why that's enough.
practical: the method needs to work with tyres on, preferably wheel in bike, and better be quick

Fold a paper towel a couple of times and stick it between pad and rim.  Squeeze the brake lever and rotate the tire.
Depending on the contaminant you may want to wet the towel, douse it lightly with a solvent, or (to get solvents off) use alcohol.

What are the most efficient and effective ways to clean brake tracks on rims?

The only case where you want to clean brake tracks is if you have just built the wheel and are worried about the oil/grease used to lubricate nipples and spoke threads contaminating the brake track, and if you have oiled your chain carelessly and got some chain oil on the brake tracks.
In such cases, you need to clean the brake tracks with a degreaser.

It is generally understood that rim brakes work better and pads last longer on clean brake tracks.

Is it?
My understanding contradicts this. My understanding is that in dirty / wet conditions, the dirt embeds into the brake pad, and no matter how well you clean the brake tracks, the dirt embedded into the brake pad still grinds your rims away.
In contrast, the brake pads do a tremendously good job of cleaning the brake tracks from dirt. In fact, brake tracks on a dirty bicycle are one of the few places that are clean. Similar to a dry chain (dirty) having rollers that are clean unlike the rest of the chain.
To prevent this grinding compound embedding into the brake pads, select a good brake pad compound. In particular, Kool Stop salmon colored pads resist dirt embedding. The salmon color comes from the color of iron oxide (rust), which the pad compound has. No black brake pad is as good as the Kool Stop salmon pads.

Dirt on brake tracks tends to tenaciously sit in groves.

No, the dirt sits in the brake pad.


What is the biggest component difference between a cheap road bike and an expensive road bike? I am shopping around for road bikes now, and I wanted to know what components to look for. I am not talking about the frame, carbon or otherwise, I mean types of shifters, brakes, cranks, rims, etc.

As with any other equipment, it depends on how much you would like to spend...

The main difference between a cheap and a better bike is the quality of the materials and the comfort/performance they provide!

I have several cheap bikes and two "better" bikes, the differences between these are:

better derailleur system, both the front and back, it makes a lot of difference!
better shifter (the cheap one has a thumb-type shifter, and the better has a shimano trigger-type shifter), for me having trigger-type shifter is a huge difference in comfort
better brakes (you could go for the v-brakes, but there are some flavors to choose from; you could also go for a disc-brake; also the brake levers can make a lot of difference also!)
tyres, normally the cheap bikes have sub-par tyres and tubes.
obviously the wheel (good rims, good spokes, I have noticed that indeed!)
the frame, weight, strength, shape (cheap frames can affect a lot on the way you ride, but honestly I've had cheap frames and loved them!)
seat, a good seat and seat post are important.
overall, good materials, that don't disintegrate after some time and resist (as possible) to the corrosion.

I may have forgotten something but this gives you an idea.

Just go for the cheapest derailleur you can buy. They all have a big spring, two jockey wheels and a cantilever system. Both expensive and cheap ones wear out at about the same rate.
They both get gummed up with crud.
When new, they shift identically... why wouldn't they?. When really worn out, the jockey wheels wobble and shifting isn't so precise.
Maybe the few, very expensive derailleurs with jockey wheels that use bearings may last a little longer (perhaps they don't, perhaps they're pointless) ... but why pay 4x for this benefit?

Forget all this nonsense about "better quality material, better made" - and no-one being able to tell you what specifically is better. It's all marketing rubbish for gullible consumers.


Falling over on carbon frame bike -- likely to cause damage? As per my last post, I'm learning how to use clipless shoes.  First 3 days of practice went fine, but on the 4th I came to a stop and couldn't get my foot out in time -- in truth, I got  one foot out, but the bike fell the other way. So I and the bike tipped over to my left -- I caught myself with my hands, but the bike clattered to the ground with me astride it.
It's a carbon-frame Giant Revolt.  I see no visible damage to the frame, and I'll take it by the bike shop tomorrow, but since there's no visible damage I believe they'll say "it's fine".  Which hopefully it is.  But how worried should I be with this kind of crash?  I've read that when you crash a carbon frame, you should get it inspected professionally.  Does tipping over like this count as a crash?
I know that no-one knows the state of the frame, and without X-raying it -- which seems a lot to do -- there's no way to know for sure.  But then again "probably alright" doesn't feel very safe.
If every time I tip over while learning clipless means I could break the frame, this seems a possibly terribly expensive proposition.

In practice, there is one thing I've seen enough to call it a pattern: aero/teardrop carbon seatstays and chainstays cracking near the joints after being flexed excessively during a crash. Some of these combine very light construction with a very flat joint in the side to side direction. Some frames like this you could probably break by falling over at low speed enough times. I'm mostly talking about the kind of tubes you'd see on a tri bike.
Most carbon bikes have nothing like the above vulnerability and, falling over at low speeds, realistically would only get damaged in a major single point impact to a tube. You could probably get that to happen if you fell on the wrong thing.

If every time I tip over while learning clipless means I could break the frame, this seems a possibly terribly expensive proposition.

I agree, it is. There are few solutions:

Use a frame with a metallic frame and fork. Metals can only get damaged by bending, immediate cracking, or delayed fatigue cracking. The first two can be immediately observed and the third can be inspected on a dense schedule after a crash which you will end after you are satisfied that there will be no delayed fatigue cracks. This is different from carbon fiber which can get damaged in invisible ways and then suddenly fail "just riding along" due to the damage which would be visible only to either destructive testing or some kind of X ray machine.

Use a different bicycle for learning how to use clipless pedals. Preferably a bicycle that is as cheap as possible so you won't regret damaging the bicycle.

However, I find it strange that a clipless learner would crash. I have never crashed due to learning clipless pedals, yet have crashed few times due to other reasons. It is not a law of nature that every clipless learner has to crash. Several ways that could avoid crashing are:

If you are using clipless pedals with tension adjustment, set it to the lowest tension, but you'll probably want to adjust the tension up after your practicing is done
If you are using SPD pedals, use the multi-release cleat for practicing and when your practice is over and you can reliably unclip, only then switch to the proper single-release cleats
Try few times without moving how to clip and unclip. If you aren't moving, you probably won't crash. Only when you have learned the unclipping motion will you unclip in motion.


What's the safest way to turn left from a right-side bike lane? (United States road configuration and customs here. Sorry, those of you who drive on the left!)

On my trip home, I use a bike lane near the right side of a very busy one-way arterial street; there is a bus/right-turn lane between the bike lane and the curb. I need to turn left, crossing three lanes of traffic, at a T-intersection (no street to the right). My options are:

Turn left directly from the bike lane.
Keeping a weather eye on traffic, move into the left-hand lane and turn from there.
Veer right onto the sidewalk (avoiding buses, obviously); wait for the pedestrian light to cross.

Which of these is the canonically correct way to manage, assuming heavy car traffic?

The Oregon Bicyclists Manual explains this very well, and with good diagrams, so I'm going to pretty much copy them verbatim here:

There are several ways to make a left turn on a bicycle:
As a Vehicle
As you approach the intersection, look over your left shoulder for
traffic  and, when clear, signal your turn, move over to the left side
of the lane  on a two-lane road (1), or into the left lane or the
center turn lane when  available. You should be  positioned so cars
going  straight through can’t pass  you on the left. Yield to oncoming
cars before turning.  if you are riding in a bike  lane, or on a road
with  several lanes, you need to  look and signal each time  you
change lanes. Never make a left turn from the  right side of the
road, even  if you’re in a bike lane.
“Box-style”
Proceed straight through  the intersection on the  right. Then stop,
and either  cross as a pedestrian in  the crosswalk (2), or make  a 90
degree left turn and  proceed as if you were  coming from the right
(3).  If there is a signal, wait for  the green or walk signal  before
crossing. Yield to  pedestrians in crosswalk.

In your particular case, I would suggest method 2. Cross the intersection, then pull off to the side and orient yourself to cross with the crosswalk. Then wait until there's a break in traffic, and head across that way. If you eventually become more comfortable biking in traffic, you may choose to use method 1. I find that cars almost always slow down and let me in if I clearly signal that I'm making a left turn, but it depends on how fast traffic is, how confident of a cyclist you are, and what the road conditions are like.

You become a car. Act like a car. Indicate and merge.
Just like at traffic lights don't just stick to the cycle way else you will eventually be shunned to the curb and forced to use the pedestrian route, and walk across the road. Indicate for the mandatory three seconds and go for it. If you look behind you while doing this you will see the cars slow down behind you: they don't want your insurance company chasing them up.


While pedaling standing up, bike crank gives in as if shifting, what is causing this? While standing up and pedaling, the cranks give in as if shifting.

It seams like I am shifting down, but my hands are off the shifter, almost like the chain is skipping a link.

I took it to a bike repair shop that charged me 30 bucks to replace a chain. However, the problem still exists. What are the likely causes of this?

Since it only happens when you stand I would say it is definitely a combination of a worn chain and worn chainring, and nothing to do with shifters or derailleurs.

As a chain wears, it 'stretches', meaning the distance between the pins in the chain grows. This is a result of the side plates wearing into the pin. Once the chain starts to 'stretch', it starts to wear on the teeth of the chainring. If you look at it close you will likely notice that the valley's between the teeth on the chainring are not uniform, and the the tips of teeth are wearing down, compared to a new chain ring.

When you apply torque to the crank, each tooth of the chainring pushes against the roller on the pins of the chain. On a bike with a rear derailleur, there is a spring which keeps tension on the chain. As the chainring teeth wear out, and you apply a certain level of torque on the cranks, it becomes possible to exceed the tension applied by the derailleur and the chain will simply 'roll' up and over the teeth on the chainring, effectively skipping a tooth. This usually happens very suddenly.

The only right solution is to buy a new chain and new chainring (or chainrings). Putting a new chain on a worn chainring or a worn chain on a new chainring will only accelerate the wear on the new item. The bicycle shop should have sold you both.

Here's an interesting thought. If you're tall like me 6.4 or higher and you also have a lot of power, you could end up like me, where the only bikes you can ride are single speeds which have bigger chains and cogs with bigger teeth.

If I take a geared bike and pedal it as hard as I can, usually in 32/18 or 32/20 the torque from my long legs will be enough to spin and skip the chainring right out from under the chain.

That's why I need the single gear drive, because the chain is always snug with the gears.

It's a shame since there were some very fun things about geared bikes.


My front wheel steers right. How do I solve it? Some time ago I had a little accident with my bike. With the accident the front wheel got unaligned from the handlebar.

I simply put it in the right position holding the wheel with my legs and turning the handle bar. Easy solution.

Since than the wheel has a strange behaviour. If I let go of the handle bar when riding the wheel (and handle bar) turns right "automatically". Do you have any idea of what is happening?

Note: Initially I thought it could be a warped wheel but it doesn't seem to be the case.

Depends on how "little" the accident was.

First double-check that the handlebar really is "square" to the fork, and not slightly cocked one direction or the other.  (Though this problem shouldn't cause the wheel to turn when you let go.)

Next, oddly enough, do the same check with your seat.  If the seat is slightly angled to one side or the other then it will put your weight off-balance and you will get the tendency to turn.  (Also, note that you'll have this problem if you put weight in a basket on one side of the bike or some such.)

If not those, pick the front end of the bike up and spin the wheel -- make sure it doesn't wobble at all as it turns.  Do the same with the rear.

If not those, I'd suspect that the frame is bent.  If you stand in front of the bike and imagine a line going down through the center of the steering shaft, that line should be exactly in line with the frame of the bike behind.  If it twists to one side or the other then that's your problem -- bent frame.

Also look at the fork itself (a slightly more difficult thing to do accurately).  In your accident one "tine" of the fork may have gotten pushed back relative to the other.  Especially likely if the accident involved hitting something.

In any event I'd suggest you take the bike to a bike shop (or a knowledgeable friend) and have it checked out.

If you think that something may be bent then have a shop inspect it.

However your test is meaningless.  Any bike that I ride will also go to the right because I tend to lean to the right.


What is causing an intermittent side to side wobble of the rear cogs? I am struggling to diagnose the cause of an intermittent side to side wobble of the cogs on a rear wheel. Here's what I know:

Periodically (maybe every 10-15 minutes) during a ride, I experience slippage between gears not associated with shifting.  A glance at the rear cassette while continuing to pedal reveals the cause: the rear cogs are all wobbling side to side, a few mm each way.
The wobble is in sync with the rotation of the cogs: slow pedaling = slow wobble, fast pedaling = fast wobble, no pedaling = no wobble.
If I stop pedaling, coast, and then resume pedaling, the wobble goes away.  I can't say for certain whether the inverse is true: that the wobble always starts after coasting, by the time I notice it, I can't be sure exactly when it started.  Nor can I say for certain that it goes away every time after I coast--I just know that by coasting (even briefly) and then pedaling, I can eliminate the wobble (for a while).
With the wheel off the bike, I have not been able to reproduce the wobble.  There does not appear to be any plan in the hub or the cassette. I have checked that the cassette is securely tightened to the freehub and it is. There is not noticeable play in either the freehub or the cassette.
With the wheel on the bike and the bike in a stand, I haven't been able to reproduce the wobble either. I have tried moving the pedals slowly while watching the rear cassette, stopping the pedals, and re-starting and ran out of patience before seeing the wobble.
I do not believe the whole wheel is wobbling. This is tough to know for sure since I have only witnessed the behavior on the bike, but to my distracted on-the-bike eye, the wheel is rim is rolling true while the cogs wobble.
The hub is a Velocity Road Rear Hub, the cassette is a SRAM PG-970 9 Speed

What are the most likely causes of this behavior? What additional diagnostic or troubleshooting steps would you recommend?

Check:

Freehub body: no play radially? laterally? Try to reproduce it when lightly apply the brake (with barrel adjuster) and hand-pedal while the bike on stand. does it still wobble?
Cassette spacing: remove the cassette and see if there is any irregularities in the spacer.

Yup. Time for a rear hub overhaul. Easy and fun job. Not too expensive. It'll be like a new wheel when you are done. Just replace and re-grease the bearings.

Another guaranteed fix is just tp replace the entire rear wheel assembly with a new one. No more problems.... It just depends on how much money you want to spend. Personally, I would try overhauling the hub first, then if that doesn't work, scrap the rear wheel and replace it. Of course, I would cannablize the spokes and save them for future replacements....


Crankset replacement for TERN Verge D9 (9 gear folding bike) I need assistance with replacing the crankset on my Tern Verge D9 folding bike.
The pedals threads are ruined - presumably due to cross threading.
Nothing immediate comes from googling - but I am looking for assisitance as to a replacement.
The info engraved on the drive-side crank says "PROWHEEL Forged Ounce 170"
Any info you can give would be greatly appreciated!

The first thing I'd do is contact Tern and see if they can supply a replacement. That's the easier way to make sure you get a compatible crank.
I don't think it's possible to buy Prowheel components directly (at least they didn't show up in a couple of online bike retailers I tried) so you need to find a compatible replacement. From the Tern Verge D9 web page we can see that the crank is single ring, 53 teeth and fits on a cartridge type bottom bracket - presumably with a square taper axle-crank interface. The info written on the crank tells us it has 170mm crank arms (measured crank spindle center to pedal spindle center). The tooth count and crank arm length you can of course verify.
You can search for folding bike cranks that match these specs. An alternative is to look for 'track cranks' (used on single speed velodrome track bikes). These may be easier to find but typically have smaller chainrings, but you can also find replacement chainrings that match the bolt pattern and circle diameter.
The complication is that each crank model requires a specific bottom bracket axle length to get a specific chainline - how far away from the center line the bike frame the chainring is. It can be tricky to find this info for cheaper and non mainstream brand cranks. You may need to replace the bottom bracket with one with a different axle length to get the right chainline.
Special tools are required to get the crank arms off the axle tapers and to remove and install a cartridge bottom bracket from the frame. Additionally everything really need to be installed with a torque wrench to make sure bolts are tightened to proper specifications.
On that subject, threads in the crank arms can get deformed and ruined if the pedal spindles are not tightened properly. The hard steel starts to wallow around in the softer alloy crank threads. That's probably what happened to you cranks.
If you are not familiar with bike repair (presumably you are not, as you're asking here) you'll need to enlist a local bike repair shop to help you install the crank, and they will of course be able to help you source a compatible crank.

I experienced the same problem with my Tern Verge D9.
I found a crank with similar specs, on an asian discount website for a very competitive price.


Seat Post Binder - Fuji CF1 - circa 2008 I'm looking for a replacement seat binder for a 2008 Fuji Aloha CF1 - The one I had cracked and will no longer work.

I have contacted Fuji but they politely laughed at us!

Most shops looked through their "junk" cabinets with no luck.

What can I do to replace the seat clamp?

Here is the photo of the seat clamp.

The Fuji Aloha is a Tri-bike with a aero shaped seat tube, therefore a generic replacement binder for a regular circular seat post will not work,

You will probably have to contact a bike store that carries Fuji products (at the time of writing that is Performance Bikes) or Fuji Bikes directly to order a replacement.

Update - because apparently neither Fuji nor Performance can help.

If a replacement really cannot be found, you could try finding a machine shop that will do custom small orders. A competent shop with a small CNC machine should be able to create a binder using the damaged one as a pattern.

Through face book found a contact at a distributor....came up with a part # - SP8035

Using that part number we found out they had it in stock....ordered 2!

#feelinglucky


Why is it safer to bike with traffic, instead of facing oncoming cars? There has been an ongoing debate in my area's local newspaper, regarding biking with vs. against the flow of traffic. A recent incident in which a cyclist was hit from behind, and later died of his injuries, prompted a letter in which another local called for cyclists to bike opposing traffic, so that they could more easily see oncoming traffic and avoid it if a crash was imminent.

Experience, the law, and common sense all say that this is wrong — one would think that everyone knows you should ride with traffic because vehicular cycling is safer. That being said, the debate so far has been almost entirely focused on what the law says, and anecdotal evidence, which isn't enough to convince some people. Does anybody have any references to scientific studies showing actual data on the safety of riding with vs. against traffic? Explanations of why are welcome too, but please include some references or data. I'd like some sources that I can cite in a response showing that cycling with traffic is safer for everyone.

I found this article which has some statistics on accidents involving wrong-way cycling:

  Table 4 shows that all categories of bicyclists traveling against the direction of traffic flow are at greatly increased risk for accidents—on average 3.6 times the risk of those traveling with traffic, and as high as 6.6 times for those 17 and under. This result is readily explained: because motorists normally scan for traffic traveling in the lawful direction, wrong-way traffic is easily overlooked. To give only a single example, a motorist turning right at an intersection scans to the left for approaching traffic on the new road, and cannot see or anticipate a fast-moving wrong-way bicyclist approaching from the right.

It seems clear to me that beneath the question of whether one should bike in the same direction that traffic is going, or facing oncoming cars, lies another more important issue: Are bicycles of a similar class or group as other vehicles, or are they different? If bikes are considered to be a similar class of vehicles as cars, then they should all follow the same rules - including moving in the same direction. If one argues that cyclists should face oncoming traffic, then you are making the assumption that they are different (that is, that they are not an equal type of transportation vehicle, or even that they are toys).

In the interest of cyclists' right to share the road, clearly one should go in the same direction as traffic - to follow the same rules as all of the other vehicles which make use of the roads.


Cannondale CAAD Optimo Tiagra 2020 CREAKING I am a newbie when it comes to bikes and I recently purchased a brand new Cannondale CAAD Optimo Tiagra 2020. After about 3 small rides (no more than 5 km a time), I noticed a very loud creak start to appear. I figured it was just settling noise and maybe needed lubricant in areas etc. But the noise continued to get much much worse as I started using it for my commute (approx 2 weeks at 15 km a day).
I took it in for its 6 week service (at Evans Cycles in London) and was told (to my horror) that I need to return the bike to Cannondale as there is a welding fault in the area north of the front part of the frame that is causing the creak. However, when riding it, I can clearly hear the creak is coming from the crank area and appears to only creak when pedaling, not even when cruising (which you would expect if it was coming from the front of the frame?)
I am really hesitant to return the bike as they said the lead time is 6 weeks and I am not guaranteed the same bike I have bought. Just the next best equivalent. Which in itself seems bonkers. I am using the bike to commute in and out of London so I really don't want to go 6 weeks without it. For cost and obvious health reasons.
I guess my main questions are, fundamentally, is the bike safe to ride? and do you think I should get a second opinion on the source of the noise, problem before admitting defeat and returning the bike to Cannondale for them to check? I have read a lot of forums and it looks like Cannondale have this issue a lot.

Mod note: This question is about a brand new bike frame that creaks, with a frame fault, and an LBS instructing to return it for repair.  This question is not about bottom brackets that creak.

return the bike to Cannondale as there is a welding fault in the area north of the front part of the frame

If true, that bike is probably not safe to ride.  If the shop showed you where the problem is, posting a picture of that area would probably be useful.  For what it's worth, if the shop that sold you the bicycle says it has an unsafe frame, I'd tend to believe them as that's an admission of a serious failure on their part, especially if they assembled the bike for you.
If the frame is faulty, Cannondale should warranty it no problem.

I can clearly hear the creak is coming from the crank area and appears to only creak when pedalling

That does not rule out frame issue causing the creaking sound.
First, it is extremely hard to isolate the actual location on a bike where a sound is coming.  And even then, because the components of the bike and and do conduct sound, where the sound appears to be coming from might not actually be the source of the sound.
Second, pedaling puts stresses on the bicycle that don't exist when you're just coasting.  Since significant power is applied to one pedal at a time, and the pedals are off-center, pedaling introduces twisting and sideways forces to pretty much the entire bicycle.  So a noise that is synchronized to your pedaling could be caused by something like a cracked front rim.
Finally, and completely independent of any frame weld issues, if the bike has a press-fit bottom bracket*, those are notorious for being noisy and a constant source of creaks and cracking noises.  This is a Google search for all the questions here about noisy press-fit bottom brackets: https://www.google.com/search?q=press+fit+bottom+bracket+noise+site%3Astackexchange.com
* - It likely does, but I can't confirm that from the product page as there doesn't seem to be a 2020 page but only a 2019 page that doesn't actually specify the bottom bracket type.

My 1990 Cannondale had a creaky bottom bracket that the dealer could not fix.  Crazy that this is still a thing.  I was only able to address it by completely disassembling, cleaning, and reinstalling with LocTite High Strength locking adhesive.  Luckily I've not had to service the bottom bracket in the subsequent 30 years.


How to move a bicycle by bicycle I need to move two bicycles from work to home. The route is 5 miles long and car free. My only means of transport is to ride one of the bicycles so my question is this: What is the safest way to get both bikes from work to home in one journey? (without some kind of trailer)

The bikes are a Carrera Virtuoso and a Scott Yecora (dropped handlebars)

If one bike has a rear rack, you can attach the second bike's front wheel with a bunch of bungies and tow it.  I've done this, and it worked fine.

Now I have a cargo bike, and the towing is simpler:

done this from time to time normally to impress a girl who had left her bike somewhere. Ride one bike with one hand, hold the middle of the handle bars (2nd bike) with your off hand, Hopefully you can ride with out hands as you will need to go no handed briefly to access the brake on the main bike.


Why might a compact drivetrain be frowned upon? At the cafe stop on my local Saturday ride a few of the guys we chatting and one guy asked an other if he was riding a compact drivetrain. The other guy objected loudly and they then joked with other members of the group suggesting they were riding compacts.

Why would the notion of riding a compact drivetrain attract such a response?

While Machismo answers the question asked, the reason why there is that reaction is mainly a lack of understanding about how and why compact cranks exist.

Obviously, you can look at it and say to give us better climbing (easy) gears. But what many people miss is the rear ratio changes.

The race standard for many years was 53/12. That is, the hardest gear, made up of the largest tooth count in the front, and the smallest in the back, was a 53 tooth front chain ring paired with a 12 tooth rear cog.

A few years back, Shimano started making an 11 tooth rear cog. It was originally intended for pro racers and time trialists.

Somebody got out the calculator, and realized that with that 11 tooth rear cog now available, you could decrease the size of the front rings, and get the same gear ratio, or slightly faster. That decreased front ring size allowed better climbing ratios when paired with the large cogs on the cassette, but also maintained the high gear speed racers are used to.

Someone riding a properly setup compact crank, actually is pushing a harder, faster gear than the 53/12 "standard". That said, if you pair a 53 with the 11 tooth, it will be faster yet, but not often do you find the legs to push that combo.

I've included gear inch charts for both, so that you can see for yourself how it works out. If you are not aware, gear inches are a comparison to the effective diameter of a direct drive wheel, when gear advantage is accounted for.

Why would the notion of riding a compact drivetrain attract such a response?

Why would one want a 300 horsepower car engine? The reason is the same. Bigger is better (except for bike weight smaller is better -- but the drinking bottle doesn't count for weight as it's removable, and for tires narrower is better). My gearing is higher than yours.
Want to generate some more laughs? Test these:

Put a dynamo hub to your front wheel. Its resistance is smaller than the difference of rolling resistance for good tires vs mediocre ones.
Put a kickstand on your bike
Use mudguards
Put a pannier rack on your bike
Use a seatpost or seatpost clamp with two bolts -- oh the horror, the added weight of the second bolt!
Carry a lock with you
Carry a messenger bag with you
Suggest that bicycle weight should be measured with a full drinking bottle attached if one uses such a bottle
Suggest that you don't need to carry a drinking bottle with you as it's unnecessary weight
Use a cycling cap instead of a helmet
Use 28mm thickness tires as opposed to 23mm
Start patching your tubes instead of throwing away the punctured ones
Suggest that a pump is better than a CO2 inflator
Suggest that one kilogram of lost weight in the bike is worth 100 EUR instead of 1000 EUR
Use a wheel with 36 spokes
Suggest that wheels can be built yourself instead of being bought as ready-built wheels
Mix and match components from various groupsets

If the rear cassette is a wide-range one, there is not much reason for a compact gearing on the crankset. For example, I weigh >100 kg, my bike weighs >15 kg, I had a 5-year break from cycling and my smallest chainring is 38T which I find small enough even though I'm not as fit as I used to be. The reason this works for me is that the cassette is 11-30T.
Most of the time, the chainring used is the largest one anyway. It is obsession over minute details to argue what is the best size for the rarely-used small ring. If it gets you to the top of the steep hill and if it gets you home when the large ring breaks, it's fine.


Converting 3x7 to a 1x7. Is it possible with only existing parts? I own a 2000 model Specialized Ground Control full suspension. The front derailleur is rusty and temperamental so my solution is to remove it as well as 2 chain rings (they are removable on mine) and convert to a 1x7. This bike is not worth high spendings on upgrades so would this work if I just bought a 1x drivetrain specific chain ring and kept everything else stock? Better yet would it even work on the current middle size chain ring with maybe a chain guide attached to keep it held on? If spacers are required that's all good. I am only a novice MTB rider and the bike will predominantly be used for downhill and small jumps, no hectic double blacks or anything. I am aware that 1x7 isn't very versatile but it will be plenty for me to have fun.

You have a zero cost solution, which is to keep the front derailleur but remove the cable (and shifter if you like). Then use the FD limit screws to fix it in the right position to act as a chain guide.

You don't need a 1x chainring, in fact using one with a 7 speed chain is probably less than ideal, so you're actually better off sticking with an existing chainring. You may not be able to get rid of the big chainring, or you may need to get shorter chainring bolts if you do, depending on how the big and middle rings are mounted.

Not a problem, just remove the front derailleur. If you leave all of the chainrings on the crank, you can change the gear range manually depending on how much gear you want for a particular ride.


B.o.B Yak Trailer on car Any suggestions for how to carry a B.o.B. Yak (or Ibex) on a roof rack? I drive a small station wagon and the trailer is a bit big to fit comfortably in the car with our other gear when we travel with the bikes.

The yoke spacing on the BOB Trailer is quite a bit wider then a typical front fork mount bike rack, you could probably modify one with wider spacers and use a trailer skewer (or similar fabricated part) to mount the trailer yoke.  The wheel tray will need to be long enough for the span of the trailer and the fork mount will need to be high enough (or the tray low enough) otherwise the trailer will stall on the wheel tray when you try to mount the trailer yoke in the fork mount of the bike rack.

I had an extra roof top, frame clamping, bike rack on hand so I designed and fabricated a bracket that combines the yoke mounting of the trailer with the roof top mounting of the bike rack so it mounts to anything in the same way that the roof top bike racks mount:

First, get some tie-downs like these:

From here: http://www.lowes.com/Hardware/Chains-Ropes-Tie-Downs/Tie-Downs/_/N-1z11olp/pl

You can get them with different kinds of hooks on the ends, depending on what you have to attach them to.  If you remove the flag and perhaps the front "tongue" frame (which attaches to your bike), the rest of it should be no problem to secure on top of the car.  You could also remove the rear wheel to get a lower profile for the whole thing (then put the wheel in the car).  If you keep the wheel mounted, tie a strap through it so it can't spin in the wind.


Braking on a vintage road bike I recently bought a vintage Gitane road bike. I understand that in the 70s and 80s they sold a lot of these road bikes with drop handle bars. Sometimes they came with the extra lever for an easier grip from the top but mine doesn't.

Most modern road bikes seem to have more of a grip from the hood which allows you to squeeze the brakes when sitting upright.

So I am wondering if you are supposed to quickly change to the bottom grip to reach the handle bars? Is that something you get used to doing quickly after some time?
Riding in the city seems very uncomfortable having your hands on the brake at all times while looking out for cars.
Is that intended to be used more in touring than in busy city traffic?

It is true that the old style brake levers were not as powerful from the hoods as modern ones. The reason is geometry.

The picture below shows how old and new levers move when pulled. With old levers, braking from the hoods requires one to pull back and push down at the same time. As said in comments to other answers, this is doable but not very effective or intuitive. With new levers one simply pulls the lever towards one's hand. The small blue arrows show how brake cable moves.

If you want to improve braking on the bike and don't require complete authenticity, there are aftermarket levers with modern pivot placement.

It has been theoretized that older non-aero brake levers have poor braking from the hoods due to their different pivot geometry. While this effect is probably true, there is another effect: poor mechanical advantage combined with the general weakness for braking from the hoods that is present on all brake levers.
Old road bikes have single pivot sidepulls that are notorious for poor
centering. The single pivot sidepull has a spring whose spiral section is not at the
pivot point unlike the spiral section of a V brake or cantilever brake
spring. Instead, the spiral section can be seen to be in mid-air.
Thus, unlike cantilevers and V brakes, single pivot sidepulls have
unreliable centering because the end of the return spring slides across
the pin it touches, and unreliable coefficient of friction in this
interface due to accumulating dirt causes unpredictable centering.
To fight this poor centering, old brakes have 1:1 mechanical advantage
and old levers about 4:1 mechanical advantage to result in 4:1 MA.
In contrast, new brakes for normal pull ratio levers (dual pivot sidepulls
or properly configured cantilevers) have 1.5:1 MA and new aero levers
5:1 MA to result in 7.5:1 MA.
Drop bar V brake levers used with V brakes also have about 7.5:1 MA.
Even despite their low 4:1 system MA and the accompanying huge pad clearances,
single pivot sidepulls might still
occasionally need a drop of oil at the interface between the pin and the
sliding return spring. This oil makes the coefficient of friction at this
interface predictable and thus returns the brakes to good centering.
Because V brakes and cantilever brakes have reliable centering, they can
be run with the low pad clearance needed by 7.5:1 MA.
The dual pivot sidepulls solves the centering issue in another manner: it
has forced centering and still the same old spiral section location
problem in the return spring.
As a result, dual pivot sidepulls cannot track a wobbly wheel like one that
is severely out of true due to spoke breakage.
V brakes and cantilever brakes can track a wobbly wheel, and thus, it is heavily recommended to use V brakes or cantilever brakes instead of dual pivot sidepulls.
Of these, cantilevers even have a cable pull ratio the same as dual pivot
sidepulls, so using cantilevers does not need using non-standard pull ratio levers!


Alternative Chain Grease/Lube Can I use this general-purpose lithium grease on my chain until I can get some Finish Line lube?

Not ideal.  You need something that will penetrate into the chain, and grease will not readily do that.  If your chain really needs lubing and you can't get any proper chain oil then plain old engine oil would be a better choice.  ("Sewing machine oil"/3-in-One oil would be a second choice, but it's probably a hair too "light".)

The real bike maintenance nuts used to melt paraffin wax, beeswax, and kerosene together and soak their clean, dry chains in that.  This is essentially the lube applied at the factory.  But modern liquid chain lubes work as well with less trouble/mess.

If you've got nothing else vegetable oil will work in a pinch, as long as you give the chain a good cleaning before you put something else on there. I've done this a few times when I was broke and ran out of oil. It doesn't last as long but it got me through a week of commuting on several different occasions.


Winter is here, what type of trainer should I get? Well, it started raining today and I'm not much of a road cycling in the rain type of guy. Given that this weather will last for a few months, I was wondering what type of trainer should I get. I would like something that works with my Garmin Edge 520. My rear tire cannot fit the little rubber Garmin tracker thingy, so should I try to get an Ant+ trainer? Do those even exist? If not, what are some decent recommendations that won't break the bank? Are there certain features I should look for?

Do you have a wheel sensor on the bike that connects to your gps?
like this: here

I use this one for my garmin 405. With either of these set ups you can use whatever you like best for training. Go to your LBS (local bike shop) and ask to try their trainers (mag or fluid) and their rollers. I personally use rollers since it is less wear and tear on just the rear wheel. Though it does take a bit to get used to it before you can ride it without fear of crashing down! If your in the states then the rollers I would get are Nashbars reduced radius rollers. I have used mine for a few seasons and they are very nice!

You need a Roller Trainer ;) my friend.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=roller+trainer+fail


Shifters compatible with: SG-3D55 (Shimano Nexus 3 speed - disk brake - internal gear hub) I am planning to buy the SG-3D55 internal gear hub.

According to this forum post, the SL-3S35 is compatible. But what about the other 3 speed nexus shifters? I am finding it hard to find any documentation.

Also I am in the UK, so hoping to source the shifter for here if possible. I am already resigned to having to import the SG-3D55 from the US, as I can't find it in the UK/Europe.

Any specific or general wisdoms gratefully appreciated.

User6527 is wrong there. You can not use derailleur shifters due to the different cable length that is pulled or pushed to shift to another gear. You can not use other brands' shifters either for the same reason.

The shifter you mention yourselve is available in black and silver, and both with and without integrated brake lever. There is also a 'cheaper' version: SL-3S41E.

I thought there was a retro alternative as well, but I can't find it. Not online, and even not at our bicycle parts wholesaler.

You can use any front derailleur shifter just tune 2nd gear on the shifter to 2nd gear in your hub.


How does a two wheel drive bike work? A two wheel drive bike is a bike without a motor that can still turn. The front and back wheel both get power. How does a bike with this type of drivetrain work?

The obvious answer is a linkage up to the head set, and down to the wheels. Hydraulics would be viable as well. However any power transfer system will lose power, which cyclists do not have in excess, which is probably why it has not been done.

I think you'll find everything you want to know at Ophidian AWD bicycles.

EDIT: The provided link has rotted.  Here's the only photo found that shows the concept.

One line fromn their website "The addition of front-wheel-drive allows riders to successfully negotiate new terrain and in adverse weather conditions that normal bikes dare not go. Examples are snow, mud, steep slopes, sand and slick city streets."  Because slick city streets stop normal bikes in their tracks.


Safest way to slow down a bike quickly if both sets of brakes fail This may sound like a crazy question, however today in the wet my rear brakes decided to stop working effectively. It has been pouring rain here which makes the problem more apparent.

I managed to get to work unscathed, but was wondering what is the best technique if I were to get in a situation where I had no brakes (front or back) and was heading downhill.

Try and zig-zag; throw the bike and just take the worst of it early on; immediately turn sideways in one direction or roll into the gutter.

What is the most effective, least damaging and most safe effective way of doing this?

BMXers in some places put the shoe between rear tire and frame, just where the rear brake normally is attached to the bike. I've never done that, because I used to run knobby tires (ouch!), and nowadays I care a lot about brakes.

You really should avoid this situation, because many times there would not be much to do.

I would guess, a good alternative would be to turn sharply while leaning the bike, and then skidding the rear tire sideways. That is already difficult to do in a planned way, what to say when you are frightened...

A good thing to do is follow the advice "brake early, brake often", so you don't have to find out your brakes are not working only when is already too late.

Adjust the min pin on your rear dérailleur so that if you wanted you could lower your gear past the lowest cassette ring throwing your chain into the tiny gap between the wheel hub/spokes and cassette. This acts as an immediate hand brake since that space isn't actually wide enough for the chain.

The downside of this is your chain hub and spokes are trashed, but if both your brakes are gone this is the only guaranteed way to stop. You must also be careful not to go down to many gears if you rig your bike this way.

Another warning, this is very effective so hold on before doing it or you'll go over the handle bars.


Why do spokes break? From reading another thread I'm pretty sure a spoke snapped on my way home.

The bicycle was fine and then right after turning left the rear tire came un-centred and started rubbing against the frame so much that I couldn't pedal home.

Anyway I'm wondering what causes spokes to break.

Spokes break for the same reason any other material does: they are subject to stresses they are unable to withstand.

In the case of a wheel, it can be overloaded by rider weight, cargo, or forceful impacts. Additionally, the presence of loose spokes results in other, properly tensioned spokes bearing more of the wheel's load. Spokes are under tension, so loose spokes are subject to larger swings in stress as they are loaded and unloaded as the wheel rotates. This cycling fatigues the spoke material and can lead to failure.

All of these can be compounded when the spokes are materially compromised from corrosion or other forms of damage.

Anyway I'm wondering what causes spokes to break.

There are multiple reasons for that.
It all starts from improper wheel design. A properly designed wheel uses nearly tangential spokes that are flexible in their center sections and strong in their ends where they are most likely to break. Proper wheels usually have 36 spokes. In proper wheels, the spoke head is matched to the hub flange.
Unfortunately, it is all too common today to see wheels that do not have these design features.
A conventional size wheel with less than 36 spokes puts nearly all of its load on a single spoke, thus making spoke failure very likely. This use of less than 36 spokes also makes nipples unscrew. In an effort to not make nipples unscrew, some designers of improper wheels put thread glue into the threads (or it is possible this thread glue is added by the bike shop as a "quick fix" to apparently make an improper wheel work). Unfortunately, a wheel where spokes go completely slack is operating beyond its design limits and thus likely to fail. This problem is best avoided by insisting on wheels having 36 spokes.
In order to make wheel lacing fast (thus reducing the price of built wheels), hub makers have increased the size of spoke holes to be larger than necessary thus decreasing spoke lacing time. This has created a poor fit for spoke heads, especially if using the superior 1.8mm-1.6mm-1.8mm butted spokes. If building a wheel with these poor modern hubs, one should ideally select a 2.34mm-1.8mm-2.0mm triple butted spoke to better match the spoke head to the hub flange.
The most optimal spokes are butted spokes. They are more expensive, so most ready-built wheels save on costs and use straight gauge spokes. These straight gauge spokes are not as flexible, so the load is concentrated on a smaller number of spokes. This increases chances of spoke breakage.
The spokes should be laced in a nearly tangential manner, but it's unfortunately very common to see radially laced front wheels on front wheels for rim braked bicycles. These wheels lack the spoke crossings that distribute the spoke load to a pair of spokes, and also to prevent hub flange failure, tension on radially laced front wheels cannot be high.
Hub and rim design also play a role. Ideally a rim should be stiff, thus distributing the cyclic loads to a larger number of spokes causing lower peak loads. Disc brake hubs should have large enough flanges, torsionally stiff shaft and lots of spokes, but it's all too common to see hubs having too few spokes with flanges that are clearly too small for the spoke count. Good rims are also manufactured to a high tolerance, which is the enabler for even spoke tension (so the spoke tension doesn't have to fight rim irregularities by unevenness).
Then it is exaggerated by poor wheel building.
Ideally, wheels should:

Be tensioned to an even and high tension. Unfortunately, many wheels lack both of these -- i.e. the tension is uneven and low on the average.
Be stress relieved. Unfortunately, many wheels have not been stress relieved.
Have corrected spoke line especially if using spokes that don't have a particularly thick head section. Unfortunately, cheap wheels may lack this correction of spoke line, thus causing the spoke to hang in thin air. This spoke line correction can be difficult with spokes being 2.34mm thick in their heads, but then again such thick-headed spokes work just fine without spoke line correction as an exception to the rule of needing to correct spoke line.

What finally causes the spoke to break is lots of hard miles. A cyclist who weighs a lot and carries a lot of load on panniers, riding tens if not hundreds of thousands of miles on the same wheels, in an aggressive manner (ride fast over bumps, brake hard, use relatively narrow tires pumped to huge pressures), causes the final breakage event. However, it all started from improper wheel design and was exaggerated by poor wheel building practices. A properly designed wheel, built by a master wheelbuilder, would be durable even if riding lots of hard miles.
And as a final note, historically materials used for making spokes were far worse. This has caused the author of the definite book on bicycle wheels, "The Bicycle Wheel" by Jobst Brandt, to discover what makes a wheel durable. We would not have the book in its present form if spokes had equally good materials 50 years ago.


Tire blowout on long descent I was using mild braking on a very hot day, a couple miles down the hill the back tire blew out the sidewall on a Continental Ultra Sport 700x23C inflated to around 100psi.

The rim was quite hot to the touch from braking. The tire is a few years old, but didn't show other obvious signs of coming apart or excessive wear.

I'm going to order a replacement tire. Are there certain tire options that would be more resistant to this? Other than that, what else can I do to avoid having to get a ride home in a car from the middle of nowhere?

Edit: added more pictures after taking tire off the rim with plastic tool:

The ideal gas law PV=nRT can be used to work out the increase in pressure, as there's no room for the air to expand/escape. Let's try some numbers. If pumped to 100psi at 17°C (290K) then heated to match a metal rim hot to the touch at 57°C (330K) the pressure would get to 114psi. The tyre should be able to handle that even if rated to 100psi. Even starting at 7°C and going to 77°C only gets you 125psi. Altitude adds a tiny bit to this if you pumped up at sea level - around 5psi for a 3000m pass.

Here's a plot of pressure vs. temperature assuming you pumped your tyres up at 0°C and ignoring altitude.  The upper limit of the graph is approximately when your tyres and brake pads would be smoking; you couldn't get that hot because the pads would misbehave long before that.

Heat also softens the rubber, making it more likely to fail, but it sounds like you should have been within sensible limits.

I've blown out a sidewall like this because of a sticking pressure gauge. A subsequent test suggested I'd put about 50% more in than I should have. If you'd overpressurised the tyre a little, then the heating could have taken it over the edge.

Maybe it's going too far for you, but randoneuring I carry a spare tyre. A boot is all very well sometimes, but I've seen a few tyres fail like this one and that won't go back together with a boot.

Long steady braking is sometimes unavoidable, but causes problems (including my own recent crash*). If you can, it's better to let the speed get up a bit then brake just before each bend or when otherwise needed. Spreading the heat between both brakes is also a good idea.

* I was on disc brakes. The resin holding the ceramic together in my rear pads melted, one of the front pads jammed in a wrong position and only engaged the rotor with one edge.  This may have been due to heat as well.  This all happened when I released the brakes to allow them to cool on a long steep straight descent.

Other than that, what else can I do to avoid having to get a ride home in a car from the middle of nowhere?

Try a change to a disc brake instead of rim brake.

I suppose braking that was Too good could also lead to flat-spotting your tires.


Derailleur/Gears Locks Up/ Freezes Up/Stalls Hey guys I have a specialized mtb with the old oval chainrings and lately it's been locking up. When I start pedalling "hard" or faster the crank stops turning and then jumps forward a bit and generally is not very pleasant. Please note the wheels keep turning fine. Has anyone had this problem before? It's happened to me on another, thankfully cheaper, bike that was stolen a year before I built my fixie (which gives me no such problems) a couple years ago.

To recap, the pedals stop turning and then jump forward, stalling in a way, when I start to pedal harder, like up a hill or just on flat but faster. How do I fix this?

Thanks for any help! I really love this bike!

This is most likely an issue with your bottom bracket.

To diagnose, remove your chain from the chainwheel so you can spin the cranks without the rest of the drivetrain being involved.

The easiest way to do this is to use your left hand to pull the rear derailleur's cage towards the front of the bike, creating slack in the chain. Then with your right hand pull the chain off away from the bike. You don't want to drop it in between the crank and frame as it's likely to get jammed.

If the cranks spin freely, with no "bad spots" and without creating a "grainy" sound, then your issue isn't with your bottom bracket and is likely a damaged/worn chain or rear derailleur cogs.

it is necessary to to slow down the rate at which you pedal (I suppose we must create a differential, in terms of pedaling) in order to get the derailleur to shift. The differential must increase (in velocity--> accelerate) in order to downshift; it must slow-down to shift up.

if you've ever been cruising on a flat and up-shift; you may notice a delay between your shift and the ACTUAL shift...because you're pedaling, so what is the hold-up, right? most gears not shift gears until there is at least some change in velocity; nee the relative power we deliver to the pedals. same with hitting a steep driveway unexpectedly -- it's hard to downshift fast enough to deliver enough power (angular accel) to the pedals and thus downshift. usually I run out of velocity and have to jump off the bike if im blindsided by an unexpected steep-spot. sadly, I need to be going at least 1km/hr in order to maintain balance without a 3rd point of contact.

it may seem to you like it is stalling, when really the system is waiting on the differential described.

as reference - my system is an 18-speed - 2 up front, 6 in the back hybrid. the rear derailuer is brand new (and had to be custom made by shimano) -- I ate it hard and snapped the original.


Does the USADA have the authority to strip Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France titles? Lance Armstrong has announced that he will no longer fight charges brought against him by the US anti-doping agency. The USADA says it will ban him for life and strip him of his 7 Tour de France titles. Armstrong says that the USADA does not have the authority to do that.

My understanding is that the International Cycling Union (UCI) is in charge of professional cycling events, including the Tour de France. So what is the relationship between the UCI and the USADA (and other anti-doping agencies)? Who has the final say over banning and disqualifying cyclists?

It's a bit muddy and will probably ultimately be decided by the lawyers, but...

According to the John Fahey, the president of WADA:

"I am confident and WADA is confident that the USADA acted within the WADA code, and that a court in Texas also decided not to interfere," Fahey said in a telephone interview. "They now have the right to apply a penalty that will be recognized by all WADA code countries around the world."

http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/article/WADA-Armstrong-stance-raises-questions-on-charges-3811670.php

And according to the WADA Code, it is the responsibility of international organizations:

20.3.9 To vigorously pursue all potential anti-doping rule violations within its jurisdiction including investigation into whether  Athlete Support Personnel or other Persons may have been involved in each case of doping.

20.3.12 To cooperate with relevant national organizations and agencies and other  Anti-Doping Organizations.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

So according to WADA, the USADA does have the right to impose penalties and the UCI is bound by the WADA Code to comply with their findings. They can, of course, appeal to The Court of Arbitration for Sport. And they almost certainly will.

Of course not, the USADA is a United States Federal Agency. It does not have the authority to strip titles won in France in a French event.


Wider tires offering faster speeds and safer ride? I'm looking at riding again. I took a two year break after I crashed going down a hill when a tree branch was down and I went over my handlebars.

I've always assumed that thinner tires were better for riding but I was watching this video from Global Cyclist Network. In the video the rider makes a strong argument for wider tires.

What I'm wondering is there any literature or empirical studies that are public that show these results? I found some small things that corroborated this but I was sure this would be the right place to ask.

Depends what you mean by 'better', and under what circumstances. The major tire considerations are, in no particular order:

Drag or resistance
Comfort
Grip
Durability / puncture resistance
Mass
Aerodynamics

What constitutes a 'better' tire for you depends on your preferences and what kind of riding you want to do.

The hypothesis that GCN puts forward in a few of their videos is that narrower tire width and higher pressures do have lower rolling resistance on a smooth surface, but wider, lower pressure tires actually offer less overall drag over irregular or bumpy surfaces because they have less suspension losses.

The idea is that because wider tires don't necessarily have more drag you can run  wider tires and get better grip and comfort without a penalty.

GCN did some relatively well controlled experiments on cobbled surfaces. Here is a video that talks about what they did and the results they got:

Some more experiments on bumpy surfaces: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/suspension-losses-confirmed/

NO.

In terms of speed, wider tires are heavier, have more rolling and wind resistance, more rubber to dissipate energy, so thinner tires are better for speed until they are too thin to be sucked in ground too much.

In terms of safety, wider tires are less controllable, have more inertion, while thinner tires are more easily get stuck between obstacles.

So, the tire width is a matter of compromise, you need to find those which work best right for you, but with experience it may also change. And, also, different grounds require different tires, the harder is ground the thinnier tire will work the best, and vice versa.


Compatibility question I was wondering on a mountain bike what rear derailleurs work if have a 21 speed bike.

Additional information: 7 ring rear cassette and 3 in the front

Will an 8 and 9 speed rear derailleur work or how would i go about this getting a rear derailluer in that condition?

I would say any 8 or 9 speed will work (same brand), you just need a 7sp shifter.
The pulling ratio is controlled the by the shifter, so as long as the shifter has the same number of speeds as the cassette you should be ok.


How to stop dealing with flat tires? I have a very nice fixie bike, which I keep suffering from flat tires. I live in Bogota which is a city full of potholes in the road.

I have been examining options to implement in order to have less issues with this flat tires, I got to know this company which is so far the best option I am considering, but it's quite expensive to order a pair of tires just for me, to Bogota.

So I kept checking and I found this videos in youtube 1, 2 and 3 that shows how to do that with a special sealant. Have you tried that in a fixie? Does that work?

EDIT

In more detail:

I suffer a lot of "bite" punctures (so called here) which are two holes in the tube because of a hole or a sidewalk and the rim pressure.
I don't suffer that much of a single hole puncture.
I don't know exactly the amount of pressure, but always that I inflate the tires, are really "tight" you could say.
I ride almost everyday, home-work-home. Each trip around 13km.
I have flat almost once a week. Sometimes once each two weeks.
I inflate the tires at least once a week.
My tires are one year old.

You are correct that the type of puncture you're getting is caused by the rim "pinching" the inner tube.

The root cause here is one of the following:

pressure too low (most likely)
You're not avoiding potholes carefully enough
Weight is too high for the tires/terrain.

This has nothing to do with fixies except perhaps that people on fixies tend to awkwardly power through obstacles without unloading enough weight at the right instant in time.

There is junk you can inject into your tubes, but that stuff is terrible and increases rotating weight. You don't need it. Also, this has nothing to do with tire quality. Your rim is pinching the inner tube, not something from the outside the tire.

Suggest you increase pressure on tires and avoid potholes. If that fails to work, try fatter tires. It is OK to go beyond the pressure specified on sidewall.

What type of flats do you suffer from ? Punctures ? How much do you ride ? How often do you have flats ?

How much pressure do you have in your tire ? If it's too low it might be the cause of your flats. Tires will lose pressure over time so you need to re-inflate them periodically.

How old are your tires ? If they are too thin they will be prone to flats, try to check if you have wear marker.

With tubeless people usually put some sealant in the tire, so you might try that, this will prevent/repair puncture flat.


Shimano 5700 group set with 5800 crank Can anyone confirm if a Shimano 5800 crank would be compatible with the 5700 group set ?
What issues would I face in doing so, if any?

11-speed cranks on 10-speed bikes almost always work without issue. The reason is that the width jump in that generational change is the smallest because it's one of the speed plus-oneings that was done primarily by making the cassette longer rather than the spacing a bunch narrower. See chart from bikegremlin.com

10 speed cranks in 9 speed bikes often make you need to drop in chainring shims to avoid the chain rubbing in certain gears. 11 to 10 rarely has that problem. It's still possible, and the reason is short chainstays where even the right crank would barely not rub. It's usually tri/TT where you see that most. So, it is possible you need to drop in one or two sets of 0.1mm microshims on each chainring bolt, which several companies make. You could do one set premptively because 0.1mm is basically half the width difference, and the shifting will only improve, but it's not usually necessary.

The compatibility of a crankset with the rest of the drivetrain is determined by the chain thickness for which the crankset is intended for. This can be adjusted by swapping the chainrings.
If you have a crank that's for 10-speed systems and you have a 10-speed chain, it works perfectly.
If you have a crank that's for 10-speed systems and you have an 11-speed chain, if you are on the big ring, and first upshift on the rear to the smallest sprocket, and only later shift on the front to the little ring, it may be possible the chain "skates" for some time over the small ring teeth. It isn't reasonable to shift that way, so with reasonable shifting the "problem" never materializes.
If you have a crank that's for 11-speed systems and you have a 10-speed chain, if you are in the extreme criss-cross gear (little ring front, small sprocket rear), the chain may rub on the big ring. It isn't reasonable to use that gear combination.
So, the result? It generally doesn't matter if your crankset is compatible with the chain. The problems a mismatch can cause are very limited. Of course you may try this to the extreme (8-speed crankset, 11-speed chain) and then the problems could be so large that you start to notice them.
In any case, you can always swap the chainrings if you want perfect compatibility. For example for 11-speed chain you would choose 11-speed chainrings. Swapping the chainrings may be advisable anyway as I don't think the Shimano 105 chainrings are made of 7075T6 (or 7075T651) aluminum. You can find plenty of third-party manufacturers selling machined 7075T6 (or 7075T651) aluminum chainrings. Those will be far more durable than the Shimano 105 chainrings.
You may also want to ensure compatibility with the front derailleur, but that's rarely a problem if switching from road bike component to another road bike component. Then the style of the crankset (double vs triple) and the chainline should match, and the big ring size is very similar.
Also you need compatibility with the bottom bracket. That's a cheap part to change if incompatible. Both the 5700 and 5800 cranksets use Hollowtech II bottom bracket, the best bottom bracket technology available today. So BB compatibility will not be an issue.


Touring vs race bike I am Fabrizio, completely new in this forum full of experts, considering myself somebody who wants to take his very first steps at biking on the roads. I started to live in the Netherlands since 2 months ago and I completely fell in love with bikes. Now I really want to buy a good bike for biking on the roads but, being 100% Dutch (e.g. direct ;)), I do not know where to start from.

I would like to ride the bike twice or thrice a week, to make exercise. Considering the fact that I have a knee injury, this is the only sport I can do without getting damaged, besides swimming (but it bores me). It really motivates me the idea of travelling very long distances across the Netherlands, enjoying the landscapes, and eventually carry some things with me. As for me, I am 1,85m and my current weight is 82kg.

I have done some research and there are the so called touring bikes. The drawback I find on them is that they are not so fast, but on the other hand you can easily add some panniers and carry almost whatever you want.

On the other side, race bikes are lightweight, fast, dynamic but you cannot carry anything on them. It's just you, maybe your phone and pocket, and that's it. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Is it possible to add some racks and panniers on them?

So to wrap it up, I honestly do not know where to start from and what to buy. It would be nice to hear so experienced opinions about this topic based on your thoughts and beliefs.

Thanks for helping me out! Looking forward to hear from you.

Edit:
I will provide a little bit of more information, as @john suggested:

The idea is to bike mostly on-road, and eventually off-road. This means that almost 80% of my distance will be covered on routes, but I would not like to get in troubles if I face off-roads.
I need to try drop handlebards. Honestly I do not know. I do not want to bike in a uncomfortable position, that for sure.
I think I need to be able to fit mudguards.
My budget goes up to 3000 euros.

Don't buy a €3K first bike! Instead, split your budget and get one for <1K. There are plenty of good advice here already (my vote goes to randonneur-type bike), and each of the suggested types can be had for that price. Don't aim at the highest specs: you don't know yet what you'll need. Just get something decent in the middle. Indeed, get to your local bike shop and talk to them (it must be more than easy in the Netherlands).

Ride it for a year or two. If you do it regularly, then you'll know what you need, and then spend the better part of your budget on a good new bike. If at all.

I have rode fat bikes, classical ('90) mountain bikes, recent (29er) mountain bikes, dirt bikes, a couple of race bikes, utility/touring bike with central child seat, old ('80s and '90s) race bikes, and probably a few more.
Race bikes are most certainly NOT recommended for a first bike.
(neither are fat bikes, but they don't enter in this discussion)

A race bike is usually optimized for rider discomfort, with speed as a secondary consideration.
There's a big issue with the surrounding awareness (looking backward is difficult on a race geometry), balance is compromised at low speeds, the handlebars are too low and you ride a lot with a significant part of your weight on your hands. Climbing performance is usually compromised by gear selection (not that it would matter too much in Netherlands),  grip on less than perfect asphalt is less than certain, braking tends to lock the rear wheel, you'll have a lot of weight on your hands when braking  (it still surprises me from time to time). Thin, high pressure tires are prone to flats (more than 10 in some 3000 km). Huge pressure in tires make the ride unforgiving (I have 23mm tires but the recent Paris-Roubais was won on 30mm tires).
So, don't buy a race bike. Maybe a cyclocross bike (CX) will be fine - a more natural position, but still with drop bars for an aero position. Bigger tires will be a lot more comfortable, probably much more resistant to flats, with care you can ride it anywhere a mountain bike can go (just slower), disc brakes are better in the wet.
I can't suggest you any make or model though - but ideally you should buy one only after a longer ride - a race bike that's perfect in a 10 minutes check will make you hurt after the first full hour.


How long should spokes last? Trek Fx 7.3, 1 year old, 1900 miles

3 days short of my 1 year bike purchase anniversary I discovered some broken spokes on the rear wheel. The bike shop gave me a new wheel they had in the shop, an extra wheel they had and said it was better than my wheel. There was no charge for this I presume because it was under a year and though I'm not sure I would guess Treks warrenty is 1 year. 2 weeks later another spoke breaks and I replace that at a 30 dollar cost. The "sales" person tried to sells me a $160 wheel saying that factory wheels are junk and this expensive one is so much better.

This morning which is about 3 weeks from the last spoke, another spoke breaks. I commute to work and this is becoming a problem. I probably need a new wheel but I'm debating whether I want to bother with this shop anymore.

Any thoughts?
thanks

This largely depends on how frequently you check the true and tension of the spokes.  If one gets loose you are likely to break spokes frequently, and once you've had a few break the others are likely to go more frequently.

As part of my daily pre-ride check I spin the wheels looking for significant wobbles and will take care of them right then.

As part of my monthly check (usually the first weekend in the month) I squeeze pairs of spokes together around the wheel to check that the tension is approximately the same.  If spokes are loose or if the wheel is out of true I remove it and use a truing stand to true it up.

My general rule of thumb has been if I've broken 4+ spokes it's time to have the wheel rebuilt, which at my LBS cost me about $60-80 depending on the quality and quantity of spokes I choose.

Breaking spokes is not usually a reason to need to buy a new wheel unless there is some kind of defect in the rim or the hub.

To actually answer the op question,which I had to go looking for, they'll last at least the life of the wheel.
RoadbikeReview: Thread: How long do spokes last?


Tubeless tyre pressure on 29er wheels? I know that tyre pressure is a pretty subjective thing with many factors coming into play (tyre type, terrain etc.) but would I be able to run lower pressures for the same conditions on a 29er than on a 26er due to the larger tyre footprint?

For example: I typically run my tubeless tyres on a 26er between 2.0-2.3 bar (29-33 psi) would I be able to run the pressure in the 1.8-2.0 bar (26-29 psi) range?

I've read that higher volume tires work better with lower pressure, but for what it's worth, you'd be better off trying it on the trail and seeing for yourself.

I ride my tubeless Schwalbe Nobby Nics (27.5'') on around 2 bar in the rear, and 1.8 bar in the front.

The Nobby Nics are fat beasts and so far held up perfectly. With the above setup I get a super comfy ride with a ludicrous amount of grip (although some pro might feel is a bit of an energy waste). :)

--> I don't see why you couldn't try the same on a 29er setup.


Effective breathing for efficient cycling It seems silly to say I don't know how to breathe, but I don't.  When doing weights, I know you exhale when you do the work part of the rep.  In Yoga similarly breathe out on the stretch.  Rock climbing too, when you pull yourself up breathe out.  The list goes on.  What on earth do I do for cycling.

Is it different for riding on flats or going up hill?

I am talking here about when a reasonable amount of effort is being put in, not necessarily racing or time trial but not exactly bumbling along either.  I remember when I was younger and did Cross country running at school we were taught to do two short breaths in and two out.  Does that apply here or is there something else.  I saw watching time trials no TV that some of the riders seem to ride with their mouth wide open.  I tried this and found that on hot dry days it really hurt my throat and lungs.

There are going to be dozens of opinions on this, so keep in mind that I'm only talking in generalities:

Don't get too caught up on what type of terrain you're on, flat, uphill, downhill, etc. As long as you're exerting yourself on your bike, try to take deep, steady breaths, breaths that seem to go clear to your stomach. Try to focus on keeping your breath steady whenever you can. Try a few different rhythms and see if you can pick one that comes most naturally. Even better, see if you can find a riding buddy so that you two can exchange notes and learn from each other.

There are people who make their career out of training people how to breathe, so, this is just to get you started.

On the flat and downhill, I just breathe normally. Going up steep hills, I find it helpfull to exhale in the cadence rythm, or even on each pedal stroke (twice cadence). By the time I get to this stage, the cadence has dropped so it is important to keep breathing regularly.


Is it really necessary to physically cross (interlace) the spokes on traditional wheel lacing? Recently I had to replace a hub on the front wheel of my workhorse bike. That meant unlace it and lace it again. Since the hubs were identical, I used the same old spokes, same not-so-old rim and same lacing pattern (3-crossings).

However, I noticed (already noticed it many times) the contact point between spokes around the 3rd crossing (where they actually touch one another) was a bit stained (even being stainless steel spokes) and a tiny bit worn.

I know it is traditional to cross the spokes this way, and Sheldon Brown explicitly advises to BEND the spokes against one anoter (which I heartily recommend everybody to do, increases wheel durability very very much.)

BUT since there are so much fancy wheels and even alternative lacing patterns (radial lacing, for example) where the spokes go straight from hub to rim, I wonder if it is really necessary to interlace the spokes in the first place.

Anyway, I can number some hypothetical pros and cons of INTERLACING:

PROS:

Provides an extra contact point for the spoke, reducing mobility and flexion, and improving lateral stability;
Reduces resonance noises;
Allows for fixation of spoke-cards ;o)

CONS:

Makes assembly a bit more difficult;
Creates a potential stress point due to friction and flexion;
Creates an initial bending around the contact point, which might allow for fatigue-inducing flexion around the spoke elbow;
Makes cleaning a lot more difficult.

EDIT: due to the confusion that arose between crossing vs. radial (which wasn't what I meant) and different ways to lace the same crossing pattern (what I intend actually), I made a drawing (out of scale) showing the two possibilities. At left, the "physically touching crossing". Please note that in the frontal view (bottom left) the spokes are not actually twisted against one another like the view might induce to think, but are only flexing against one another).

I am very prone to lace my next wheel without physical crossings, since there seems to be enough evidence it is not actually necessary. Some months later, I could be sure if that works or not. But even if it is not necessary, it might still be better.

So, have you any information/link/knowledge/experience about?

Probably the best source for answering this is Jobst Brandt's The Bicycle Wheel, the definitive text on the wire-spoked wheel and an essential for anyone interested in the art of wheelbuilding.  Excerpted from page 68 of the 3rd edition:

  Spokes in a crossed pattern are usually interlaced at their last crossing before reaching the rim. Spokes coming from between the flanges are laid over those from outside the flanges. Interlaced spokes take up each other's slack during severe radial loading and reduce the chance of spokes becoming loose. If spokes become loose, their nipples can unscrew. Radial spokes cannot be interlaced and therefore, lose alignment from road shock more easily. Interlacing also gives more clearance between the spokes and the derailleur on rear wheels.

I think a 2 cross is stronger than a 0 cross but it doesn't always look as cool especially on a low spoke count wheel.  0 Cross is for the front only.  Sometimes maybe you only have shorter spokes around.  Radial will not be as forgiving of a bad build.  Here is my latest compromise on the rear wheel as I am trying to evolve the Holy Grail of wheels.  16 spokes 2 cross on the drive side.  8 spokes 0 cross on the non drive side(nds).  All 24 spokes have the same tension on the meter.  If there is any future truing to be done, only the 8 nds spokes will be adjusted.


What brand of bicycle is this? Looking for the brand of this bike - like the style and color. Only have the photo

A google reverse image search tells me it's a Martone Sweetzer (US) or Real (European version).

http://www.martonecycling.eu/product-EU-5-25-Womens_Real

From certain features of the frame (the bend in the top tube etc.) I'd say that's the same bike, but that your picture is of a slightly customised version with a different saddle and grips.

I would search for "Pininfarina bicycles". I saw one time bicycle with similar basket. The basket was very uncommon for me, because basket and the handlebar is one piece. That bicycle had nothing else in common with your bike, BUT when you browse for "Pininfarina bike",

 you will get models with similar to some extent upper tube bents.