I want to weld or braze the pedal to the crank arm, but what metals are they? I ruined the threading in my crank arm, and would like to weld or braze it back on, instead of buying a new crank set. It is a cheap old bike, so the result does not have to be perfect, but it should be cheap and durable.

I have welded on iron (an exhaust pipe and the like) in the past, and if this was just iron, I could fix it with no problems, but in this case it is not that easy.

Pedal arm: I think it is of aluminium. It seems light. Not magnetic. Looks like aluminium. I have no other guesses.

Pedal shaft: Steel, maybe even cast iron? I don't know how to tell the difference. It is definitely not aluminium. The material is stronger than the alu in the pedal arm, since the thread is intact. It looks sort of dirtyish / dark gray. Dark gray like some heavy parts in an engine which I believe are made from cast iron. Only slight rust despite a long life. Very far from the look of a stainless bolt.

Can you help me figure out what metals they are made from, so I can move on to finding the appropriate welding or brazing? Thanks.

Welding aluminum and steel is not a DIY skill - read This.

If you must repair rather than replace, a helicoil is the correct way to address the problem. A crank would be cheaper than the coil alone, let alone the time to fix it. Chemical bonding (AKA. Glue) is probably the only DIY solution.

The issue I see is that when a pedal comes off while riding, it usually ends in tears (at best) up to a stay in hospital or worse. Why take the risk?

Second hand cranks are readily available - I have a box of bit with at least 2 sets and an old bike with another if I needed it.  Your LBS will probably have something for a few dollars. Visit you local rubbish tip/recycle center - I can almost guarantee they will have an old, unride-able bike with usable cranks.

Most bike petals come in 2 different thread sizes.
Get a petal set that uses the larger thread and just use the harder than aluminum steel shaft of the petals to cut the new threads into the crank arm.
Brute force simple and should outlast the bike unless you crack the aluminum.
Just my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps.
Oh yes, lots of thread cutting lubricant like you would use when cutting pipe threads.


Type of cycle for losing weight and staying fit for a beginner Over a year ago I was diagnosed with a collapsed arch in my left foot and despite trying many times I have not been able to get back on the treadmill. I have been thinking of getting a bicycle to start losing the weight that I have put on. I currently weight 240 lbs. I have a couple of questions:

Should I get a hybrid bike or a mountain bike or a road bike? I have read conflicting views on what is better for weight loss and general fitness.
Should I buy a geared or a non-geared bicycle?

I am not looking to become an expert rider and would probably only ride 3-5 times a week. I just need something that will get me a bit of fresh air and help me loose a bit of fat.

You want a geared bike -- not necessarily 50 speeds, but at least 3, preferably 15 or so.  If derailleur-style bikes scare you, there are geared hub bikes available (though they tend to be a bit more expensive).  (But, honestly, there's nothing to be afraid of with a modern derailleur-style bike, if properly maintained.)
If you're only going to be riding on roads and paved trails (which is most likely the case, at least first year or so), the type of bike makes little difference, so long as it fits you appropriately and is comfortable to handle.  (Though at your weight a "full suspension" bike is probably not a good idea, and, in general, even front suspension is not of much use on roads).
Mainly you should pick a bike that fits you well and is comfortable.  You need a 10-20 minute ride to really check this out, and any bike shop that won't let you do that (within reason) you should avoid.
Be wary of the handlebar.  Most bikes are delivered with the handlebar too low, and modern "threadless" front bearing setups require adapters to raise the handlebar to an appropriate height.  Make sure you get the handlebar height set appropriately before you leave the shop, and go back if it seems to need changing.
Be wary of the seat.  Many "comfort" bikes (which are worth considering) will come with an enormously wide seat, which may seem wise at the beginning but quickly chafes the inner thighs.  You don't want super-narrow, but likely not super-wide either.  (Of course the seat can be changed fairly easily.)  And, while purists sneer at gell-filled seats, they can be more comfortable for rides of intermediate length (over an hour, say), so long as they're not too "squishy".  Stay away from the pillow-like foam seats, however.

And do get a comfortable helmet (be wary of those with a large visor in front, they often obscure the vision), and whatever lock seems appropriate for your area/needs.  And be sure to get a light set if you ever ride at night -- nice LED light sets are now available quite cheaply.

As for shoes, usually a pair of athletic shoes is good for starters -- just avoid anything that's too wide due to lots of extra rubber on the sides of the soles.  Or an old pair of leather shoes will work for starters.  With your arch problem it's probably best to avoid anything with a too-thin, too-flexible sole, but hard-soled bike shoes are probably unnecessary, and could be counter-productive.  (I have polio-weakened ankles and arches and I biked for decades (including several multi-day tours) in plain old "tennis shoes".)

The shop where you buy the bike should give you a free tuneup after the first month or two.  Discuss this when you buy the bike.  If you buy a used bike from a private party most shops will do tuneups for a very nominal fee, often free, just to encourage your business.

You have a choice:

Get your tail hung in your chainwheel trying to wrap your brain around all the inexplicably contradicting advice of "serious" cyclists
Go out and get yourself a cheap hardtail BSO MTB and actually start cycling some before you blow a bunch of money on something you're not yet sure you like.

This is really cheap and provides the same exercise as any other bike recommendation, but won't run more than $100 or so (or whatever your currency is -- mine was Y12,000). Since your bike is cheap you can do fun stuff without financial risk, like learning how to take it apart, fitting out some cheapish clipless/push pedals (like these: http://www.amazon.co.jp/SHIMANO-%E3%82%B7%E3%83%9E%E3%83%8E-PD-A530-EPDA530-%E7%89%87%E9%9D%A2SPD%E3%83%9A%E3%83%80%E3%83%AB/dp/B001EIEH0G/ my favorite for souping up a city bike, cruiser or BSO), new saddle styles and seatpost lengths, or whatever.

You'll find out about chains wearing out, the difference between a comfortable tire pressure and a fast tire pressure, how hot breaks can get, how strong your legs can get from sprinting up short steep hills, how cramped/comfortable different seat/handlebar configurations can be, and a million other weird things you just can't know about cycling until you've spent a few hundred hours in the saddle. All without blowing a small fortune to satisfy the vanity of the "real" cyclists who seem to constantly forget that the basic feature set on the lowest MTB BSO today blows away the most extravagant features available on professional bikes in the 80's.

MTBs also have good gearing for heavy folks to start on -- until you become no-so-heavy. You don't need shocks and all the cool gizmos on newer MTBs if you're going to be on the road trying to get your heart rate up, though -- so give the shiny new stuff with the $4,000 pricetags a pass.

For those who say a cheap bike won't last long, I'm proof that this is simply not true -- I've got 3 BSOs, two of which are nearing 10,000km, all of which are demonstrating vastly superior drivetrain durability than my (enormously) more expensive road and crossbikes. Most of the price difference is defined in terms of weight, not features (except in extreme cases). Just about everything on a bike is wear-outable anyway, so as bits break either upgrade old components (and learn a huge amount about how bikes work in the process) or buy new bikes if your budget can afford it (and still learn a lot).


Swap Shimano/SRAM freehub for Campagnolo Through my work I am able to get a set of freewheels pretty cheap (less than 100€). I know they are not super special but they are still an upgrade to my current ones.

Here are the wheels:

https://www.bike-components.de/de/Mavic/Cosmic-Elite-UST-WTS-Laufradsatz-Modell-2018-p57945/
https://www.bike-components.de/de/Fulcrum/Racing-Quattro-LG-Laufradsatz-p44852/

Now the problem is all the wheels I can get are for Shimano/SRAM cassettes but I have a Campagnolo 10-speed. So my questions are:

How difficult is it to change the hub on the new wheels to Campagnolo hubs and would it be possible to just simply swap them out for the freehubs on my current wheels?

Thanks in advance!

Swapping hubs to a complete wheel is almost never practical. You would need a hub that matches the exact drilling of the original hub, or has similar spoke counts if you also replace the spokes. Even spoke counts may be difficult if the wheel has different number of spokes on left and right, as the Fulcrum does.

The good thing is that since these are both third party brands[1] that are marketed for both Shimano and Campagnolo users, you can get just the freehub body for different cassette as spare part for about 50€.

[1] Technically Fulcrum is owned by Campagnolo and the products are mostly the same, just marketed for people who haven't figured out that Shimano compatible wheels have been sold under Campagnolo brand for a long time.

The Fulcrum wheel almost certainly has a Compagnolo counterpart, or maybe more than one, as the hub design is likely shared with one or more Compagnolo-specific wheels.  You'd need the Campy freehub, and perhaps a different axle or spacers to effect the swap, depending on the differences between the Shimano and Campy hubs.

The problem is identifying the part(s) needed.  For that, you'd need to dig through the parts diagram(s) for your wheel and then go through the diagrams for the Campy-specific wheels looking for matches.

But it likely can be done.

You're probably completely out of luck trying to get your Mavic wheel to be Campy-compatible short of rebuilding it around a Campy hub.


30 lb Geared Bicycle vs 20 lb Single Speed, Which Is Faster for Commuting? This is not a literal question so I'm not looking at / for specific models, but more a theoretical one. Let's assume I could choose between two bikes for commuting, one with a modern 22 speed drivetrain setup and another with a single speed. The geared bike weighs 30 lbs, and the single speed bike weighs 20 lbs. They cost around the same (not that it makes any difference in this particular scenario). My commute would be about 8 miles each way, so 16 miles round trip, in a major U.S. city with normal traffic and not too much elevation gain (say around 150-200 ft or so, also round trip). Let's assume the city has 4 seasons and I would commute every day. Let's say I weigh around 140 lbs. I've tried to outline both the pro's and con's below, but I'd like to figure out if I'm missing something.

Geared Bike

Gears may allow for a faster overall speed if there are long uphill or downhill sections, or long open flat stretches with no traffic

Single Speed Bike

There is a weight reduction vs the geared bike (in this scenario about 6%) which may result in an increase in acceleration, especially when accelerating from frequent stops in traffic or going uphill
There is a slight increase in drivetrain efficiency due to a lack of derailleurs and a "perfect" chainline

If the rider regularly encounters traffic or does not ride over any substantial hills, I believe the single speed may actually be the better choice in most urban commuting scenarios. Given all of the following information, which one do you think would be faster and why? Any real world experiences and results would be welcome as well. Please disregard any other benefits not related to speed, such as the single speed having less parts = less maintenance and more reliability, generally more quality for the same amount of money spent on a single speed, etc.

Edit: I feel like everyone is missing the point of this question, so I thought I'd clarify. I own a modern 22 speed bike, a fixed gear, a single speed, a single speed mountain bike, and a relatively light 3 speed IGH. As I mentioned before, I do not want to hear about the pro's and con's of actually using each one for commuting in terms of cost, maintenance, etc.: I know about these already having owned them. I just want to know, given my particular scenario, which one you think would be faster and the technical reasons why you came to that decision. I'm not interested in discussing anything other than implications on commuting speed for this particular question.

To answer this question you have to factor in all the specifics of your commute. In particular those are (including yours for completeness):

Length of your commute (in time - distance is less relevant).
Steepness of ascends (and descents if you accelerate down-hill).
Overall 'windiness' of your city.
Number of full stops and slow-downs you have to do (due to corners, crossings and traffic lights).
Your physical strength and general fitness.
Amount of time you are willing and able to spend maintaining your bike.

Number (1)2-5 need to be considered when choosing your gearing. If the ascends are steep (or you have expect strong headwinds often) you'd need to run a smaller gearing. That would enable you to power through the ascends and accelerate quickly - but it would also limit your top-speed. Also your long-time endurance would be worse on a high-cadence gear-setup.

Meaning: in such conditions it would probably be better to ride a couple of gears. 200%-300% difference should suffice - a range that you cat get out of a small road-race cassette.

If in turn your commute consists of shallow ascends and descends, and you pack enough strength to decently accelerate the gear-ratio you'd want to be running during your average commuting speed - then you can do just fine on a single-speed bike. I rode a commute of 27km (~17mi) on a single-speed bike for years without trouble.

If you're still undecided you might want to consider my point 6. Maintenance can be a hassle, costing time and money. But it is not necessarily much more expensive on a geared bike. On a single-speed bike you have much higher wear on your chain ring and the sprocket, due to the higher torque you put into your drive-train. On a geared bike that wear is considerably lower, since you can down-shift to accelerate, and it is spread over a number of sprockets instead of just one.

My personal choice for commuting: Internaly geared hubs

You can combine both of those upsides by running an internally geared hub. Something like the Shimano Alfine 8 should be more than enough for all commutes, and doesn’t cost more than most other geared drive-trains. It’s insanely durable and needs very little maintenance. I rode one for approximately 25-30000 km (including a technical trans-Alps tour with 20000 vertical meters) and it’s still going strong in my daily-driver commuting MTB. Of course those upsides are bought with a little lower transmission efficiency and a  higher weight. But that shouldn’t be to bad for a commuter. Plus you get instant-shifting capabilities – even without pedaling! This is something I grew quite fond of, because it enables me to brake and shift later – makes it easier to keep the speed high.

The geared bike weighs 30 lbs, and the single speed bike weighs 20
  lbs. They cost around the same (not that it makes any difference in
  this particular scenario).

But cost does matter. For the same cost the SS is going to be a higher quality bike. 10 lbs is big difference. Weight in the wheels more important. In this scenario I would favor the SS.

I have a geared and a single speed that weigh almost the same and I commute on my single speed. My city is very flat. About the same speed. No long stretches nor drafting in a group to need bigger gears.

SS drive train is like 1/2 the price to maintain, more reliable, and more efficient.

You may end up with a different snow / winter gearing.

A good commuter is a SS cyclocross with touring tires and you can typically find them used for some great prices.

In cyclocross racing the SS will often get combined with men 35+ years just for count and the SS kids dominate.

If you are kicking out 200 watts you are doing about 30 km/hr (no start / stop)
No start or stop you use up about 1234 k joules
Adding 10 lb the elevation adds about 11 k joules  = 0.9%
20 starts with 10 more lb adds about 90 k joules = 7.3%
In a big city 8 miles you could have 40 - 100 starts
SS drive train efficiency is going to add about 1% (might be as high as 2%)
Total gain SS with 10 less lbs = 9%
I don't see how a gear is going to make up for 9% efficiency
Going from 12T to 11T is only 8% - it is more than 1 free gear
If you run a SS 32 x 12 you can do 30 km / hr with 90 rpm


What happened to riding with no hands? I remember, as a kid in the seventies we were able to ride blocks without ever touching the handlebars.
Today, I only see road-bikers riding without hands - and this is rarely.  I almost never see hybrid or mtb bikers go without hands.

What happened? Is it because I got older that I don't have the sense of balance anymore?  Or are bikes made differently in the sense that they're not self-balancing? Or is it the forward positioning??

Nothing happened or changed. It's just your observational bias coupled with different demographics preferring different bike capabilities.

Many children's bikes have relatively relaxed geometry, which makes them stable which has benefits for kids. Bikes built for adults usually aren't as stable, because stability and maneuverability are at odds with each other, and the adult riders want the maneuverability.

Mountain bikers value fast handling over stability, and so do many road cyclists.

However, many triathlons or time trials are events where maneuverability is not important, so many of those frames are much more stable. Touring bikes are also in that group.

I have a bike built up from a nashbar touring frame, that is so stable I can nearly fall asleep while riding. I hop off that bike and hop onto an 80s Bianchi racing bike, and trying to ride no-handed at any speed less than 35 mph (55 km/h) is virtually an instant crash. My surly cross check is in the middle of that range.

I have wondered about this for years after buying/riding many modern bikes,

The answer above relating to 'trail' or castor angle seems very logical, early BSA 26" mens bikes had curved forks putting the rider further back from center of of wheel, in addition the handle bars where much wider and centered close to stem.

Modern mountain bikes tend to have the rider more over front wheel head down position, forks can also have shocks which work better with straight forks.

Here's the best image I could find quickly, note the seat/handle bars way back.

Thanks for posting, been wondering for ages - now know what to look for !


Modifying a bike for winter (on a budget) I have two bikes, a hybrid commuter with skinny tyres, full mud guards & rim brakes, then I have a 29er hardtail MTB with hydraulic disc brakes and off road tyres. Which would be best, for commuting (with a minimum modification cost) in the snow? (this is likeley to be a small-medium amount of snow, perhaps having been compressed by other vehicles/walkers)

Having lived in a few parts of the US, I've found what people call small to medium to be drastically different based on the region ("oh yeah, we just had a light snow last night", and i look outside to see 4+ inches versus "it snowed like crazy last night" and i look outside to see a half inch and the whole city has come to a grinding halt), so its a bit hard to judge how much snow you're going to encounter, so I'm going to assume 2-3 inches fairly regularly (if it snows once or twice in the winter where you live, who cares?).

The ideal winter bike should be cheap and preferably somewhat disposable. Full fenders are good since they'll protect you from slush and what not and your drivetrain. The slush and snow and grit will still get into your drivetrain and what not even with full fenders, so you do have to make a habit of cleaning the bike off regularly in the winter (which can be tricky depending on where you live), or component life can be drastically shortened.

If you expect to encounter ice, studded tires are advisable (Peter White's page is an OK overview for this: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/studdedtires.asp , though Nashbar does (used to?) sell very cheap studded tires made by Kenda - not good for off road, but perfect for commuting). I'd say have these on hand if you can - in my experience, snow often leads to ice. Just don't try riding like a maniac or you're wear out the studs. If you can't afford them, get a cheap set of knobbies and run them at low pressure and be careful (always be careful when theres snow+ice around). Be careful with sizing since studded tires of the same "size" may need slightly different clearance.

As for the hybrid, it depends on what kind of hybrid it is - if it isn't twitchy and can use "large" tires (say, like a Trek 7.2 fx or a modern Specialized Sirrus), it should be OK. If not, I'd use the mountain bike and try to fit some fenders on it (probably you'll be only to fit things like the SKS X-tra dry, X-board or something similar, but its better than nothing) and take extra care to clean it up regularly. Discs would be nice for winter commuting at times if your rims are covered in slush, but a good V or canti setup is fine as well. Overall, if you have to use one of your two current bikes and both fit the conditions above, use the cheaper one or the one you're more comfortable riding in messy situations.

The best option IMO is to find a cheap old rigid (one less thing to go wrong - some of the cheaper suspension bikes make horrible noises in the winter and its just not necessary) mountain bike (think 90s specialized hardrock, giant boulder (I've use a 2003-ish one of these as my commuter for the past few years, since its fairly comfortable, pretty cheap to maintain (though things rarely fail, even with cheap (acera-x level) components), fits full fenders and a rack, fits reasonable sized tires and nobody wants to steal it!) or whatever - the spec, weight is far less important for a beater than for your primary bike, just a decent fit) probably at Goodwill or something (these are quite cheap to find about now - if you live near a college campus and go to a bike shop which sells more cheaper / used bikes, you'll be able to select some from there at a bit of a higher but reasonable price), give it some elbow grease (probably a new chain and lube and new brake pads, some various adjustments), fit it with full fenders, some lights (extremely important in winter) and some knobby/studded tires. Replace components as they start being not good. The total cost for this could be less than 100 dollars and two - three hours of work if you're smart about it and prone to getting distracted (so you can then invest in some winter clothing!).

There are many factors to consider, try riding both around the block to see which one you feel more comfortable on.


Styles of Shoe Covers for Colder Weather After getting this pair of shoe covers,

I'm wondering whether this style of closure (zipper behind the foot) is reasonable.
I suspect that after the inevitable bit of walking on grass and asphalt, they'll be too mucky, and require ongoing cleaning.
The trouble, it seems, is that they must be put on after the shoes. These shoe cover only make sense for cleated shoes. One puts on the shoes, then pulls these shoe covers over the shoes, while adjusting the neoprene so that the cleats and the heels poke through the two openings at the bottom of the shoe covers.
Another style, one with velcro closure that wraps around the foot between the heel and the cleats, seems more sensible.
That style can be worn along with regular cycling clothes. The shoes are put on later, and then it's simply a matter of pulling the velcro shut.
Can you comment? I need these covers as a solution to feet getting too cold, and nearly numb, at just 12°C/54°F. I am looking for a solution that will enable riding until freezing (then I'll park during winter).
Related:
1,
2,
3.
So far I'm riding with synthetic base layers and wool (skiing) socks. I feel that switching to wool base layers and thicker wool socks will be all that's necessary to continue riding until freezing (with thin tires).
Update
It is a very small detail, but it may be worthwhile being aware of it, at least for some.
Style 1, (the one pictured: wear shoes; pull over; zip) requires having some bench next to one's bike. Putting them on without a bench or a seat is significantly more awkward than trying to wear socks without sitting down.

I have 2 sets of shoe covers, and each has its advantages.
One are very much like the ones you show.  These are much warmer and easier to walk around in, but take a little more work to pull on (they are tight to the shoes) and while water repellent they are not waterproof.  They are perfect for riding in cold, dry conditions (down to, say -5C with good socks).  I've never had a problem with the zippers.
The other pair are waterproof cordura-type nylon.  They are mostly open on the bottom, except where they hook over the toe, velcro up the back instead of having a zipper, and have a velcro flap that passes under the arch of the shoe to hold them in place.  They are not nearly as warm and mostly good in heavy rain.  (Although even then water will come up through the screw holes in the bottom of your shoe.)  These are easy to carry (they fold up smaller), and faster to put on, at the expense of being mildly awkward to walk in.
Durability is an issue with both of them.  Pulling the neoprene ones on and off over the cleat has mostly torn the strap under the foot, and the toe part (mine comes partly down over the toe) is mostly abraded away from stepping down.  I have gaffer tape one one of them to keep the toe from popping up off my shoe.  The cordura ones the velcro is not holding well any longer, and I've occasionally had the strap under the foot come loose.  (Fortunately it hasn't gotten caught in anything yet.)

I need these covers as a solution to feet getting too cold, and nearly numb, at just 12°C/54°F.

You then probably are not accustomed to cold climates. Two days ago I rode 20km at around 6°C and only made a mental note to switch to warmer shoes and gloves the next day when the forecasted temperature was going to be few degrees colder. Neither my feet nor my hands were nearly numb.

I used to have these kinds of shoe covers long time ago when I was a poor student. I didn't have enough money to purchase two sets of cleated shoes -- one for summer costing around 50 euros, and one for winter costing around 100 euros. I only had the summer shoes and then shoe covers for winter. I found that it was a pain to mount the shoe covers, so what I did was to always have the shoe covers partially mounted. Then when using the shoes, I only had to roll the ends of the shoe cover on the shoes and my feet.
The neoprene shoe covers I used to have were very cheap -- so I suspect a better shoe cover would be less pain to mount.
A problem with this kind of approach of using cheap shoe covers is that mounting the shoe covers is so difficult that it's not reasonable to look at the weather forecast and decide on a day-by-day basis whether the shoe covers are needed. You should partially mount the shoe covers late in the autumn when it's going to become cold, use the shoe covers for the winter season, and when the temperatures permanently rise again, remove the shoe covers.
If you have enough money for a second pair of winter shoes, I would recommend that approach instead. Shoe covers are a poor solution -- mounting them is difficult and it's far better to design the shoe to be useful for winter rather than adding a poor hack on top of it.


How should I fix my Ortlieb Rack Pack (medium, 31 litres) to my rear panniers? I recently bought an Ortlieb Rack Pack to go across the top of my rear pannier rack. When the pannier bags are attached the Rack Pack works great: it clips into the two pannier bags and everything holds together nicely.

However, if I'm only using one pannier bag or if I'm using the Rack Pack on its own, I struggle to get the Rack Pack secured to the rear pannier rack. I'm thinking of using a bungee cord, but should I try something else instead? Is there a different kind of strap that is specifically designed for fixing things to panniers?

I'd go with a couple of bungee cords, maybe the adjustable-length ones.  That's probably going to be more versatile and adaptable than something more specialized.

There are some flat adjustable bungees, like these:

http://www.amazon.com/ROK-Straps-Adjustable-Loop-Thru-BLACK/dp/B008ETMV8I

That particular type is attached on either side such that you can open it without having the entire strap coming off the bike. Both ends are a plain nylon strap, and the middle section is stretchy.  I've used these for motorcycle luggage and I liked them.

I bought some ROK straps from Cycleblaze.  There are two sizes.  You thread one end of each strap through the loop at the end of the strap, then buckle them together.  I got the small, but I would advise the large.


You just had an accident, what's next? This question pretty well covers what to do when you collide with a vehicle.    But how do you best handle the following situations:

You are a biker and you hit a pedestrian
You are a biker and you hit a biker
You are a biker and you hit an inanimate object

You are a pedestrian and a biker hits you
You are driving a car and a biker hits you
You are an inanimate object and a biker hits you

You are a biker and you fall over in the middle of the road and everyone laughs at you

Does the answer change if you are at fault vs. not at fault (assuming you can make an educated guess)?

You are a biker and you hit a pedestrian

I've never done that, but in many places you are legally required to stop and render assistance.  Also, it's the non-a**hole thing to do.

  You are a biker and you hit a biker

Again, stop, make sure the other person isn't hurt and doesn't have any mechanical trouble that'll stop them from riding.
If there is an injury or either party thinks it necessary, exchange contact info and/or wait for a responding officer.

  You are a biker and you hit an inanimate object

If it's someone else's property, like a car or a mailbox, and there's damage, leave a note with your contact info.

As Johannes points out, in some jurisdictions, a note might not be enough.  You might be assumed to have fled if you don't make an attempt to contact the owner or file a report with the police.

  You are a pedestrian and a biker hits you

In many places, the cyclist is probably at fault since there are no highways for bikes where the pedestrian isn't assumed to have right-of-way.

Ask for contact info, and offer assistance if the cyclist is injured.  If the cyclist leaves the scene without stopping, remember details (what the cyclist looked like and was wearing, their frame color and design), and file a police report.

  You are driving a car and a biker hits you

Same as in a car/car collision.  Stop, render assistance and give a report to any responding officer if either party is injured or thinks a report is necessary.

  You are an inanimate object and a biker hits you

Impotent rage.

  You are a biker and you fall over in the middle of the road and everyone laughs at you

I've done this.

Pick yourself up, and declare that you meant to do it.  Ride off pouting.  Realize your wheel is now out of true.  Stop.  True it enough with the wrong size nipple wrench until it stop scraping against the fenders.  Ride off pouting again.

You are a biker and you hit a pedestrian
You are a biker and you hit a biker

You are a biker and you hit a pedestrian/biker - if you have a bicycle insurance policy , you will most likely have liability protection that should take care of the damages. (Source : velosurance )

You are a biker and you hit an inanimate object

Make sure you are OK. Then check for the damages on your bike. If the bicycle is damaged and you have an insurance policy - take pictures of the damage and submit a claim.

You are a biker and you fall over in the middle of the road and everyone laughs at you

Go home and relax


What are the disadvantages of securing your foot to the pedal? I understand that there are many benefits when it comes to different methods of securing your foot to the pedal, and how they allow for more power through an entire revolution of the pedal.

However I am struggling to find a source talking about the disadvantages of these systems. If you know of any different disadvantages for different types, please explain.

The only disadvantages I could think of are:
- The higher price for clip-less pedals and the need to have cycling specific shoes (which are usually not comfortable in walking)
- Not being able to comfortably ride your bike with normal shoes again. However, you can overcome this by going for dual sided pedals.

On the bright side, you get to use different muscles while pedaling which make cycling more comfortable. You eliminate the chances of your foot slipping off the pedal and getting your leg hit.

When I first started using clip-less pedals, I only fell once. It was because I forgot to un-clip at the end of my ride. Now, if I was going to fall off my bike for any reason, I can smoothly and quickly un-clip my self to prevent the fall.

I don't use clips. But I like skidding around because it adds another dimension of fun to riding and is useful in tight spots and preventing collisions. You can't put your foot down if it's secured to the pedal, not instantly anyway.

I find myself quite often either putting a foot down as I spin the rear around, or taking it off the pedal for quick balance adjustments. While people may say this is silly, it gives me a much tighter turning circle than if I could only lean and turn the handlebars as well as eating up speed in a smaller space if I need to stop in a hurry.


Why aren't road bicycle wheels tiny? My understanding is that air resistance is where most of the pedal power goes to at high speeds, and that this is a concern not least for the wheels: What you pay for in a road bike wheel is aerodynamic and/or light wheels, not so much to other losses like rolling resistance and bearings.

So if air resistance is the thing to optimize a wheel for, the wheel should be tiny. Obviously in width, but also in radius, because even shortening the length of a surface reduces boundary layer drag, and the top half of each wheel is basically a surface that moves faster than the rest of the bike. Has anybody thought of this?

Postulate: The faster angular speed of a small wheel is irrelevant to air resistance: If the forward speed is given, every point on the wheel at a given fractional wheel radius has a speed compared to the ground that is independent of the wheel radius. In other words, shrinking the wheel does not speed up any point on its surface; you just get less surface. Which should be good!

Some speed record bikes have had small wheels, including the current record holder.

Assuming a bicycle with a conventional rider position, the rider cannot be positioned any lower because there has to be a certain amount of clearance between the cranks and the road. As wheels shrink, the frame has to extend downwards to reach the axles, so you are not really removing structure that causes drag, you are replacing it with something else.

Smaller wheels have higher rolling resistance, at some point that become significant compared to aero drag.

There are a host of other practical reasons, for instance:

As the driving wheel decreases in size the gear ratios have to increase to maintain the same distance travelled for a turn of the cranks. This is why folding bikes have huge chainrings.

Small wheels are less stable, as anyone who has ridden a Razor scooter knows.

Have you ever played with a toy Gyroscope? The same principal is in play with a bicycle. A small wheel would have a similar affect to not moving, i.e. not stable.

As a larger wheel spins up, it keeps the bicycle upright.


Brooks B-17 isn't breaking in, how to accelerate the process? I have two bikes with Brooks B-17 saddles on them:

My full-frame touring bike: The saddle has a nice patina of age, having been used for several tours and some commuting.
My Bike Friday Tikit folding bike: This one doesn't get used for rides of nearly the same length, mostly because I can use the bike with the nicely broken-in saddle. Also, this bike has a more agressive posture than the touring bike, and I keep more weight on my legs than on the saddle; could this be part of the reason the saddle isn't breaking in?

I've been using proofride about every six months on both saddles. I've had the Tikit for over a year.

The question: Is it possible to break in or age a B-17 more quickly? Right now, it feels more like plastic than leather, and isn't comfortable for rides of more than ten or fifteen miles.

Alternately, would attempting to age it and soften the leather damage the leather? Maybe a B-17 is the wrong saddle for this bike?

Wouldn't the simplest answer be to switch the saddles between the bikes?  You'd probably end up using the less used bike more and the less broken in saddle more too.

Just UNSCREW the tension bolt !
This miracle tip is so simple that I don't understand why would brooks's owner suffer to break their saddle in.
Mil Printemps


What map / navigation / bike direction apps are available for the iphone for commuting / urban cycling I'm switching from an android phone to an iphone soon. I use the google maps bike directions all the time to figure out how to get to friend's houses, restaurants, bars and navigating around a new city, usually with no pre-planning on a computer.

On my droid, I just bring up google maps, type in an address, and get bike directions.  However, the iphone doesn't have bike directions on the maps app.  What is a good native app alternative for the iphone?

I'm not trying to track my rides. Just trying to figure out how to get from A to B.

Update:
It does seem that the cycling layer and bike directions are serviceable in a pinch on the google maps website when viewed on the iPhone or android device, but a native app would be more desirable.

Edit: June 2014 : Google Maps on the iPhone does support bicycle routes.

Have you tried "Get there by bike"?
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/get-there-by-bike-interactive/id457288250?mt=8

The few times i tried it i had good results.

Another alternative, but i have not used yet. http://www.bikemapsapp.com/

If you want to walk there is an iPhone app with very detailed instructions. useful if you get somewhere and then want to walk in a circular walk around a city or rural area.

iFootpath.com is for the UK only but works well for fallowing routes with photos, etc.

http://www.iFootpath.com


What could be causing excessive friction in a new rear hub? I recently had my bike (Focus Mares CX) serviced by my LBS, during which they replaced my wheels with a set of new Campagnolo Khamsin wheels.  In the month since I had that done I've found it markedly harder to pedal; I'm suddenly struggling to get up hills on my commute that were fine before, despite also having switched from a 27t to a 28t largest sprocket, and I'm drifting back from my companions when we're freewheeling.

When I remove the wheels and hand-turn the axles, the front one rotates smoothly and freely, whereas the rear one rotates smoothly but viscously.  There's a lot more resistance than I'd expect, and compared to my friends' bikes.  In the past I've always had cup and cone hubs, so this sort of problem was usually down to an overly tight cone, but these hubs have cartridge bearings and I'm unfamiliar with them.

I'm finding the hub schematic (pdf) a bit difficult to get my head around.  There's an endcap on the non-drive side that's secured with a pinch bolt, which is apparently used to take us slack if there's play in the axle, but loosening it has no effect.  Is there another bolt that I could loosen?  The new wheel sits much tighter in the frame than I'm used to, and I wonder could the LBS have tightened up something so much to get it in the frame that it's overloading the bearings?

Adjusting the bearing is quite easy although it's more than just unscrewing the 2.5mm hex-screw at the left side of the hub. Here's the link to an instruction sheet from Campagnolo.

https://www.campagnolo.com/media/files/035_68_Technical%20manual_wheels_adjustment_hub%20Campagnolo_12-12.pdf

While the PDF describes how to remove excessive play easing an axle that is too sticky goes the other way round with one small addition.

The steps are the following:

Untighten but don't remove the 2.5mm hex-screw that pinches the left cup.

Hold the right-side axle steady and turn the left anti-clockwise (to untension the load on the bearings) by 1/8 turn.

Check if the axle turns as desired. If it's still too tight repeat the previous step.

--While it's easy to tighten a bearing that has too much play, it may be tricky to loosen one that is too tight. A slight whack  on the right axle stub with a rubber mallet is helpful. (Speaking from experience with Campa wheels!)

Check if you didn't put in excessive play.

Retighten the 2.5mm hex with a torque wrench @ 2.5Nm.

But as I suggested in a previous comment I'd take the bike to the dealer because the wheels are rather new and still under warranty. And do it quickly, an overtightened bearing is easily destroyed.

One more thing: new rear wheels may be a little bit 'stickier' than one might think good. It is often due to the fact that they have to bear more load and resist to the pull from the chain. A couple of hundreds of km is often required to have them running properly.

They do have a video showing the overhaul sequence:
https://www.campagnolo.com/WW/en/Support/complete_revision_of_campagnolo_wheels_hub

Take the wheels back and go back to cup and cone. They worked really well for over one hundred years and have the perfect cup angle for bicycle hubs.


Pedal power meters on off-road / MTB I can't easily change my crankset or hub, so I'm looking at pedal power meters. All of them (PowerTap, Garmin Vector, bePRO, Xpedo Thrust-E) use Look/Keo/SPD-SL cleats. For me, walkable riding shoes are a must.

Are there adapters from Look/SPD-SL to SPD cleats? Is there another solution to this problem?

ETA: I said I can't easily change by crankset or hub. Please don't reply telling me to do that. The reason being, I have a Pinion gearbox which doesn't take custom cranks, and I have a 158mm rear axle which hub-based power meters don't fit.

I know I am late to the party, and maybe this is too late for the OP. However, the facts have changed since the last two answers: SRM just announced a set of mountain bike pedals that are compatible with Shimano SPD cleats. The price is 1,000 Euros. The link above goes to an industry observer, and he thinks US pricing could be similar. Availability in December, 2019.

The pedals are expensive compared to existing road bike power pedals that we know are good (i.e. Favero Assioma and Powertap P2). I suspect that making MTB power pedals is difficult, because MTB pedals can take hits from ground strikes, and they're more exposed to dirt. Any MTB power pedal would need its electronics protected against all that. Also note that SRM has always been a premium power meter option, i.e. their prices are very high, and their Look-based road pedals are very costly (US$1,700 for dual sided, $900 for single-sided).

It does seem likely that other companies will target MTB power pedals in time. In fact, IQ2 (I believe it's pronounced "IQ squared") announced an MTB power pedal (also SPD compatible) earlier than SRM released theirs. The issue is that IQ2 had initially got crowdfunding for a completely different design - they were designing pods that you inserted into your cranks, and then you inserted pedals (any type) into the pods. They found this to be infeasible, and they switched production plans to road (Look compatible) or MTB pedals. They plan to charge 329 EUR for the MTB pedals, 299 for the road pedals.

However, if you read between the lines at the link, the writer seems to think it's quite possible they won't deliver at all. If you read the comments, a lot of people come right out and say that they're expecting failure. The writer (DC Rainmaker) is a long-time industry observer and commenter, and I would place a lot of weight on his opinion. Also note that his post stated that the patent on Shimano's SPD pedals appears to have expired, and this could allow existing companies to create SPD pedals without licensing fees. That could lead to more MTB power pedals soon.

To expand on @Criggie's answer, the PowerPod estimates power from wind resistance and accelerometers. I believe this is more technically complicated than measuring strain at the crank/chainring/pedal spindle and translating that to power. DC Rainmaker has some reviews of their technology, but my sense is that this type of power meter is much less developed than direct force power meters.

This was alluded to in comments in Criggie's answer, but I believe the PowerPod has to assume the coefficient of rolling resistance. That is obviously going to vary between road and off-road, but off-road is a pretty diverse set of terrain. Furthermore, detecting the transition between road and off-road may be challenging, not to mention detecting transitions between types of off-road terrain (e.g. fire road, fine gravel, rough gravel).

I have a speed sensor that straps to the hub and also calculates power. Is this not an option?


New bicycle for commuting I'm just retiring my old roadie and looking to buy a new bike, and am torn on what kind to buy.

I cycle 34 miles per day on my commute, down roads and canal towpaths (which are bumpy and have on several occasions wrecked the wheels on my roadie).  I also like going out on long leisure rides.  For that reason, my initial thought was that I should get a touring bike, which would be able to handle the potholes I encounter daily.

The other problem I have though is that I have no proper outdoor space to clean the bike, and this has caused many issues with my roadie (which doesn't have mudguards), which got super gummed up.  I have taken it up on the roof through a window to clean in the past, but its a bit of a pain.  I really like the idea of an internally geared hub, but I can't find any touring bikes within my budget (£1000) with one.  I did find the boardman URB 8.9, which looks really nice, but I'm not sure if flat bars are going to be a problem on longer rides.

I really don't know what to do, please help me!

I had experience with riding of different bicycle types for commute, my distance was around 20km per day:

MTB: tires are bad fit for the job, so you put on slicks, running out of gears on asphalt flats/descends, sitting too high, too wide bars, extra weight from the fork. Makes sense only if you ride offroad for a major time of your commute, like one of my colleagues does.
Cyclocross: not bad, more aggressive geometry than road bike works fine for 10km ride but may be a pain for a longer one. Tires work both on asphalt and outside of it. But CX bikes are usually not coming with mudguard mounts, and tire clearance is usually limited to 35-37mm (due to 33mm official CX limit by UCI).
Road Bike: works great during the summer for longer commutes or when the weather is dry. Gets you to work ASAP. Many positions available on the handlebars. Slicks are getting not much grip when it's +3 and wet. Not much practicality bonuses, so the extra cargo most likely is going to be carried on you. There are some <1000GBP options available with mudguards (like 2019 Specialized Allez), but with bike's price increase mudguards are getting quite rare. Rim brake versions are quite easy to maintain in my experience. Not the best choice when you get into cycling traffic jams. Can use more robust rims with more spokes plus universal set of tires like Conti 4 season to get it almost bulletproof (remember Martyn Ashton's Road Bike Party showing you what road bike can handle). I use this option during summer when I also want to involve training ride before/after work or get to work very fast beating some Strava segments.
Gravel Bike: take pretty much all of the advantages of a road bike and deduct disadvantagess like lack of mudguard or rack mounts. With clearance up to ±47mm you can have comfortable solid tires fit in without sacrificing much speed. Unfortunately hydralic disc brakes for drop bar bikes are still a luxury, unlike flat bar bikes where it's more or less standard over ~400GBP. Can be used as a tourer too, plenty of bags are now sold designed for gravel bikes backpacking which could also be useful for commute. Expected to be lighter and faster than proper tourer. My friend rides around 40km a day on a steel Vitus 650b gravel bike and loves it.
Hybrid: my new love. Bought one to replace carbon gravel bike which I believe is too much for winter conditions and only 13km/day commute (after moving to new place my commute distance got shorter). Comparing to gravel bike you get much higher riding position, which with other factors like increased weight makes me around 20-30% slower. Also the fact of not riding a fast bike helps to take things easier, I started to ride to work in jeans with flat pedals again. Having a hybrid bike I don't need to be one of weight-weenies, so I have mudguards, solid rack and a waterproof bag which make my life so much more comfortable. Flat bar works for a short distance but when I finally leave the city I really want to sit lower to make it easier to maintain higher speed. Not talking about comfort, your hands will be in the same only position for few hours daily. Hybrid bikes are usually quite cheap so I can finally park my bike outside and use for things like buying grocery. I think most of the stuff said about Hybrids applies to Tourers too.

Reliability of components

If you're able to find within your budget a bike with hub shifting - may be worth considering it. But without sacrificing the shifting abilities, because unlike other commenter here I believe that number of gears is important if you live in a hilly area. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. Sora and Tiagra levels are currently decent enough to use them hard and expect reliability to be high and maintenance to be quite easy. Spare parts are available everywhere (including second hand in mint condition due to many people upgrading from 9/10 to 11 often shortly after buying a bike) and are quite cheap. Here in Stockholm I see plenty of people riding cheap hybrids with basic Shimano groupsets and seems that they've never washed or serviced them, but they are still running.
Mudguards are actually making significant difference to how your bike is feeling and what's it's resource.

Conclusions

For your distance of commute I would definitely look for a drop-bar gravel bike with wider tires and something around Tiagra groupset. I believe that hybrid would be too slow for your use and works best for up to ~30km per day. I have much shorter distance and went for a hybrid which works very well too.

Your best bet may be to try to buy (before Brexit date) a bicycle from The Netherlands. Plenty of very good commuting bicycles available below that price. The bicycles tend to be much sturdier, require extremely low maintenance (every couple of months/years a squirt of oil on the chain), solid (reasonably wide) tires and quite affordable. The disadvantage is speed and weight.


Trek T-900 Tandem rear hub I have a Trek T-900 tandem that I bought used.  It's probably about 12 or 13 years old.

I'm having some rear hub issues with it, but I can't identify what hub it is.  Trek's website and other searches just say "Alloy Hub".  I don't even know for sure if the spacing is 145mm or not.

I'd like to identify the hub, because it needs a new cone.  If that's not possible, I'd like to verify the spacing (I don't have calipers) so I can have a new wheel built.

I've verified that the hub spacing is 145mm - standard for a tandem.  The hub on the bike is unmarked, unbranded, and Trek's website simply lists it as "alloy hub".  It appears to be a 135mm hub with a longer axle and spacers in place.

Hi I actually have the same tandem bought from e-bay (UK) around a year ago a bit battered. I have replaced both front and back wheels with usual 26" Shimano Deore mountain bike wheels from my local bike shop. Replaced lots of other stuff as well.


Is it worth getting a suspension seat post as a cheap alternative to full suspension bike? I'm planning a ride from Birmingham to London on the Grand Union Canal (UK), which will be quite bumpy for most of the 145 mile distance.  I have a front suspension bike and can't afford a new full suspension bike.  Do suspension seat posts actually work?  If so, I'll get one of them.  Can anyone recommend a good model?

You might find a suspension seatpost to be comfortable, but a suspension seatpost is not a substitute for a full suspension bike.  The purpose of a suspension seatpost is purely comfort (though as mikes mentions, not everyone agrees that they achieve this goal), where as the purpose of a full suspension bike is first and foremost control.  Suspension on the wheels helps them stay on the ground over rough terrain, which a suspension seatpost will not do.  Any extra "comfort" is simply a side benefit.

If you're looking to smooth out your ride, the #1 thing you can do is lower your tire pressure.  You will lose some efficiency when the ground is smooth, but if you're already riding 145 on a bike with a front suspension, I suspect efficiency isn't your top concern to begin with.

Ive found use seatposts to be better than thudbuster st, absorbs smaller shocks and larger one way better and i preffer the action ie straight up and down rather than back as well.


Bought a Genesis bicycle for £100 and wanted to know if it was worth it since I can't quite identify the exact model I'm not seeing any cue in regards to the model, thought that maybe there's someone here who could help me identify it.
Thanks in advance :D

It looks like a moderately modern road bike that has been refitted with MTB flat bars to make it a rigid hybrid commuter.

Modern threadless steerer and a cartridge BB suggests its within the last decade or so.

As for value - if you needed a bike and could afford it out of pocket, then you're doing fine financially.  Now just ride it and enjoy not paying for operating costs of a motor vehicle, or per-ride costs of public transport.


Converting 80s bike to indexed shifters I've just bought an early 80s steel framed bike with unindexed stem mounted shifters. As I plan to use the bike for commuting, I'd like to change the rear mech to use trigger shifters.

I'm not so bothered about converting the front mech at the moment, although I assume it's a similar (if not easier?) process.

The rear dérailleur is a Shimano Tourney (couldn't see a date - it's not new though) and there are 5x2 gears. The gear spacing is definitely less than 10mm although I've only tried to measure it with a ruler.

I've read lots of guides about doing this conversion, but I'm a little confused about what I actually need to do in my case.

I think the rear dérailleur is fine and doesn't need replacing. And I think that all I need is some trigger shifters, but I'm worried about the indexing and spacing. I've read that faster triggers are less likely to suit the spacing, but I don't know why?

Am I on the right lines? Thanks!

Stick with the friction shifters. Changing a non indexed bike to index is expensive and unnecessary.

You will need a new dérailleur to index correctly along with a rear wheel that can mount a cassette (assuming your running a freewheel). You will also need new shifters which if your running a road bike are very expensive.

If you must have index shifting I would recommend a late 90's bike with index shifting already installed. They are generally very cheap second hand and don't require a complete overhaul.

I have an old 80s Apollo road bike that I use for wet weather commuting. I was thinking of doing the same thing and upgrading to indexed shifting. I installed new wheels (Mavic Aksiums) and added a seven speed cassette to the rear hub. I stopped there because the bike ran brilliantly. The new wheels are much lighter than vintage wheels and the hubs are much smoother. A worth while upgrade.

You will get used to using friction shifters very quickly. I actually quite like them now even for commuting.

For some people who want to spend the money and time customizing a sweet vintage ride, I'd say go for it!

It's certainly a fun experience. You don't need a new wheel or hub if you're running freewheel. Index shifting works fine with freewheel.

What I did with my 6spd was keep the friction shifters for the front and install a SRAM x9 trigger shifter next to the stem. Worked a treat. Now I don't have to worry about the chain falling off, not having the precise shifting, and not having to plan ahead and yank down on that stupid knob which always seems to get knocked out of gear.

$50 total, got new cables and housing and re-packed the hub bearings so she runs smooth.


Triple chainring + nonstandard sloped cogset. Can this work? It seems that on my mountain bike and all other multispeed bikes I have seen having a rear cassette or freewheel all have sloped cogs, meaning they go from largest to smallest in order of decreasing size (such as 28,24,22,20,18,16, and 14 in my case).  Problem is that basically creates a triple range 7 speed, not really a 21 speed.  Also some combinations are not recommended cuz of a diagonal chain and some are duplicates normally and many combinations are very close so they are not really a unique gear ratio.  Also, to get progressive gearing, the rider has to shift in a funky order to get increasing gear ratios.

To help alleviate these, I had an idea but not sure if it would work.  Basically you would still have a triple chainring but 9 cogs in the back.  The idea is you use 3 cogs with each chainring.  So chainring A (the granny gear) only engages cogs 1,2, and 3 (the 3 largest cogs).  Then when shifting to gear 4, you shift to chainring B (the middle size chainring) and cog # 4.  Here is the variation though.  Since the front chainrings might be 24,32,40 and assuming the rear cogs are 28,24,22,20,18,16,14, we would be jumping from 24/22 = 1.09 to 32/20 = 1.60 which is a huge jump.  To help alleviate this I was wondering if the rear cogs can be "staggered" such that even with the larger chainring every 3 gears, the overall gearing would be progressive and consistent (no big jumps).  For example, 3rd gear can be 24/22 which is about 1.09 and 4th gear could be 32/25 which is 1.28.  So when shifting from 3rd gear to 4th gear, the front chainring size goes up 8 teeth but the rear cog also goes up 3 teeth, thus eliminating the large change in ratio and making it more mild.  So the 3+9 setup would effectively be a true progressive 9 speed bike but with better chain alignment than a 1x9 setup since the front 3 chainrings would be aligned with cogs 2,5, and 8, thus never being misaligned more than about 1 chain width so the chain will be almost always straight (not diagonal).

So my question is can a rear cassette have cogs like this that are not sloped all the same such as 28,24,22,25...?  Will it shift ok or are cogs only designed to be "progressively sloped" and not mixed like in my idea?

Addendum: Also with my idea, it would allow 12 speed cassettes since each front chainring could engage 4 rear cogs.  The front chainrings could be aligned with cogs 2.5, 6.5, and 10.5, thus never being misaligned more than about 1.5 chainwidths.  A progressive 12 speed could have both reasonably close gear ratios and wide range.  My ideal overall range for a bike (to cover almost all circumstances) would be 0.5 for the low gear (13 gear inches for a 26" rear tire) up to 4.0 (104 gear inches for 26" rear tire).  I could design a 12 speed to cover that range.  It would require about 20% change in each successive gear unless you had a big jump for the lowest gear, then you could slightly tighten up the other gears to perhaps 18% or so.

Yes, you could do this and done as you describe I think you'd end up with as many ratios as rear cogs.

Someone once made a single-shifter derailleur system that moved both derailleurs from one shifter (using two cables) and "IXOV" has apparently started doing that again with the "Synchrobox" but all I can find are press releases, not even a company website. They typically use fewer than the maximum number of gears because of the overlaps, but from memory they do give more than just one gear per rear cog.

If you were building a bike this way you might be able to get away with minor back-jumps (a cassette that went 12,13,14,15,13,18,21, say). You might even be able do use a normal shifter with it by using a lever attached to the cable to shift the front derailleur some fraction of the movement of the rear one, but I suspect that would not work very well. If you used a cam instead you could get the larger movements for chainring shifts where you wanted them, but it would be a more complex design.

Using that diagram above to help me think, if you had a 9 speed close ratio road cassette you'd have three gears per chainring:

chainring / cog = ratio

9 speed 12-23            10 speed 12-30

44 / 12   =  3.67        44 / 12   =  3.67
44 / 13   =  3.38        44 / 13   =  3.38
44 / 14   =  3.14        44 / 14   =  3.14
34 / 15   =  2.27        34 / 15   =  2.27
34 / 16   =  2.13        34 / 17   =  2.00
34 / 17   =  2.00        34 / 19   =  1.79
24 / 19   =  1.26        24 / 21   =  1.14
24 / 21   =  1.14        24 / 24   =  1.00
24 / 23   =  1.04        24 / 27   =  0.89
                         24 / 30   =  0.80

That doesn't work too badly, graphed it looks like this:

With a 10 speed 12-30 cassette that also works:

Here is what I have for a progressive 3x9 setup using all 3 chainrings and all 9 cogs but using only 3 cogs per chainring.

chainrings (20,30,40)
cogs : (36,28,22,25,20,16,18,15,12)

Ratios would then be:

20/36 = 0.56
20/28 = 0.71
20/22 = 0.91
30/25 = 1.20
30/20 = 1.50
30/16 = 1.88
40/18 = 2.22
40/15 = 2.67
40/12 = 3.33

Overall spread is 6:1 between lowest and highest gear.

Chain alignment would be near perfect if shifted properly.

I suspect the design is possible and manufacturers of cassettes should allow this.

Also, if someone just prefers all of their ratios to be handled by the cogs in the back, they could have a 2x10 for example with the same exact teeth on both chainrings, just shifting the front to help maintain chain alignment.  So if they are riding and after a shift they hear a slight grinding noise, they would shift to the other chainring to help alleviate that.  Another advantage of a double chainring is after the person gets stronger, they might want to change the outer front chainring by a small amount such as 10% so maybe 40 and 44 for example.

I disagree with those people that advocate ditching the dual (or triple) chainrings in favor of a single to save weight.  What would you save 1 or 2 pounds at most?  That wont even be felt on a bike that weighs about 200 pounds with with rider.  The front chainrings are useful not only for more range (spread), but also to help keep good chain alignment.  Long live the triple and bring on the quad!


What are some good trail foods for long rides in mountainous terrain? I'm going to be heading out to Durango in a couple weeks to ride and race and I could use some suggestions for good foods/snacks to take with when riding for 3-4 hours on singletrack trails. I'll be staying in a hotel so I won't have access to a full kitchen but I could maybe make some basic stuff.

Basically I'm looking for two categories:

Trail Snacks: small things to just keep energy up during quick breaks.
Meals/Substance: something I can pack to eat around halfway or after a couple hours of good riding to replace lost calories, more substantial than gels or trail mix.

And, for reference, I've got a medium sized hydration pack to carry stuff and nothing on the frame for storage (unless I tape it on).

I realize this thread is old, but I'll share my experience:

I compete in major marathon races (4+ hours) and finish in the top 30% (at worst).

For 4-5 hours of trail riding (not racing) I usually pack a banana, and apple, and 1/2 of a peanut butter and honey sandwich. I eat every hour(ish). Usually the banana first (to help block lactic acid build up late in the ride), the sandwich in the middle (protein and some slow - peanut butter, and quick - honey, energy). I eat the apple at the end (last 30-45 minutes) for quick energy, plus they're wet.

Your body can't really process a large amount of calories during a ride that short, and certainly not from complex food sources. I try to keep my food sources natural, so as to not end up with gastric distress of some sort (which will kill your body's ability to output).

For racing, I wouldn't eat anything other than a banana or two during a 4-5 hour race. Most food (non-fruit) is going to take 4-6 hours for it to really be usable by your body, and the chance of gastric distress isn't worth it. In the second half of a race, I'll probably kill a energy gel of some sort every 30 minutes or so.

I always try to eat something sensible (and in a reasonable, non-oversize portion) about 2-2.5 hours before I go for a big ride.

The MOST IMPORTANT thing for prolonged riding is hydration. Going hypoglycemic is not nearly as easy to do as making yourself dehydrated. Once your cells are dehydrated, they don't function at 100% regardless of how much fuel is available to burn. If you ride for a long time, you will become dehydrated. Keep hydrated all the time, and pay a lot of attention to your water intake for the several days preceding a long ride.

I'm sure there is a PHD that will give you a better answer (or 2 PHDs that will give you 2 similar, but not totally in agreement, answers), but I try to keep it pretty simple without trying to become a PHD myself.

Drink water (I use the skratch labs hydration mix.), eat food your grandma recognizes (I'm not suggesting Ensure!), and go have some fun!

You don't need to eat anything over 3 to 4 hours of cycling.

It's possible not to eat for 4 hours while being active, even intensely active, and be all right.

People complete marathons in this timeframe, without taking in anything other than liquids.


Are two different tires marked with the same dimensions (700 x 25c) the same size? Both sets of tires are from different reputable manufactures but the details are the same. ie Clinchers folding etc.

I recently changed my tires on a road bike, the clearance on top section of the rear seat stay was always very small with OEM wheels and tires. I would guess about 3-4mm.

I got new tires with the same specs from different manufacture and at the recommended psi the clearance from the top of the seat stay is about 1mm and I never noticed it while riding about 3k miles. But once i took it apart i noticed that the tire has been rubbing on the seat stay. I can see the paint has rubbed of slightly.

Update: picture below - hard to see because of brakes but the top of the seatstay is marked with red line and the top of the tire is marked with green line.

Wheels are true!

I'd check if the wheel was in properly and is in good condition (true) along with the tire being mounted properly on the rim.

There is some variation in tires true sizes despite being marked the same size, though half a cm would be a lot larger variation than one could reasonably expect, especially with older tires. Features like studs, knobs can also affect this. If you have reasonable clearance for a given size of tire, one should reasonably expect a similar tire from another manufacturer to also give reasonable clearance, though this is not always the case.

Car tires are specified with wheel size and aspect ratio ("height" of the tire).   Bike tires are not, specifying only the wheel size.

Never heard this to be a problem in bike land though...


Simple plain English explanation of VO2 MAX What is VO2 MAX and how is a measurement taken? By how much can VO2 MAX be increased in the average person?

VO2 Max refers to the maximum volume of oxygen that an individual can use at maximum levels of intense aerobic exercise. It is usually reported as as milliliters of oxygen used in one minute per kilogram of body weight, though sometimes you see liters of oxygen per minute with no adjustment for body weight. The former measurement is more useful in exercise and sports science since it allows the measurement to be compared among athletes of widely different weights.

It is usually measured in a fitness lab setting using either an exercise bike or a treadmill. The test subject wears a mask and heart rate monitor. The mask is connected to a device that collects and measures of the volume and oxygen concentration of inhaled and exhaled air.

At some point below maximum effort the body switches from aerobic to anerobic processes to generate energy. Exercise intensity is increased gradually until the subject is at a maximum aerobic effort - beyond which there is not or only negligible increase in oxygen uptake. That is the VO2 Max point.

I don't know how much it can be increased in any individual, and there are both genetic and exercise components. This page lists that:

  The average for a sedentary individual is close to 35 ml/kg/min. Elite endurance athletes often average 70 ml/kg/min. One of the highest recorded VO2 max results (90 ml/kg/min) was that of a cross country skier. Cyclist Lance Armstrong's VO2 max was reported at 85 ml/kg/min.

For even more detail, including the associated math, see Wikipedia: V02 Max.

Vo2MAX is just a breathing technique. In reality you want to run the beep test breathing in through your mouth and out through your nose. Then you can rely on your leg muscles. If you get a high score on the VO2Max callander, than that means your legs can withstand pressure of 25km/v. I think that the average level is 11.9 for M 8.7 for FM, and 19.4 for non-binary. Thats because they have both genetic sports ability combined. I hope you find this useful. And I hope you succeed in your VO2MAX breathing.


Air Pressure on wheels Does the perfect air pressure is related to the performance of bikes? If yes, what is the exact amount of pressure required on MTB, Hybrid, City Bikes and BMX?

The optimum pressure for any kind of bike is going to depend on a lot more factors than just the type of bike. You have to look at many other things such as rider weight, terrain, and tire size. It also depends on how you qualify something as optimum. Higher pressures might be optimum in some situations, but may not be very comfortable to the rider, making long rides very hard on their body.

MTB Tire Pressure (PSI) Made Easy
Individual preferences, terrain, and tire type play a role in finding the ideal pressure, but here's a simple formula to get you started:

Step One
If tires are tubeless:
Your body weight (lbs) ÷ 7 = x

Step Two
Front-tire pressure = x - 2
Rear-tire pressure = x + 1


Badly rusted suspension fork I have a $300 MTB used for commuting. It has been three years now, and the rain and snow have said their word. Two weeks ago I disassembled the fork and spent a good one hour with the sandpaper, removing rust. Still some was left. It has been two rainshowers from then. Yesterday I had another look and ... it is not promising.

I have move aggressive means of removing material (so that there will remain no rust) - a grinding wheel. However, I am afraid to use it, as I guess it will be weakening the tubes too much. I do not seek top performance - it is a no-steal bike (for example the handlebar is visibly bent).

Below are the two pictures. Should I clean the rust? How? How reliable is the fork currently? How long does it have left?

This is obviously (from the images) a suspension fork, and a very low-end one. Suspension forks are heavier than their rigid counterparts, but the trade-off is that they absorb shocks. These rust spots MUST MEAN the fork has long ago COMPLETELY LOST its ability to work properly as a suspension. As a result, you are carrying useless extra-weight, are not getting a suspension effect, are risking some worse failure along the way, and are risking some crash/injury.

The surface presenting the rust is the surface where sliding occurs (the "telescopes"). This surface must be perfectly smooth and shiny, and the rust shown necessarily means it is not, and never will be, as new again. Grinding will remove dust, but will not make the surface smooth nor prevent more rust to build-up afterwards.

My suggestion: sell the fork for metal recycling, and buy either a new suspension fork, or a rigid fork.

Hope this helps.

oh guys, get creative. rust is a chemical reaction. reverse the chemistry.


What bicycle design factors affect stopping power? I've been under the impression that bikes and motorcycles cannot stop as quickly as cars.  I'm curious what factors have the largest impact on bike stopping distance.

What comes to my mind are:

Tire size (more rubber on the road means more stopping power), a higher diameter/lower-pressure tire should be able to apply more friction to stop
Bike weight (less weight is less intertia)
Brake types(?) Do rim vs. disc make a difference (it would seem they are negligible as both lock up the wheel when too much pressure is applied)

What impact do these factors have?  What other factors affect braking?  Which factors can be tweaked for greater stopping power--and at what trade-off?

Note: My assertion that cars can stop more quickly than bikes originated from my motorcycle rider's ed when I was getting my motorcycle endorsement.  It was stated that cars are able to stop more quickly in general, and as such you must learn to follow further back than if you were driving, and also learn to swerve around stopped vehicles (in emergencies) rather than trying to brake in a straight line--as you are most likely going to end up on the bumper if you only brake without additional maneuvering.

The biggest factor in bike stopping distance is the mass transfer towards the front of the vehicle when braking. On an upright bicycle, the limiting factor in how hard you can brake is the point at which the front wheel goes from slowing you to simply throwing you over the handlebars. As you brake, your center of mass shifts forward, lifting the rear wheel.  Shifting your weight backwards and down while you brake dramatically increases your braking capability.  A human-powered vehicle with a lower center of gravity such as a recumbent trike or recumbent low-racer can also typically stop more quickly.

A bicycle's braking limit is approximately 0.67g, while the limit for a typical passenger automobile is somewhere between 0.8g and 1.0g. Legal requirements in the US are even less stringent than these limits - typically a passenger automobile must be able to brake at 0.53g, while a bicycle is only required to demonstrate the ability to skid the rear wheel, providing at most 0.2g of braking capability!  It's certainly the case that there are automobiles driving around with less braking capability than many bicycles.

The factors you mention aren't really significant in the limiting case - friction is related to the normal force over the size of the contact patch, so larger surface area doesn't really help, and even if you did increase friction (sticky tires) you'd still hit pitchover before the front wheel skidded. The bike's weight is usually a tiny fraction of the total system weight.  Disc brakes help in the average case since the discs typically have a better interface between the rotor and brake, but clamping a dry and clean rim brake can easily pitch a rider over the front wheel.

Yep... what the others said. Your deceleration reaches its max limit when the rear wheel becomes totally unloaded and the bike is about to flip over by pivoting on the front axle.

Yeah, you can mitigate the situation significantly by lifting your butt off the seat and pushing your weight backwards as you're braking. Having more of your weight further behind the pivot point (the front axle) will give you even more deceleration before you flip.

These considerations, however interesting, are pretty much just academic.

The REAL determinants of being able to avoid a collision is NOT the theoretical limit of deceleration but whether or not the rider is paying enough attention to not get into a panic braking situation in the first place, the reaction time and judgment of the rider, the physical ability of the rider to properly use "body english" and bike handling to either stop the bike in time, maneuver around the obstacle, or just crash in a way that avoids the dreaded "face-plant."


Should I be concerned about new helmet laws? In Australia there was recently a change to to bicycle helmet standards as outlined in AS/NZS 2063:2008.

Basically, helmets complying to the 1996 version of the standard will soon become illegal to sell in Australia.

I want to buy a helmet with the 1996 standard because it's cheaper now (due to stock clearance), but I don't know if it will be any less safe? Not that I put too much trust in these standards anyway ...

I'm very skeptical as to whether the new standard will be safer in use, because virtually no useful information is given to the public as to what the changes actually are. Furthermore, these are laws being passed by bureaucrats who seemingly have very little idea of the actual science behind these standards! To make matters even worse, they do not differentiate between helmets for different cycling uses e.g. mountain bike vs. road, and throw seemingly arbitrary numbers around.

Should I be concerned buying a helmet of an older standard or do you think this just silly bureaucracy in play?

Summary: a helmet that meets the new standard is going to protect your head better than one that just barely meets the old standard.

Old Law: AS/NZS 2063:1996 (PDF); unfortunately just the start, the actual full text of the law is behind paywalls.
New Law: AZ/NZS 2063:2008 (PDF); also need to pay to get full text
some stuff about US rules for comparison: CPSC bicycle helmet rules (PDF)

Summary of differences from the preface of the new regulations:

Something about "projection requirements" from the horse-riding helmet regulations added in. This is probably about stuff sticking off the outside of the helmet (such as a visor/peak).
Update to what headform is used for testing to match an international standard
Reduction of maximum allowed force to headform in test from 300g to 250g.  For comparison, 300g is the US requirement for adults, but 250g is the requirement in the US for children. I think it's a similar impact test.
Update to test of retention system (straps)
A new test for "peak deflection" added in, which I believe is another test of the retention system (straps), but measured differently.

Also, from the stuff I saw, a helmet meeting the old standard will still be perfectly legal to own or wear, will still be allowed in organized races for a while, etc.

I think the 300g to 250g change is the big one.  The g forces imparted to your head in a collision directly translate to how much damage your brain is going to take.  They're taking a weight shaped like a human head, strapping it into the helmet and dropping it onto various "anvils" and measuring the impact. This is a laboratory test of what would happen to your head during a collision wearing that helmet.

Note that the tests are simply pass or fail.  It's entirely possible that there's helmets certified to the old standard that would pass the new standard (or parts of the new standard) but those models weren't tested to it.

Personally, I'd be likely to pick up one of the old standard clearance helmets and not worry about it. Maybe get something a little nicer than I'd normally choose to afford. If I was planning some riskier riding I'd probably choose something certified to the new standard. However, I'm opposed to adult mandatory helmet laws, so my personal opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.  My personal opinion is that it's 90% silly bureaucracy and 10% actually making your head safer.

In Australia it is illegal to ride without a helmet - will that law also be updated? It might not concern you on a daily basis, but if you were in an accident while wearing an older model, what would the law then have to say about your liability?

It's not the same at all - but this story does prove that when defendants don't see a choice, then their (public-funded) lawyers will really scrape the barrel.


Can I use gear oil on my chain? I don't have any chain oil right now, but I have some gear oil left over from working on my car.  Would it be an effective chain lubricant?  It's listed as 80W90, but reading the Wikipedia article suggests that that's not equivalent to motor oil viscosity ratings.

Short answer: No, you shouldn't. Heavy oils attract too much dirt, grit and grime which will damage the useful life of your chain.

You need a light lubricant which will wick it's way into the internals of the chain, rather than simply coating the external portion of the chain.

A good Teflon carrier lube like the Finish Line Teflon works well, lasts a good while and doesn't pick up dirt when properly applied. Using something like that will extend the useful life of your chain.

Gear oil is too thick, and designed for a higher heat production than you get on a pedal driven bicycle. It relies on engine heat, and the gears moving at high speed to produce enough friction to reduce the viscosity of the oil enough to be thin enough to flow as a good lubricant.

It would be better than nothing, but hardly a good choice.

Motor oil is as good as any other fantasy chain lubes.

What should be kept in mind is the motor oil is fresh and not leftover extract while servicing a vehicle. If the instructions are to re-lube (after cleaning) after every few rides, then there will not be a problem with motor oil even.

If one wants to keep the lubrication longer, the thicker the better. It however becomes heavier as time passes. so, clean more often the old lube and re-apply at shorter intervals. the motor oil gives quite a smooth ride.


What is the purpose of the little wings on caliper brake pads I noticed that caliper brake pads (holders) have little wings on the bottom that aren't present on v-brake pads.

What is the purpose of these little wings?

Photo by RoboKaren. Released to Creative Commons by-sa.

This other photograph on Wikimedia commons that @ojs linked to of the classic 1984 Campagnolo Delta brakes shows a more exaggerated form of the 'wings':

They are to help guide the wheel/tire into place when you have to change the tire. Especially when in a hurry such as during a race.

It mainly serves as a lever when you need to tighten the brake cable. You can use it to squeeze the brake together, and tighten the cable easily. You could also use it for centering the dual-pivot brake, adjust the brake pad, etc.

It is also a good indicator for the direction of the pad, for beginner. However, anyone has a little common sense would match the curvature of the brake pad with the rim.

I have read another comment about guiding the tire, it's also interesting.


Can I use an old cog for my new hub? I have an old wheelset with a 16T cog. It's currently a 120mm flipflop hub, and I'm going to be replacing it with a 120mm coaster. The coaster hub that I want doesn't come with a 16T cog (only 14, 15 and 17 for some reason).

Rather than mess around with chain tension, etc, I was wondering if I could just use the cog from the old wheelset on the new hub, or if it's more complicated than that.

More info: old hub is a 32H, 14G, 16T cog. New hub is a velosteel 32H http://www.elegantwheels.net/STORE.html

To quote the page you linked, "Since the Velosteel hub has standard track threads, it can run any fixie/track cog built to Phil Wood/Campagnolo standards." For cogs, this is the same standard as every other cog, but the lock ring will probably be different. Just take the cog from your old hub and keep the lock ring from new one.

Note that this is different from most other coaster brake hubs, the more common Shimano, Torpedo and others use splined cogs.

My answer will not answer your question but will give some light on working around it. Instead of replacing the cog or messing around with chain tension you can adjust the length of your chain just right by using one of online chain length calculators and possibly a half link. This is what I did with my vertical dropouts modern frame converted to single speed. No tensioner was used and the chain length is perfect, although I had to add a half link. This is my favorite web site calculator which gives you a graphic view of how far from the perfect length you are and if it's on a tight or loose side, and more options if half link is being used: http://eehouse.org/fixin/formfmu.php.


Harsh Winters bike - Steel vs aluminum frame? I am looking to a buy a single speed commuter bike which I can also use through the harsh winters here. I have narrowed it down to two bikes -
One has a 6061 Aluminium frame while the other has a hi-ten steel frame.

So my question is, given that I will use the bike through winter and have to park it outside in heavy snow with all the salt and grime on it (for about 5-6 months), is having a steel frame bike a bad idea or is it not a big issue?

Specifically this question is about Sweden, where temperatures range -5 degrees C up to 23 degrees C  (23F to 74F) in Stockholm, but further north the temperature has been recorded below -42 degrees C (-52 degrees F) (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Sweden)

I've ridden quite a few different bikes on salted roads for over three decades, and it's more a case of preferences than objective benefits.

The steel bike will get chips in the paint, then rust and look really ugly after a season or two.  It will probably take decades until it's rusted enough to make much of a structural difference, but it'll be really ugly quite fast.  Ugly bikes get stolen less, so this may be a positive if you don't care about looks.

Aluminium bikes in salt will stay rather good looking, but the steel bolts will react with the salt and aluminium and seize quite properly unless you change them all to stainless.  If you don't change them, make sure you get good at drilling out bolts and re-threading if you plan to do your own maintenance.

I think the best bike is more comfortable, more soft-gearable than the other bikes, which is not heavy, light for women and child.
So Aluminum is the best material to make bike. and that is the best way to make high-ranking bikes. I wish you will choose aluminum bike.


Is it worth rebuilding a wheel myself to save money? The bearings and hubs on my bike have worn out and need replacing. The local bike shop charges $120 to have the wheel rebuilt with a new hub not including the part cost. I am considering doing this myself to save the money. I have never rebuilt a wheel before but I have done other maintenance on my bike and watched some videos on wheel rebuilding.

After considering buying the tools needed and the risk of breaking any parts, is it worth building a wheel for the first time just to save money?

I have done other repairs like chain replacements and brake pad replacements. I don't mind spending a weekend messing with it and I have other bikes I can use in the meantime.

For most applications, most of the time, in the global north, if you're trying to save money then just buying a new wheel is the most economical. The main exception  that comes up is if you have a premium quality hub that's built to go indefinitely and is worth re-rimming.

But, good handbuilt wheels offer the highest level of reliability and longevity, and that can have its own economy depending on your situation. In practice a major example of this is that they don't break spokes from fatigue over the course of the service life of the wheel (and really ever with properly stress relieved spokes, but that's a bigger topic) whereas the cheaper end of machine built wheels often will, pushing back against the cost savings of buying one for a bike that gets ridden. And there are also times and places where a rim with life left isn't something you'd throw away. So there is no one answer here. A person who really needs their bike to work as best as possible and also needs to spend the minimum amount of money possible might be perfectly well advised to rebuild the rim.

Another factor is that the world has an overabundance of functional cheap or free used hubs with life left from wheels where the rim died. If you can get a suitable one of those and if minimizing cost is literally the only goal and if you've definitely got a rim with life left, then you're only out the cost of spokes and rebuilding it might make all kinds of sense.

Most rim brake rims are going to be pretty haggard by the time a hub has actually worn out. (Note that 'worn out' implies a different situation than a hub that had issues or failed.) There are exceptions here too; I've rebuilt one or two Dura Ace C50 tubular rims whose hubs died by pressure washer. That's obviously kind of an extreme example, but it happened.

Disc rims that aren't being mountain biked on can have pretty easy lives, especially when paired with a fat tire that's minimizing the severity of the fatigue cycles it experiences.

When rebuilding a used rim or contemplating it, it's a good idea to check for any out of round or out of true spots that are intrinsic to the rim itself, i.e. acquired via damage. A very good way to do this is take the bare rim and lay it on top of a new, high-quality, preferably machined sidewall rim of the same size. Any radial or lateral deformation should be apparent. To be able to get a true wheel with even spoke tension, you want the bare rim to have zero perceptible radial deformation, either flat spots or ovalisation, and 1-2 mm of lateral imperfection at most. (There are methods and tools for getting rims with any of these issues back into shape or at least making them better, but that's another topic.)

When unlacing a rim you intend to rebuild, be gradual so you avoid bending the material around too much. I do half turn loosening passes until the spokes are slack, then I do the rest all at once or cut if they're not being re-used (which they usually shouldn't be).

No.

Even with free labor, and even if you already have the tools, a custom wheel will rarely be cheaper than factory made.

Building wheels is primarily for making unique wheels, or the satisfaction of making them / enjoyment of the craft, but virtually never for cost reasons.

Also, re-using a rim is a bad idea. If the hub is toast, the rest of the wheel is too.


How to inflate a tire with a Presta valve? My new bike has these thin tires with a type of valve I haven't usedbefore. I searched online and found out it's called a Presta valve, and it's pretty common and popular. I'm finding it annoying and fiddly and don't know how to use it properly. I have a floor pump, and I know the valves and pump are fine, because the guy in the shop had no trouble using the same one. But after reading online and watching YouTube videos I still can't figure out how to do it properly!

Here's what I'm trying:

Rotate wheel so that the pump can comfortably reach the valve (guides online say the valve should be at 12 o'clock position, but I can't do that because the hose on the pump isn't long enough)
Remove valve cap, unscrew thingy in valve, and tap it a little - a jet of air shoots out. OK.
Push pump onto valve. This is where I get into trouble...

I can't seem to get the attachment onto the valve in the right way. I'm pushing it on with the elbow lever thingy down, and then pulling the lever up as you can see in the pictures, to make the attachment grip onto the valve.

Now, either it flops around loose and leaks air out the sides (when I push it on gently), or sometimes it goes on but then the tire doesn't seem to inflate any, the pump just gets stiff really quickly as if the valve was blocked - then I remove the attachment and it goes pffffft like all the pressure was just backed up in the hose and not actually going into the tire.

I was able to pump up the tire eventually, but it took me about an hour of stuffing around and my "project manager" got angry, because I was supposed to be in the kitchen making her a salad, not mucking around in the garage.

The time I got it on properly I had to deflate the tire completely, and even then it was difficult because with the tire completely deflated the stem of the valve just pushed into the rim. Surely this is not normal? What's the trick of attaching the darned thing?

Also, how can I just check the pressure? When I attach the thing I expect the guage to jump up and show me what pressure it's at, but it just stays at 0.  The tires say on the side to inflate to 110 psi (7.5 atm), but my pump only goes up to 100.

Those valve stems are too short for those deep deep rims you've got on there. You can tell just from the photos that the valve stem isn't sticking out far enough from the rim for the pump to fit all the way on it. Hence, it's not contacting the valve enough for you to inflate your tires.

Had the same problem—the trick is that the threaded sleeve at the very tip of the valve needs to be unthreaded and floating free in order for the valve to work under the pressure of incoming pumped air. So the order of operation is:

valve cap off
ensure the valve stem collar nut is seated snug against the surface of the wheel
spin the tiny threaded sleeve counterclockwise to open the flow of air to the body of valve itself (the missing step that stumped me)
attach the pump head to the Presta valve (and, if you have a Joe Blow adaptor pump like I do), close off the yellow adaptor selector valve arm in the opposite direction of the open (dark grey) Presta valve adaptor
inflate to appropriate pressure
unsnap the yellow selector valve arm — there will be a quick release of air pressure in the pump proper...and none from the Presta valve (yahoo!)
spin the tiny threaded sleeve clockwise to close the valve and preserve existing inner tube/tire pressure
replace the Presta valve cap...and hit the road!


First Cyclocross Race - Riding a Mountain Bike I'm participating in my first ever bike race this weekend. It's a cyclocross race, and I'm riding a full suspension mountain bike, because I started looking into races late this season and a fully is what I've got. Is there anything specific to know/look out for since I'm not riding a cyclocross bike? Thanks!

Many first time cross racers use a mountain bike. It makes perfect sense, don't go out and spend $1500+ before you even know whether cyclocross is your cup of tea. Most all races allow mountain bikes, the only type of equipment that's usually forbidden is a fixed gear.

A full suspension mountain bike will do just fine as an introductory race vehicle. Your primary setback is that it's heavier than a cross bike, so it will slow you down when carrying it up a steep incline, or carrying it over the barriers, etc. But, those beefy ( and heavy ) tires might carry you through the mud quite nicely, maybe even putting you at somewhat of an advantage in a muddy beginners race.

Just be friendly and courteous out on the course, cyclocross is about having fun.

Being a CX race, I expect it to consist of mostly asphalt and dirt roads. In those circumstances air drag plays a huge role (it is proportional to the square of velocity). Thus do learn to lean onto the handlebars. I can't produce a picture right now, so I'll describe it.
Sit firmly. Your ass and legs are supporting you. You hands observe zero push and zero pull force from the handlebars.
Use the outside surface just below the elbow of both arms. Rest it onto the center of the handlebars, much like a TT racer.
Voila! You have a road racing posture on a mountain bike! The rest you will handle with ease.


Bike touring/camping tip(s) I have a tentative first-time bike touring/camping trip in the planning stages and working out my set-up. I have a good idea of the essentials. My question is especially directed to those who have bike touring/camping experience.

Beyond the obvious, what item did you really appreciate having along? Or, what item do you really wish you had, but didn't?

A few important factors are: One, the trip is in an arid region. Two, a good 130 miles or so is quite remote. Three, it's a winter trip, but with (usually) much warmer temps than my native clime.

The item could be a spare part, an accessory, a tool, safety related, or a comfort item. Basically looking for things that a first timer wouldn't necessarily think of.

I've done 10 long-distance bike tours in the past and one of the things I've needed on almost all of my tours (but most people forget to pack) is an extra set of rack screws. These are the tiny little screws that hold your bicycle's racks, fenders and water bottle cages in place. As you travel, these little guys tend to wiggle themselves loose and fall out when you aren't watching. If you aren't carrying at least one or two extras, you might find yourself in bit of trouble, as having a loose rack dangling off of the front or rear of your bicycle can cause a serious accident while out there on the road. So pack a couple extra screws! They're lightweight and you can usually get them for free from your local bike shop.