How to center a quick release rear wheel regularly Just got myself a new quick release rear wheel. Fantastic, right? Well, it's sort of a pain because I'm always worried it's going to get nicked. Usually, I just take off the front one and thread the lock through both wheels and the frame, but in unusual situations (eg When locking up two bikes with my one lock) it's necessary to remove the rear wheel. When I put it back on, I worry that I haven't centered it absolutely perfectly, and that I'm going to destroy it by riding it like that.

So, question: how can quickly be sure that I've centered by wheel, other than by just 'eye-balling' it?

EDIT AUG 3 2011

So thanks for the answers, but a lot of people are addressing how to safely lock a bike. I appreciate that, but my question (italicized above) is regarding centering a wheel. There are other reasons to take off both wheels, like if I need to fit the bike in a car. Thanks again, everyone, because it's also helpful to have tips on how not get your bike stolen.

There are two types of rear dropout, ones that are vertical and ones that are horizontal.

With vertical dropouts you put the gears in top at the back and low at the front. Then you put the wheel in. Then you put some weight on the seat and fold the quick release lever over, applying whatever adjustment needed to get the quick-release tensioned correctly. The lever should fold up rather than down, forward or back as you don't want passing vegetation or other cycles to come into contact with the lever.

Horizontal dropouts require pretty much the same procedure however you have the problem of making sure the wheel is equidistant to the chain-stays. This is best done by having good eyesight and holding the wheel in place whilst you fold over the quick-release lever.

More generally you have a time penalty each and every time you lock/unlock your bike. You may want to consider investing in a cable loop to go through your D-lock and around the back wheel. These are affordable and need be not that bulky as someone is less inclined to saw through it to get your back wheel than they would be if they were able to get your whole bike. It will deter the casual rather than the determined thief.

The other option is to get a set of replacement quick-release levers with Allen key or 'special key' heads. In the UK these need not set you back more than fifteen pounds for the simple Allen key versions:

The 'special key' versions are worth the premium because you need more than an Allen key to get them undone:

These are a lot cheaper online, you can get the set for all of £8 if you Google 'Trans-X' quick release skewers.

the only pain with them is that the key needs to be carried and that does not fit onto a standard keyring too well.

You don't need to remove the rear wheel. Lock only the rear wheel, but do so through the rear triangle. This will properly secure your frame and your rear wheel. You may want to buy a cable to go through the front wheel as well. As always, Sheldon Brown demonstrates the correct technique.


How to fix precession in pedal axle? The axle on my bike that supports the pedals appears to have loosened, so that there is precession in it - I can slightly jiggle the pedals back and forth in a perpendicular direction to the axis.

Since this is a cheap bike, I am not particularly surprised. Is it possible to correct this, for instance by buying a new set of pedals and replacing them?

You have a loose bottom bracket. It needs to be replaced.

You need to buy a new bottom bracket, along with two special tools: A crank puller and a bottom-bracket tool.

If your current bottom-bracket is cup-and-cone style (I'm betting it is), it can be removed with basic tools and elbow grease. If it's cartridge style, it can be removed with the BB tool.

Here are links to all three at Amazon:

BB

BB tool

crank puller

Or, you could take the bike to your LBS and have them handle it. This is a common operation and probably wouldn't cost much.

If you are talking about the pedal and pedal spindle(metal piece that threads into the crank arm from the pedal), then yes you are most likely are just going to need to replace the pedals which should be fairly straightforward.


Why does my back tyre wear so much more quickly than the front? Identical tyres, identical rims, minimal braking on the back wheel, no skids, properly inflated at least once a fortnight to manufacturer's recommended pressure.

Why does the back one wear out more quickerly than the front?

Kerry Irons put together an impressive breakdown of tire wear data.

His read on it is the fact that the rear tire is the primary driving force and thus the main point of power dissipation is the reason for the increased wear:

  Force per unit area grinds off the rubber, so higher rider power and lower contact area increase the rate of wear.

This makes more sense than the weight ratio, when you consider the weight distribution is perhaps 20% higher on the rear while the ratio of wear is significantly larger.

Thus, consistent tire rotation is key to tire longevity.


How to handle motorists' dangerous behaviour with an impassable group? I rode in a Velowagen (1) with over 300 cyclists on the national bike route in Switzerland, while on a narrow countryside road a few cars began piling behind us and one of them started trying to pass in an increasingly aggressive manner. At some point the left lane was free for a few meters and he started accelerating with the intent of klaxxonning (honking/blasting the horn) his way into getting a free lane as fast as he was moving. (2)

To avoid a potential accident, my hotblooded reaction was to get in front of him and brake to force him to stop. After that and me nearly being run-over, the driver got out, almost started a fist fight, and a shouting match in French and Deutch followed between the two very angry of us, which very slowly allowed for a de-escalation and a safe distance to the convoy.

In a similar situation, where a cyclist mass is blocking the road and drivers getting violent, how can the motorists be handled in a way that minimizes the risks ?

(1) A Velowagen is a big group of diverse cyclists going to a protest in another city. Includes every kind of riders : lycra, commuters, coursiers and families with children, so the global speed is around 15-20 kmh. The goal is not to intentionally block the road but to move across the country on the intended bike routes to keep the convoy safe.

(2) While most cyclists were in the correct lane, a few were in the wrong lane to pass or because the group was very dense)

Don't create the situation in the first place. Every large event I've ever been on would either have the roads closed down, or send the riders out in waves so as not to create a situation where a car would have to pass so many cyclists at once.

Obviously the guy in the car was in the wrong, but there are still things that can be done to prevent the situation in the first place. Forming a defacto blockade on the road isn't really in anybody's best interest.

To avoid a potential accident, my hotblooded reaction was to get in front of him and brake to force him to stop

There's nothing hotblooded at all about that reaction, even if you were angry or otherwise agitated by the driver's actions.

You acted in a perfectly rational manner to prevent an accident that would be life-threatening for any cyclist hit.

You prevented a !()%#! from being a deadly dangerous @!&(%$&!.

Your best option is to get an HD camera and video such interactions - and make clear in some manner that the motorist is being filmed.

Aggressive, angry (!*&@$&s tend to start behaving once they know their actions are being recorded for replay on YouTube and for law enforcement.


Sunglasses for cycling - what features to look for? I need some new sunglasses for cycling - what features will actually be helpful - I've seen ones with vents, polarized lens, rubberised frame, replaceable lens . I just need the best value model that looks good.

Definitely something plastic, as that's going to be both safer and lighter than glass.

I'd look for something that was polarizing, as that will reduce glare, and something that offers UV protection.

You also should be aware that different colour lenses suit different light conditions, so you might need to make a decision based upon when you normally ride. I note that you live in London - I'm in the UK too and given our frequently poor light conditions, for the majority of the year I ride with clear (but high contrast) lenses.

Here's a colour chart I found a couple of years ago, to give you an idea.

As for replaceable lenses, they're a great idea but make sure you have an idea of the costs involved first. I got some glasses a couple of years ago and found that the cost of the spare lenses was disproportionate to the cost of the glasses themselves. (But still cheaper than 2 pairs of glasses.)

Another thing would be fit. You don't want them moving around as you cycle - I made the mistake once of buying some nice glasses mail order, when they arrived they were too loose on my head.

Lastly, if you come the the same conclusion as I did about using clear lenses, consider safety glasses such as these. They hit the same quality standards as bike glasses but are a fraction of the price. They are more fragile than cycling glasses but if I go through three pairs a year, its still cheaper.

Aside from that, how much do you want to spend? The pros seem to ride Oakley Radarlocks at the moment but, for what they are, the price is staggering.

To avoid the color choice predicament, I always look for cycling glasses with interchangeable lenses! Then, one pair can be clear, yellow, or gray (or rose!). I have had great luck with Smith Optics glasses.


Are curved aluminum forks safe? This is an entry-level road bike made by "Upland", a Chinese company.

That fork is aluminum. You usually only see steel (and sometimes carbon) forks curved like that.

The only reason you would have a curved fork is so that it can absorb shock from the road... but doesn't aluminum fatigue when flexed like that?

I'm contemplating getting this bike, because it's cheaper than a trek 1.1 (for example), while having better components.

The fork is a concern. I don't mind having a stiff ride (which you generally get from AL forks), but I don't want to take any chance of it snapping due to excessive work-hardening.

Any opinions?

It depends on how the fork is engineered for safety. While its plausible that the curved shape does add to some shock absorption, that is determined by the width and construction of the fork tubing. You could design a fork which was reliable and curved in aluminum or carbon or whatever, but the engineering wouldn't be the same as a steel fork. Whether the fork on that bike has been designed appropriately or not, is a different matter than if its possible.

You usually see it only on steel now, but older aluminum bikes have had that style (even mountain bikes), especially from Cannondale:

Jamis's Quest Comp Femme (and other bikes in the Quest line) currently uses that style too, for a carbon composite fork:

That being said, poor quality (and dangerous) aluminum forks have been made (the Viscount Aerospace pointed out by Brian Drummond in the comments is one example).

As for whether or not to get the bike, its sounds like you're not all that confident in their engineering, and to me that would be a definite no on buying the bike. I'd rather spend a few more dollars on a bike than on a broken face. If the Trek 1.1 is out of your price range, either find something used and nice or look at other manufacturers you can trust (if you go to brands which are well reputed, but not Trek/Giant/Specialized, you can likely save a decent bit).

My aluminium framed bike is on its forth warranty replacement - two replacements were due to fatigue fractures where the chainstay or seatstay fractured right through with no warning.

The terminal fractures appear to occur after very roughly 15,000 miles. Until someone can tell me how many miles an alloy fork will last, and the nature in which it will fail, I will not ride an alloy fork. Steel only for me.


Is it normal for the chain to slip in an 'extreme' gear? My bike's recently been in for a service so afterwards I checked that all the gears are shifting and working properly.

As part of my testing I put some power through the cranks in the photographed gear and found that the chain slipped. Having found that out, I tested it some more and it's very easy to get the chain to slip in that gear by putting some power through it.

Is that normal? Could it be the derailleur set up at fault?

I don't ever use this gear day-to-day so it doesn't really matter I suppose. However, I'd like to think that everything was 100% working okay having paid for a service.

Should a service leave a bike in this kind of state? The bike's 11 months old and hasn't been heavily used in that time.

In that extreme cross chain configuration you have the maximum amount of chain for the derailleur to take up.  And you also have the least amount of chain tension.  Combine that with on the least number of teeth engaged and you have the configuration that is most likely to jump.

Should it jump no.

It is a shop problem - maybe.

In just 11 months the spring in the derailleur could have weakened.

Or if you ride on the small gear in the rear even a bit it will wear and new chain might skip.  But given it does not skip on other front gears I would chalk it up to chain tension.

The shop may have too many chain lengths.  In biggest front and rear could a chain length be removed?

Cross chaining a road bike or the first two chain rings is something that happens.  But on a mountain bike in the granny gear that extreme cross chaining is just not something that should come up.  I would not put that kind of stress on a chain even to test.

Some front derailleur have a trim for big to big.  This make sense to me as you may come to a stop but will get back up to speed soon.  And now you have maximum teeth evolved.  I don't know if trims comes in a 3 speed and it would make less sense as the outer is out further.  Even with a trim cross chaining puts more stress on the chain and other components and is not as efficient.

The question is not about specifically about cross chaining but here is a link.
Technical Details and Implications of Cross Chaining

Not the question but the smaller rear gears are going to wear the fastest as they share the load across fewer teeth.  So go for a larger front ring when you have choice. But still avoid cross chaining (a lot).

There's nothing wrong with crosschaining with the modern drivetrains, despite what you might read in the comments. In fact, many modern drivetrains are specifically designed to help you to crosschain (like "trim" feature on some front shifters). The ability to use all cassette cogs without having to switch chainrings is too valuable to be given up because of some negligible increase in mechanical stress and wear due to crosschaining. The issue of "crosschaining" was left behind and forgotten back in 1990's.

However, it is important to remember that you can still run into mechanical limitations when crosschaining. It all depends on the geometry of your drivetrain. The most well-known one is the chain interference with FD cage or chain interference with the bigger ring. Do you get any of these? I assume you don't since you would be able to hear that immediately.

If not, then the next issue you might be experiencing is the lack of RD capacity. In this small-small configuration there's lots of extra chain the RD cage has to pick up. If the capacity is insufficient, then you might get chain interference at the RD cage, which might cause many different unpleasant effects, including skipping. Another consequence of insufficient RD capacity is loss of chain tension in small-small combination, which can easily lead to skipping.

So, what does your RD cage look like in this gear combination?


how to increace the friction between tyre and road While designing a bicycle what are the designing factors to be considered to increase the friction to give more efficiency to the cycle.And what are the other factors that can be considered while designing.my interest is to design a modified bicycle to improve efficiency and decrease man power

Reducing friction (or grip in layman's terms) would cause your wheel to simply spin in circles when you pedal and you would fall down.  Increased friction between the tire and the riding surface is the goal of nearly every tire manufacturer.

You could easily coat your tire in oil to accomplish the lower friction you are talking about.

I know it is not much more than a link only answer but this is a very good discussion.

Narrow and higher pressure is good.  But on a ruff surface too much pressure can cause bounce and more resistance.  Generally, smooth treads roll better than coarse treads.

Wiki Rolling Resistance

  Rolling resistance, sometimes called rolling friction or rolling drag


What tools do I absolutely need to replace brake cables? I'm happy with the job I did replacing the drivetrain on my road bike, and I'm ready to tackle replacing the brake cables. Unfortunately, I did a little research and it's been suggested that I need a few new tools. If I go by what's been recommended, I'll be spending well over $100 on tools.

I'm okay with buying used tools or brands other than Park Tool, but I don't want to cheap out on the brakes. Stopping is pretty important!

Fourth hand cable stretcher - I think this is one tool I'll need to get, or something similar. I see Pedro's makes a version of it, I'm not sure if it's made as solidly or not. What should I look for when buying one of these?
Cutter pliers I have a couple of similar cutting pliers, I don't think I need to get another one. Or is there something special about these?
Cable housing cutter - Looks to me like this is a fancy wire stripper. Is there anything about brake housing cables that I need to know that would make using a sharp wire stripper problematic?

Please keep in mind that I'm not a shop, and will be replacing cables maybe every year or two at most. I'm okay with the job being less convenient, but not less safe.

Fourth hand cable stretcher - I think this is one tool I'll need to get, or something similar. I see Pedro's makes a version of it, I'm not sure if it's made as solidly or not. What should I look for when buying one of these?

Never found I needed one, typically I pull the inner brake cable as far as possible then close the brake calipers all the way (i.e., engage to the rim/disc), then attach the cable. Usually, I missed a bit of slack pulling by hand, which is taken up by the caliper return spring. You may need to repeat a couple times to get everything settled.

  Cutter pliers I have a couple of similar cutting pliers, I don't think I need to get another one. Or is there something special about these?

If you have cutting pliers that could cleanly cut shifter inner cabling, then you are probably fine.

  Cable housing cutter - Looks to me like this is a fancy wire stripper. Is there anything about brake housing cables that I need to know that would make using a sharp wire stripper problematic?

This is the only item on your list I found invaluable, bit it depends on the quality of brake cable housing you intend to.  If you already have cutters that can cleanly cut shifter cable housing then this will likely work on regular brake cable housing that uses a coiled construction.  If you are using "compressionless" brake housing, then only the best of the best cutters can make a clean cut.

Cable housing cutters are a special type of cutter that does a shear cut, I found most general cutters will leave large burs at the end of the cable housing (which you can file away or trim with a blunt cutter) or will not make a clean cut through higher end housing.
.

All these tools are professional and you shouldn't have them, but you don't need anything but better pliers to replace them once or twice a year.
You buy a cable to measure, etc.


How to use drop handlebars properly? This might seem like a really basic question, but there's no harm in asking. I've never had a bicycle with drop handlebars. I've always had sort of standard horizontal bars with only one hand position, which is on the rubber grips. I'm outgrowing the bike I have now, and thinking of upgrading next year to something faster. Pretty much every faster bike has drop handlebars, but I'm not sure how to use them.

I understand that there are multiple hand positions. I'm sure I can figure out for myself which ones are more comfortable than others just by feel. But I don't want to necessarily do what feels natural, I want to ride properly. What are all the different hand positions available on drop bars? Which positions do you use in which scenarios?

I just don't want to put myself in a dangerous, uncomfortable, impractical, or stupid-looking situation by having my hands in the wrong place.

There are 3 basic hand positions that most people use on a drop bar:

On the Hoods - This position allows you to reach the brakes and shifters without moving your hands and allows a fairly upright, and comfortable body position. Most riders spend 75-90% of their miles in this position.

On the Drops - This position is ideal for more aerodynamic body positions, or more athletic efforts. When you want to go hard, go here. You can reach brakes and shifters, but may have to move your hands, depending on your setup. This is generally used for descending long hills, or an aggressive position. It is less stable, and it is used for maybe 10% or less of most riders' mileage.

On the Tops - This position allows a comfortable alternative position for more relaxed riding. It is generally used when going at an easy pace, and in situations where you are certain of the road conditions, traffic and other hazards. You definitely can not reach the brakes or shifters from this position without moving your hands. It is less stable due to narrower hand position, though it may not feel like it. Most riders use it as a cool down position for 10% or so of their mileage.

There are four positions on drop handlebars worth mentioning. Most of the time,
I'm varying between "on the hoods" position and "on the corners" position, with
using "on the drops" position whenever needed. The fourth position, "on the
tops" I use seldom, if ever.
1. On the drops
You use this position for four reasons. Firstly, if you want to minimize your
air resistance for example when going downhill or riding fast on flat terrain.
If you find yourself never using the "on the drops" position, your handlebar is
too low. Most drop bar bicycles today have way too low handlebars.
Secondly, if you are riding on bumpy terrain fast, you stand on pedals, with
cranks on a horizontal position and keep your hands on the drops. This way,
your arms and legs act as suspension components, allowing to go really fast
over bumpy terrain with no tire, tube, rim or bicycle damage and without it
hurting much.
Thirdly, if you want to ride really fast or accelerate really fast, you sprint,
i.e. pedal standing with hands on the drops. Then your position is such that
your center of gravity is above the front pedal and you can pedal with very
great force, even pulling up from the handlebars to obtain increase in the
possible pedaling force.
Fourthly, if you want to brake really hard, this position allows you to push
your body backwards from the handlebars, and you also can grip the brake levers
with very great force.
You can access the brake levers on this position with the maximum possible
braking force.
2. On the hoods
This is the first of the two general purpose riding positions. You have a
fairly aerodynamic position with immediate access to the brake levers. Some
drawbacks are that your arms are straight so going fast on a bumpy terrain
tire, tube, rim and bicycle damage are possible and you can hurt yourself in
the process.
This position is also used to climb up hills. Then you pedal standing but
keep your hands on the hoods.
You can access the brake levers on this position, but the braking force will be
limited for two reasons. Firstly, you cannot grip the brake levers as low as
you can from the drops so braking force will be limited. Secondly, you cannot
push your body backwards from the handlebars as effectively from this position
as you can on the drops, so even if you could brake hard, you can't necessarily slow
your body along with the bicycle!
3. On the corners
This is the second of the two general purpose riding positions. You have a less
aerodynamic position than on the hoods. However, this position is used because
if you always keep your hands on the hoods, your arms can become tired from
being always on the same position. This position keeps you more upright so arm
force required is smaller, so arms won't tire as rapidly, but on the other
hand, your body being upright doesn't allow pedaling with very great force
and air resistance is larger too.
You have very quick access to the brake levers on this position. It takes only
a very slight hand movement to be able to brake.
4. On the tops
This position is used very rarely. The drawbacks are many. Firstly, the drop
handlebar is so narrow that keeping your hands on the horizontal straight
portion means your hands are very close together. Secondly, access to brake
levers requires moving your hands a lot. It isn't as quick to access brake
levers on the tops than it is on the corners.
I seldom, if ever, use this hand position.
Some cheap drop bar bicycles are sold with a second set of brake levers
allowing braking from this position, but such levers are generally a bad idea
because the hands on this position are so close together that this position is
not so useful.


How to select a rim? I have noticed there are a huge number of rims available for sale. Some are cheap, some are expensive. Some are intended for rim brakes, some are intended for disc brakes. Not all rims are available with all possible spoke hole counts.
How should I select an optimal rim for my uses?

Simple question, long answer requiring a book to cover it fully. Here is my attempt at the introduction chapter.
The biggest concern for most people selecting a rim would have to be total cost of the rim built into a wheel. You have to consider the cost of spokes and wheel building.  In all but the high cost product range it is often cheaper to buy an entire wheel then buy a rim and have it build up to a wheel. The new wheel does not have to match an existing one, apart from cosmetics, its OK to have different rims and spoke counts on the front and back of a bike.
Once it has been decided to buy a rim and build it into a wheel, you will need to select the correct size for the bike you are fitting it to. The diameter chosen will usually be the size the frame builder designed the bike for, however it is possible to go up and down under limited circumstances.  If the brakes are disc, you can go smaller, but risk lowering the bottom bracket too much. Smaller rims may be compensated for by wider tires, some mountain bikes are sold that will take a 650B+ wheel and tire, or a 29" wheel+tire. Larger rims can some times be fitted to bikes not designed for it, but you run the risk of not having enough room depending on tire size, so should be done with caution.  If the bike has V or canti brakes, changing rim sizes may still be possible, requiring new brakes, but is probably best avoided.
The tire width you want to run will determine the ideal rim wide, but there is quite a lot of room for wider and narrow tires and a lot of overlap with rim widths, so this will probably not limit choices.
If you run disk brakes, any rim will be good. if you are running rim brakes, you need a rim with a brake track.
Once you have sorted the rim size, you need to match this to the hub you will use. Pretty much all that has to match here is a hub that fits the bike and has the same number of holes as the rim.  If you are buying a new hub as well as rim, you need to chose the spoke count. Some people get hung up on this, but always keep in mind a well build 24spoke wheel will be stronger than a poorly build 36 spoke.  Choose more spokes (32 or 36) for heavier riders and hard duties like tourers, cargo and down hill mountain bikes. Choose fewer spokes if you prefer lighter wheels and the look, and you are riding smoother surfaces.
At the same price point you may need to decide between a lighter rim or a stronger rim. Look at things like double wall and eyelets. In all but the cheapest rims (when you would be buying a made up wheel) the rim will be build for  a purpose, and be strong enough for the purpose. Double wall and eyelets are a given at a price point its worth buying a rim on its own, so you are looking at weight vs strength.
Finally you have a choice of material - I'll limit it to carbon vs alloy.  Here you need to decide if the extra cost of carbon is worth the weight saving and performance benefits, While cheap carbon can be lower cost than brand named high quality alloy, I would caution buying cheap carbon on such a safety critical part of the bike. This is probably decided by the answering the cost question.
If you plan to reuse a hub and spokes (not recommended) you will need to match the Effective Rim Diameter (ERD) of new and old rims.

The most important characteristic of a rim is its bead seat diameter. It should match the intended wheel bead seat diameter of the bicycle, although in some cases for bicycles having disc brakes it may be possible to fit smaller than original wheels (but then the bottom bracket might be too low, causing pedals to hit the ground in corners). Most common bead seat diameters are 559mm (for most mountain bicycles) and 622mm (for most road bicycles), although there certainly are other sizes available as well.
After the bead seat diameter, the second most important characteristic is adequate spoke density. An inadequate spoke density in a bicycle having disc brakes may lead to the front wheel spokes to loosen if braking hard. Also, an inadequate spoke density may cause the spokes to loosen even if not braking hard. An inadequate spoke density in disc brake front wheels can be mitigated by using large-flange hubs (but it's heavier than a small-flange hub); and inadequate spoke density when not braking hard can be mitigated by using a stiff rim (but it's heavier than a less stiff rim). Quality bicycles have standardized on 36 spokes per wheel, which is what e.g. Jobst Brandt and Sheldon Brown recommended. In fact, Sheldon Brown called using less than 36 spokes "The Great Spoke Scam". For 559mm bead seat diameter wheels, 32 spokes gives similar spoke density than 36 spokes, and the spokes transmit disc brake torque as well as 36 spokes in a 622mm wheel. Too loose spoke density is a major headache and should be avoided, thus being the second most important characteristic of a rim.
Lower than 36 spokes per wheel may work if a number of conditions are met:

The spoke count is not ridiculously low, i.e. something like 20 is clearly out of the question but 32 might be acceptable
The rider is lightweight
The rider never brakes hard with a front disc brake
The front hub has large flange if it's a disc brake hub to cause as small spoke tension changes as possible when braking
The rim is very stiff (i.e. its second moment of area is large)
The spokes are flexible (i.e. as thin as possible and butted/swaged, not straight gauge)
The spokes are evenly tensioned (which is only possible with an accurate-tolerance rim)
The spoke tension is high (which in practice needs a rim strong around spoke holes, i.e. using double eyelets)
The wheel size is small so the spoke density is not low despite low spoke count
(Seriously, don't do this as it makes spoke adjustment hard:) The thread between spokes and nipples is secured by thread glue

Ideally, when selecting a rim one could compare their manufacturing tolerances because better-tolerance rims make it easier during wheelbuilding to achieve even and high spoke tension. However, in practice the only definitive thing about this that can be said is that quality rims from brand names have good tolerances. Usually you get what you pay for. Cheap no-name brands should be avoided.
The material of rims is usually aluminum, as steel is heavy and offers poor wet braking for rim brakes, and carbon fiber is prone to fail catastrophically after an incident that may have weakened it in an invisible manner. The catastrophic failure can happen "just riding along", if the rim has a history of such incidents. Aluminum rims are manufactured by extrusion.
A good rim has a double wall design, although for fatbikes such a rim would be heavy and single wall rims are used. The reason is that a double wall rim has a larger second moment of area, i.e. it is stiffer and thus distributes the load over a larger number of spokes. The single wall design for fatbikes is not a problem as fatbike tires provide lots of cushioning so they never see high momentary loads.
If the rim is intended for rim braked bicycle, it must have brake tracks. Rim brake rims can be used for disc brake bicycles but the converse is not true. Thus, if there's a possibility of ever needing rim brakes on any bicycle used, it makes sense to build wheels only with rims that have rim brake tracks.
The brake tracks would ideally have wear indicators. Two common designs are groove and small holes. The groove has a problem that if the rim and wheel are very precisely build, it can wear an identical groove in the brake pad, and a groove in the brake track may need a tubular section behind it to strengthen the rim. Small holes that are visible when not worn and disappear when worn are stronger, thus not needing any additional strengthening material behind them, and cannot wear a groove in the brake pad, so this is the preferable wear indicator design.
Good rims withstand large spoke tension. The best way to achieve this is usually double eyelets / sockets made out of steel. Such double eyelets make wheelbuilding easier (no possibility to drop a nipple inside the rim channel accidentally), and make the rim stronger. If the rim does not have double eyelets, it should at least have single eyelets, although double eyelets are heavily preferable.
One major decision is whether the rim should be tubeless ready. Double eyelet rims are not tubeless ready, so one has to choose between easy wheelbuilding and strong rim able to withstand spoke tension, and the possibility to use tubeless tires. It may be harder in some cases to mount tires on tubeless ready rims than non-tubeless-ready rims, so if there are no tubeless plans, it may make sense to standardize on rims having double eyelets that are not tubeless ready.
Rims that require use of nipple washers should be avoided, as wheelbuilding with such rims takes more time.
Anodized, especially hard anodized, rims should be avoided as they have reduced fatigue life and thus can crack around the spoke holes. Preferable finishes for rims are polishing and powder coating. Black rims are not always anodized -- if the finish is smooth like paint, it is probably powder coated, whereas if it is rough, it is probably anodized.
Good rims are drilled for Presta valves. One can always enlarge the valve hole if needing to use Schrader valve. The opposite (reducing hole diameter) is not possible. A Presta valve hole is not much larger than spoke holes so it does not weaken the rim, whereas a Schrader valve hole is always a weak point in the rim. Besides, using Presta valves in rims drilled for Schrader valves is difficult, requiring the use of specially shaped valve locknuts and grommets.
Good rims have hooks at their sides, allowing the usage of high pressure clincher tires. Only such hooked rims should be used. They can be identified by "C" after their width, e.g. 622-19C means 622mm bead seat diameter, 19mm internal width, hook-type rim.
If selecting a rim to replace an existing rim, spoke reuse (which is the preferable way to rebuild an already spoked wheel) is possible only if the effective rim diameter (ERD) is similar. Millimeter or two millimeter difference may be acceptable, but over 5 millimeter differences should be avoided. Unfortunately, rims go out of fashion very quickly and thus it may be hard to find a rim having the same ERD as some existing rim in an already build wheel. Thus, it may make sense to keep a small stock of good rims so that rebuilding wheels with new rims is possible.
Rims are available in many widths. There is a chart showing which tire widths and rim widths are compatible. For example, 28mm tires can be used with 15mm, 17mm and 19mm rim internal widths. As it is usually not justified to use a tire size narrower than 28mm as narrow tires need exceptionally large inflation pressures, provide a harsh ride, and have worse rolling resistance even on smooth steel drums (and thus much, much worse rolling resistance on non-smooth roads), and sometimes one might want to use a much wider tire than 28mm, it may not make sense to use a rim narrower than 19mm internal width. A very wide tired bicycles which never use 28mm tires should obviously use a rim internal width of more than 19mm.
Lastly, one should consider rim weight as well. Usually manufacturers aim for the smallest possible weight, so if selecting a rim of a certain design from a brand name manufacturer, you can almost always know its weight in advance from the requirements. One should not obsess too much about weight as a little extra weight does not take the joy away from bicycling.


Gravel Riding: Why gravel wheel over lighter XC mtb wheel? What is the rationale for using a gravel-specific wheel for a gravel bike over a lighter cross-country mountain bike race wheel?

Background

I'm looking for a wheel with an internal width of 20mm to 22mm to fit some wide 45mm tires on my gravel bike.

I've seen that some cross-country mountain bike wheels are lighter than gravel specific wheels.

For example, Mavic's new ALLROAD ELITE UST DISC has a 22mm internal width and weighs 1720 grams. But Mavic's CROSSMAX PRO cross-county wheels also measure 22mm internal width but weigh 1595 grams, for only $200 more. Both wheels have bladed spokes and a similar depth for aerodynamic purposes.

If this is the case for wheels generally, what factors contribute to the rationale of choosing the heavier gravel specific wheels over the lighter cross-country wheels?

Since the question was asked, high-performance carbon wheels for drop bar bikes are evolving towards an internal width of 22-25mm - that is, wheels aimed at both performance road and gravel bikes. I am not sure how alloy wheels for drop bar bikes are evolving, but I suspect they will follow (White Industries already makes an alloy rim with a 25mm internal width, and there may be a few other small brands that I can't remember). I believe this would have been considered wide even for mountain bikes in the early 2010s. That said, while I'm not familiar with MTB disciplines these days, I think at MTB wheels are approaching 30mm internal width.
I can't see any substantive reason not to use an XC wheelset on a gravel bike if one is available, provided that the spacing matches the bike. I believe current MTBs use the Boost standard, i.e. the front and rear dropout spacing is 110mm and 148mm respectively. On drop bar bikes, this doesn't yet give an advantage, and as far as I know the majority of gravel bikes and all road bikes have converged on 100/142mm spacing. I'm not sure what the state of  play for Boost spacing was in 2017, but it is an issue now.
The folks at the blog Riding Gravel noted that you can often get good deals on second hand, high-end 29er, non-Boost 29er wheels, as this is a dated standard on MTBs. Because many of the front hubs used 15mm thru axles and most drop bar bikes use 12mm, you often have to source some sort of adapter. These wheels will also tend to have 6 bolt disc rotor mounts, whereas the drop bar world uses center lock mounts. One would simply acquire a 6 bolt rotor and use that.
While aerodynamics and gravel might not have been as big a deal in 2017, I suspect this trend will develop for gravel bikes. If you used an XC wheelset, you might make a minor sacrifice versus a deeper section road-oriented wheelset. This sacrifice won't be relevant to all users.
As to the specific wheels mentioned in the original question, there may have been no substantive reason to choose one or the other on a gravel bike. So, if you could buy the Crossmax Pro for less than the Allroad Pro back then and you were willing to use a 6-bolt rotor, then you should probably have done so (keeping in mind you needed an adapter for a 12mm thru axle; Mavic doesn't supply this with the current Crossmax Pro linked by Cray Kao).

They are just different design and purpose.
I will suggest to compare ALLROAD PRO UST DISC and CROSSMAX PRO.
And, let's check the details of the both.
ALLROAD PRO UST DISC
https://shop.mavic.com/en-int/allroad-pro-ust-disc-rr0929.html#1028=3283

weight: 1610g
price: 1,000
Spoke: 20 front and 24 rear
Recommended tyre sizes: 28 to 64 mm (1.1" to 2.5")
DISC standard: Center Lock(R) only

CROSSMAX PRO
https://shop.mavic.com/en-int/crossmax-pro-rv1064.html#1028=3283

weight: 1580g (-30g than ALLROAD PRO) <-- the gap is not big now.
price: 950 (-50 than ALLROAD PRO) <-- the gap is not big now.
Spoke: 24 font and rear
Recommended tyre sizes: 46 to 64 mm (1.8" to 2.5")
Disc standard : 6 Bolts only


Do I need to replace my chain? I bought a new cassette last week and they said that I also need to replace my chain. I only used that chain for 4 months and only rode my bike every sunday for 50 kilometers at max. Do I really need to replace my chain? I used the ruler method on testing chain wear and it's still okay.

You need a chain wear gauge or other accurate chain wear/length measurement to be sure. Chains shouldn’t be used past 0.75% elongation. For modern 11 or 12 speed chains I’ve even heard 0.5%.
A worn chain will accelerate cassette wear, especially if the cassette is new.
On new chainrings a worn cassette can cause chain suck.
50km per week over 4 months is 800km. That’s usually not enough to reach 0.5% elongation unless you were riding in adverse conditions (e.g. mud, sand, dust, rain) with high power and/or didn’t clean and lube the chain.
If your current chain is only somewhat worn you could get a new one for the new cassette but keep the used chain for later. After the cassette has been through one or two chains you can use the used chain.

The rules of replacing drivetrain components are:

If you replace a chainring, you may need to replace the chain
If you replace the chain, you may need to replace the cassette

From these it will follow that if you replace a chainring and find you need to replace the chain, which may further necessitate you to replace the cassette.
Whether the replacement is necessary depends on the wear state of various components. For example, a new chainring will probably work with a little used chain but not a chain near its end of lifetime.
So, as summary: when changing a drivetrain component, everything in rear of that component may need changing too.
In your case, you replaced the cassette. The chain is in front of the cassette, not in rear of the cassette. Thus, the old used chain will work just fine. No problems there.
However: if the chain is very near the end of its lifetime, it will cause accelerated sprocket wear on the cassette. So even though it will work for a long time, it may cause so much sprocket wear that the cassette after little use cannot be used with a new chain anymore. 800 km is hardly on the end of the lifetime of a reasonable chain used for road riding in dry conditions.


How to proceed when pedestrians occupy the dedicated bike path? I go to work every day on my bike. In my town there are only few bike roads but luckily one is about half of my way to job, but a lot of pedestrians believe they are bikes and occupy the bike path. At this point there are several scenarios. Sometimes they hear/see me and move away, this is not ok because they don't have the right to be there in first place, but it looks like they understand that.
But there are other cases when people ignore me or even try to get run over.
Those scenarios are really scary for me. I usually just avoid them which is actually make me the offender because I have to invade the sidewalk.
Or like this morning: a woman was on my side of the road and was completely ignoring my bell, I could not pass her on her left side as there were another bike coming, and just when I was passing her for some reason she thought that it will be the perfect moment to move away from the bike path. Lucky for her she saw me and just end up with a scare.
Should I lecture people about how ignoring roads can be unhealthy? Should I pass them at full speed leaving a nice scare?
A bike + driver hitting someone it is a few broken bones at best. How should I treat a pedestrian completely ignoring bike path, bikes and bikers, or even trying to cross my path?
One more thing, bike paths are not optional if there is one; if you are on  a bike you must use the bike path.
Edit: I live in Spain. Here each town hall writes their own rules for bikes use in their territory. In mine, pedestrians can´t remain on a bike path. Bike riders also are enforced to ride on a bike path if there is one.

Whatever you do, don't be a jerk.  Noone likes a cyclist who reinforces the bad stereotypes.
Do Share The Road  Even though you're in the right, there's no need to be offensive.
Personally I find bells lazy, most cyclists have a good loud voice and a "Hi there, just gonna pass on your left" is far nicer than "ringring"
Absolutely never try to scare someone with speed or proximity.  Think how bad you'd look if it went wrong and you couldn't stop or swerve in time.  You would be at fault even though they were in the wrong.
Conversation and lecturing has no effect, and is more likely to make people defensive and negative toward you and all cyclists.  A rhetorical question like "Where's your bike?" is about as much as you could say safely, and even that much might get you into a physical altercation.
My solution is to anticipate the up-coming blockage, look behind over the shoulder at driver of oncoming traffic, speed up and take the road lane.   Give the obstruction a wide berth.   Making eye contact with the following driver helps them anticipate your action.  The driver can see exactly what you can see and won't get mad because you telegraphed the intent by looking.
Of course this assumes you can ride fast enough to "merge" with the traffic for a moment.

Use should use anything EXCEPT the bell.

Here is another case where legislation has not caught up with scientific reasoning. In many countries the bell is a mandatory piece of equipment, which leads many to believe in its efficacy in increasing safety.

The bell actually lowers safety.

A typical bell rings with a very pure tone. The result of which is that a bell typically has a long coherence length. This means that sound changes very little with respect to time and space.

When the tone does not change very much with respect to space, both ears will hear exactly the same thing. This makes it very difficult for the brain to pin point the direction and range of a bell.

This should be evident with any cyclist who has seen pedestrians who actually DO hear the bell, but fail to locate the source in the time it takes to close in to the pedestrian.

Another example of the phenomenon is when you try to locate the source of electronic buzzing. No matter how annoyingly loud it is, it is extremely hard to locate. This is because electronics buzz at a very precise 50/60Hz of your local electricity company.

In UK, emergency services now employ brief spurts of white noise as part of their sirens, specifically because white noise has a very short coherence length.

The result is that many people do not hear the bell because their subconscious filters it out because it does not immediately recognize that the information is directed at them.

Use anything with a shorter coherence length than a bell

My advise is to employ any sort of sound generation equipment that has a shorter coherence length than a bell. Typically anything mechanical will have short coherence length (changes sound often).

Systems that work effectively

Human Voice (Shouting)
Music broadcast on large speakers
White Noise
Extremely squeaky drive train
Internal Combustion Engine


Brakes won't release after being applied? My son recently received a second hand bike with both hand and pedal (?) brakes.  He had been using the pedal brake because the hand brakes for both the front and rear were too loose to work well.  When you would apply the they barely touched the rim.

I attempted to fix the brakes by tightening up the cable which worked... sort of.  Now the issue is that the brakes won't release after they are applied.  They aren't applied with the same force as when the hand lever is applied, but they are still touching the rim which makes the bike painfully slow. If I pull open the caliper itself then the wheel spins freely.

I am referring to rim brakes; the types of hand brakes where there is a separate lever for front and rear and when you squeeze them little pads touch to the rim to stop the bike.

How can I adjust the brakes in such a way that they apply pressure to the rim but also release when the lever is released?

Brake calipers have return springs to move open the caliper arms after closing force supplied by the force on the brake cable from the levers is removed.

If the calipers are not opening there are several things that can cause this:

Return springs are too weak
Caliper pivots stiff or jammed
Brake cable friction is preventing it from retracting through the housing, either due to contamination or poor routing.

Many linear pull or V-brake calipers have return spring adjustment screws near the pivot. You could try increasing the return force and see if that sufficiently opens the calipers.

Disconnect the cable from the calipers. With the cable removed do the calipers move freely? If you close the caliper arms by hand is there a reasonable return spring force opening them?

If the calipers look OK, try cleaning and lubricating the cables as in mattnz's answer.

Try getting new brake levers or new cables because the cables might be worn and creating more friction. or the brake levers' return springs might be weakened.


In which orientation should a front wheel be installed? A front wheel with a quick release mechanism can be installed in two orientations: the lever on the left, or the lever on the right.  Does it matter in which orientation it's installed?  If so, would any problems result from installing it the wrong way?

In my experience, a front rim is symmetrical, and it doesn't matter which direction it's in. Unlike the rear wheel, where there's a drivetrain side and a non-drivetrain side, the only place where the quick-release handle can be. However, there are some other considerations to keep in mind:

Tires will sometimes have a tread direction. This is usually marked on the tread itself, in the form of an arrow with "direction of rotation" indicated. If you put a rim on a backwards from how you installed the tire, that could be swapped by mistake.

In addition, it makes sense to have the quick releases for both wheels on the same side. I make sure when putting a tire on the rim to set it up so, if both release handles are on the same side, the front tire is in the direction of rotation.

Disc brakes may introduce other considerations; other answers on this page address this. Outside of that, it mechanically makes no difference what side the quick-release is on.

Front wheel quick release always on LEFT Pedal side in factorys, the tyre is put on with any arrows facing forward and to save checking we just put the quick release on left. Job was to check.


Remove wheel to clean ball bearings I have heard that one should clean the ball bearing frequently for smooth performance. But how to? ??? I wathed some diy videos which include some tools which I dont have acess to. I want to remove the ball bearings in the wheel hub and clean the dust and old grease . How do I do this? I have a single gear bicycle.

I would not touch the bearings without the correct tools. You may get them apart, and will probably get them back together, but won't be able to adjust them very easily and won't be able to get the lock nut tight.

For a novice, with the right tools, the job can be a but fiddly as getting the adjustment right will take a few goes. Without the right tools,a novice will likely take two steps back for each step forward.

Given you do not have the tools, you have a few choices - by far the best is leave them alone if they wheel is running smoothly.  If you establish the bearings NEED fixing, be prepared to buy new cones and bearings and the cups could be hosed - you won't know till you get them apart what needs replacing. Two ways to do the job are to give it to your LBS, or buy some tools.

If you choose to buy tools, its possible to pick up cheap tool kits that are although a low quality, will give the home mechanic all the tools needed for about 95% of repair jobs.    e.g. here Keep in mind cheap kits cost the same as one workshop quality tool, so be gentle - if things are rusted or over tight, they may do more damage than good.

Overcleaning is just as bad as undercleaning.  Aim for the happy medium.

How do you know if your bearings need adjustment?   While standing beside the bike, grab the top of the wheel and wiggle it laterally (sideways)   There should be no discernible (or very minimal) play or movement.

If you have to open an axle to adjust it, the common best practice is to replace the ball bearings on both sides.  It costs about $5 for a set.  Reusing the old ones is okay too as long as they're round and shiny.  Any pitting or dull grey look and they're scrap.

EDIT: The special tool required for this task

cone spanner - this is a metal open ended spanner made from relatively thin stamped metal.  Thickness is between 3 and 5 mm.  You need one that is the correct width for the flats on your cones.  ~$10-$30 depending on quality

If its the back wheel you may need to remove a freewheel to get to the bearings, or maybe able to service the bearings in a freehub without removing the cassette.  Depends totally on the construction.

Freewheel removal tool to suit your freewheel on an older bike.   Here's a Park tools FR-1 that suits most shimano freewheels.

Or a Cassette  needs a lockring removal tool and a chain whip.

Chain whip

Plus you'll want at least one big adjustable spanner/crescent, and rags/solvent(petrol) for cleaning, new ball bearings, suitable grease, and time and patience to repack the bearings.


I know there are better rain-forecast sources than "hourly forecast" websites. What's the best such source? When biking, I'm not so concerned about how the temperature will fluctuate. I'm much more concerned about whether or not it will rain.

I sometimes wonder about two things: Will it rain in my city? If so, when?

Please teach me the best way to find answers.

Note:

Please don't point me to the local weather services' "hourly forecasts". They're too vague for me to completely understand, as detailed in the small print below.

My government's weather service is called Environment Canada. They publish a probability of precipitation (POP) when the likelihood of rain or snow is "maybe". They say it's the "chance that measurable precipitation [...] will fall on 'any random point of the forecast region' during the forecast period". This is confusing. But, taken together with the relevant Wikipedia article, it's understandable.

Some other weather services offer "hourly forecasts" for my city. But I don't understand their stated POPs. I did a Google search which led me to a post by Trigonal Planar. Here's a Trigonal Planar quote which I have modified to reflect my current guess at what hourly POPs mean. "The chance of rain [during] a particular [period] is 20%. But during the [period], certain hours are more or less prone towards producing said rain." This is still too confusing.

So, if you point me to a weather-forecast website, please point me to one where I can find a clear definition of each included element.

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/radar/index_e.html

Use the moisture radar, it's your best tool to see when the rain is coming and when it's going with great detail. If you take the time to familiarize yourself with it you'll start to get a feel for how different types of rain look on the radar and where it's going to hit.

I personally use Yahoo weather service as I have found it the most reliable for hourly predictions.

Try this.


Would you prefer slightly long handlebar for bikepacking?, TourDivide I'm about to cut my handlebar to 620mm or 640mm
I have 620mm handlebar with minivelo and I'm very much tailored to the size.
However, I've read wider handlebar is better for controlling..
Mike hall (below) seems to be riding with slightly over-sized handlebar to me.. I'm not sure though

edit - mike hall is the current record holder for tour divide.

The tour divide is a long event riding 10-20 hours a day for over two weeks.
Your biggest priority should be comfort, your bars should be set to a width that is most comfortable for you.  Any small amount of discomfort with the position after a 1 day ride will be much worse by 15 hours into day 3.
If you are fortunate enough that your body will tolerate and/or adapt to a wide range of positions, you should then think about how your bar width is going to interact with the rest of your kit.  For example some bar bag designs interfere with your brake levers if your bar is narrow.
And what about other accessories you may want bar space for (gps, power bank, tri bars, feed bags)?
Once you answered these questions you will have your answer.
And as is the nature with bike packing you may only find out what is going to work well for you after you've experimented in training.

However, I've read wider handlebar is better for controlling..

True, but then again wide handlebars feel unnatural like a huge steering wheel in a car would. I think you'll find that most road riders prefer a drop handlebar about the same width as their shoulders (usually around 40 cm). Then the arms don't have to extend sideways.
So this argument for better control applies only when you absolutely need the control. Such as when mountain biking. Also, if riding on the road during snowy winter, then you might also want to use a mountain bike style wide straight handlerbar on the road. You need very precise control on uneven snow modified by pedestrians that have walked over it.
In the picture you linked, the handlebar style is suboptimal. For roads, you should be using a drop handlebar about 40cm wide.
A wider handlebar allows easier mounting of lots of accessories (reflectors, bell, speedometer, GPS computer, smartphone holder, headlight, electric bike computer for changing assist level, etc). Road bike drop handlebars have little possibility for mounting lots of accessories because the handlebar tape takes so much area that you need for keeping your hands on it. So I can understand if one selects a drop handlebar 5 cm wider than shoulders. But anything more would be excessively wide.


Will using a pannier rack mounting kit damage a carbon frame Axiom vs Tubus I am hoping to buy one of these in the next few weeks:

Specialized Roubaix SL4 Expert Disc Di2 2014 Road Bike

But I will be using it for commuting and need some luggage so I need to fit a pannier rack (I'm going to ignore all the shouts of horror about using this bike for commuting or putting a rack on it).

Initially I thought that this was not possible and I was looking at getting a custom Titanium frame made with the same components. I have now found a couple of options though.

There is the Tubus set of pannier racks. I have used a Tubus rack before on a bike with no eyelets and it seemed to work very well. If I use the Tubus Clamp Set For Seat Stay Mounting and the Tubus Adapter Set For QR-Axle Mounting I think that'll work won't it? I am unsure if the rack will clear the disc brakes though...

There is also the Axiom set of racks as shown in the video. They specifically make a rack for road bikes with disc brakes which sounds very promising. I can't see how the rack will attach to the frame at the top with no eyelets and no caliper brakes. I could use the Tubus Clamp set though (which I have on my current bike)

So, Will mounting this to my bike damage the carbon frame?
Any recommendations about which rack / mounting system I should go for?

Thanks

I would recommend getting a second bike for commuting. The Specialized Roubaix is a racing machine. It would also be foolish to leave it locked outside a shop (in case you considered doing that).

Most likely you will void the warranty by using clamps on seat stays. To get that low weight, carbon frames are strong only in certain directions and may be relatively weak in others.

If you've the cash to buy a nice bike and you get to ride it on the weekdays then good on you... no reason not to.

For racks, look for the ones that are attached to the wheel axle dropouts and brake bridge if exist, else get one of those seat clamps with rack mounting holes, like these:

from http://www.charliethebikemonger.com/ekmps/shops/bikemonger/images/salsa-post-lock-rack-mount-for-seatposts-3818-p.jpg

Carbon structures are never designed to be "just enough". Like any engineered objects they're designed for the worst case (i.e. check you don't exceed weight limit body weight + luggage) and then have a margin built in (e.g. 50% for airplanes). I wouldn't assume you'll carry a lot on a commute and if you go for a rear rack attached to the drop out (bulk of the weight transferred straight to the rear wheel) and the seat clamp (load negligible compared to your body weight) then I can't imagine you'll have any problem (other than people looking at you funny).


What type of bike is appropiate for my situation? First off, sorry for being unable to phrase my question more precisely. Currently, I ride a 26" hardtail mountain/trail bike to and from work/university (around 7km each way). Surely, this is not the ideal bike, but I do love the ruggedness (occasionally jumping a flight of stairs etc.) and maneuverability. So I‘m not going to replace it entirely, but rather extend my fleet.

Also, I’m considering doing a bike tour through Europe once I finish my degree (another two years until thats the case). In the meantime I’d naturally like to train, i.e. riding more than 50km at once, which isn’t nice on a trail bike.

Also, I plan on building it myself, if that makes a difference?!

So here are my concerns:

Should I just buy a touring bike now? Seems they are too heavy for what I need now.
Should I buy a fixie? I’m surely not interested in being fashionable, but I read here that it helps develop a smoother pedaling style; that can’t be bad?!
Should I get clipless pedals? There are some which you can still use with normal shoes, is there a major drawback?

But mainly, what type of bike?

Edit: Based on the answers so far (thanks guys) I noticed that I wasn’t really clear. I don’t want to use this bike for touring, I want to get around town quickly and do a longer day tour with it, no need for carrying stuff.

If it were me I would buy a comfortable steel road bike with fenders and racks. This will give you a bike you can comfortable go distances on as well as practicality for the commute. You aren't racing so you don't really need an extremely expensive, high end road bike and a steel frame will be comfortable and durable assuming you store it properly. When you feel the need to romp around you can take your MTB out. If the road bikes are out of your price range then consider a similar setup with a single speed/fixed gear. Fixed gear bikes will make you pedal smoother but a disciplined rider of any bike can get the same benefits using cadence drills without the added danger of getting bucked by pedals moving faster than you can.

Cyclocross would be my answer for your need...home, work, road race, etc. Cyclocross is constantly becoming the most ideal candidate for everyday + slightly hardcore jobs.

Road bikes are really rubbish as there is no road in this entire universe (except the ones maintained all the year because of cycle sports) that supports road bike tyres. A lot of people might hate me for this (even downvote me), but a road bike is not ideal for a daily life commute, no way. You should be able feel that no matter what happens my bike will take any road cracks, potholes, etc. that may come. Road bikes are phenomenally rubbish and don't tick any boxes. In other words, if you are not racing on a "Silky Smooth" road, forget about them.

I am a firm believer in MTBs as they are like Toyota Land Cruiser (i.e. takes anything that you can throw at them). Additionally, MTBs are very good if you are doing long-range commutes over different tarmacs (i.e. you will care about NO surprises on road surface). The only negative thing about MTBs are when it comes to really steeper roads (appx. 40 degrees uphill), you will work really hard to go up. Road bikes, only in this one area, outruns MTBs. The reason is the overall weight of the bike (a Road bike is quite light compared to an MTB)

The other options are Hybrids. Budgetwise, it depends on you (but don't buy road bikes). I would suggest get an MTB or hybrid (good for money, and won't disappoint you).


Which brake should I use, on a full suspension bike, if I broke my brake lever I broke my back brake lever, and I want to use only one brake, which should I use the front or the back?

If it's to get you home or to the bike shop, use the one that works and ride cautiously.  You may have to walk down some things. Trying to fiddle with it at the side of the road or trail is risky - you don't want to lose a screw. If you're considering long term use it's a bad idea to run only one brake in most situations, especially as you know the ones you've got are prone to failure.

As you're taking about full suspension I assume you mainly use it off road. I'm not a mountain biking expert by any means, but on loose surfaces you don't have much stopping power from the back as a side is both easy and ineffective. On the other hand a light touch on the back brake is very useful, and overheating can be an issue on a single brake. On road you have the same effect to a lesser extent but the consequences of your second brake failing can be more severe (an uncontrolled meeting with fast-moving traffic).

To simply answer the question. "Which brake should you use if you only have ONE:" YOU SHOULD USE THE BACK BRAKE. Its easier to fade in and out and you will have better control while braking, especially on rough terrain/ loose surfaces.

With that cleared you should get both your brakes back in order as fast as possible!


Which side should I pass other cyclists on a UK cycle path? I'm new to using cycle paths and seem to get dirty looks for riding on the left.

When driving along my usual commute this morning I saw others riding on the right and therefore passing to the left of each other.

Surely it's the same as driving? I'm also sure that the give-way markings when crossing roads are on the left.

Edit
For clarity, I am using a single off-road cycle-path as opposed to a cycle-lane.

Of course you keep left, overtake on the right and queue like a good British person at junctions!

However, there are no rules. In 2006 British Waterways, concerned at the popularity and over-crowding problems on tow-paths did a consultation to work out if they needed a 'keep left' policy. It was deemed that such a move would be unpopular and not adhered to (and certainly not policed). Therefore, if there is no keep left idea then overtaking on the right cannot be deemed to be against any code.

Most cyclists over the age of five seem to appreciate the 'keep left/overtake on the right' idea, however there are some scenarios where this goes out the window in deference to safety. Going over Kingston Upon Thames Bridge the cycle lane is two-way, but you would be a brave cyclist to stick to 'keep left' when joining the bridge to go south - cyclists heading north are wanting to join the main highway and are crossing past your path. Going on the right is the expected norm at that particular point and, with it, overtaking on the left...

I am surprised that a civilised country has such ambiguity as to which side to pass.  The Government has surely been asleep.  We keep left when walking on the pavement because UK Highway Code para 1 says "...avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the (adjacent) traffic....".  Surely walking and cycling anywhere should follow the "keep left" convention in the UK, or "walk as you drive" in any other country.
Edit To Criggie 17 - Each pavement is for walking in both directions with the pedestrians nearest to the kerb facing adjacent traffic, so they can see what is coming (e.g. a car about to mount the pavement).  Cyclists would follow the same convention where they share a pavement with pedestrians.


How many balls to put in a bearing? I'm cleaning out most of the bearings on my new (second hand) bike.

I'm replacing the grease inside the pedal bearings and I was wondering.

How many ball bearings should be inside? I thought there had to be just enough to fill the full circle, but a friend of mine told me I should fill the circle to its fullest and then remove one ball.

The reason, he said, is that else there is to much pressure on the bearings.

Is this true? And is it true for all the bearings (say, the ones in my hubs)?

And also, I'm putting vaseline (the yellow heavy-duty variant) inside the bearings – is that a good idea?

The reason behind the "full less one" is that you need at least half the race full (rounded up) for it to work and performance improves with more balls past that point, but if it's too full you get a dramatic loss in performance. So "full less one" is an easy guide.

In practice most bearings spread a little as you tighten the cones so "full" when you're adding balls is not actually full in use. You can usually see this - when you're adding balls they generally sit in against the axle, then when you add the cone it spreads the bearings slightly. So filling the race is almost always fine.

Don't be tempted to add one more to fill in the extra space created when you tighten it up, this is exactly the situation the "full less one" guide is trying to avoid. That "full plus one" means all the load is on one bearing (and one section of the cone), plus the bearings are really grnding against each other as the wheel rotates. If you're lucky the wheel won't rotate in this situation, but if you're unlucky you're wreck the cups and have to replace the cups (or hub, if the cups are not replaceable).

For a Nikishi Eliminator, I had 9 ball bearings with a diameter of 6.35mm (1/4")on each side of the real wheel. I haven't checked if there is the same number at the front wheel.


How safe are helmet- or glasses-mounted mirrors? I am wanting to get a mirror for my bicycle, but the obvious mount points are already occupied (bar-end shifters, aero brake levers).  There is some appeal to the Take A Look or a helmet-mounted mirror, but I am concerned about safety. It seems that a mirror hanging out near my eye may have the propensity to be jammed into my eye or some other part of my face or head in the event of a fall.

What happens to a head-mounted mirror when the rider falls? Do they flex or break in some helpful way? Are my fears well-founded or overblown?

I would say that there's not much more concern of the mirror gouging your eye out than your glasses in the event of an accident. Ultimately I think if you did a risk/benefit assessment of having a mirror, you'd come out in the black.
For most cycling mirrors I'd say that the mounting point is going to give way before anything breaks and becomes dangerous. If you're truly concerned, have a look at this question where I tried to put together an exhaustive list of cycling mirror options.

I've never felt mirrors served much of a purpose. Mirrors seem like more of a distraction than anything else. Not only are they extremely small and probably have a very limited field of vision, but they also block that part of your forward vision field. Also, you should be comfortable moving around in your saddle, looking behind you, bunny hopping broken glass, fast stops, no hands. All those things contribute to what is exciting about riding.

I have never ridden with one and have never even felt that there was a blind spot somewhere to justify it. A simple head turn can satisfy my situational awareness concerns about what is behind me. Hearing is another thing that provides great feedback from your surroundings. You can feel cars behind you, too.

Bikes and the cycling community are notorious for gimmicky gadgets. Take those bar-ends on MTB as a prime example. No pros use mirrors or bar-ends.

Cycling, at least to me, is just as much a mental workout as a physical one. I want to be super concentrated on the ride. I just feel a mirror would take away from that.


Cargo bike with steering linkage In Europe, I've seen a common type of utility bike with the cargo basket on the front, and the rider behind it. Sometimes the cargo basket is a seat for children. To make this work, there is some sort of mechanical steering linkage from the handlebars to the front wheel/fork in the front. Is there a name for this type of bike and can you buy them in North America?

What you are thinking of goes by several names:

Front-loader
Long john
Bakfiets

There are a variety of manufacturers of these style bikes available in the USA. Some of the big names are imported from Europe such as Bakfiets, Babboe, Riese & Müller, Urban Arrow, but there is an American brand Yuba that manufacturs them too. There are many other smaller manufacturers as well.

If you expand to trikes with a basket in front, those come in even more names, and even more manufacturers.

These are simply called "Cargo Bikes", or "box bike" (which is "Bakfiets" in Dutch) and the style you describe with a "barrow" in front of the rider is made by many suppliers.  Brands include Babboe and Radkutsche and Christiana.

The other style of cargo bike is to have the load behind the rider, on an extended rack or perhaps a tray between two rear wheels.  You can even buy a kit that extends your existing bike.  This would still be a Cargo bike but

You should be able to find a reseller of cargo bikes in your area, get busy with googling  "cargo bike dealer near me"  works quite well.   Be mindful that they are not cheap.

Your next option is to look for plans like "Atomic Zombie"  https://www.atomiczombie.com/dutchman-cargo-bike-diy-plan/ and
https://www.atomiczombie.com/transporter-carg-bike-diy-plan/  for one of each style.  Of course this presumes you have the wherewithall to weld, paint and so on.

Finally, I personally get on fine with an old kiddy's trailer, used to tow cargo.  Its proven capable of moving 100 kilograms of UPS for 8 km, even though trailer is only rated for 35 pounds.

The linkage steering is known as "indirect steering" and does indeed use a push rod to actuate the front wheel.  This one has a fancy push/pull bowden cable but fundamentally the same idea.

This technology is also used on some styles of recumbents where the handlebars are beside the rider's sides.  Check the Atomic Zombie links above for more info on this style.


Can it be estimated when it would actually be beneficial to increase drag in tailwind? Usually the advice for cycling is to try to be as aerodynamic as possible (like, reduce the surface exposed to the air in front of you) in order to decrease drag as it will cost less effort to maintain a given speed. Especially so with headwinds. However I think there might be a point when riding with tailwind where it would actually be beneficial to increase your surface so the tailwind has more effect than the resistance of the air in front of the cyclist and hence actually helps 'pushing' one forward. Is there such a point and is it possible to estimate at roughly what tailwind speed it occurs (let's say on a flat road and other factors all equal)?

Or another way to think of it, in practice: say I have two jackets, one pretty tight and a looser one which tends to form a balloon, would it ever be beneficial to choose the looser one because it increases total surface so the force of tailwind applied to it is larger than the force in the opposite direction created by the resistance to the air in front of me?

A tailwind reduces your relative airspeed and therefor the drag you generate. You can go faster relative to the ground  with the same power output. The only time increasing your profile might be beneficial is if the wind is traveling faster than you are, relative to the ground .... Unless you cycle slowly or the wind is very fast, it's usually not the case. This is cycling, so aerodynamic is mostly about reducing drag, unlike sailing where maximising lift is important.

Seeming, the tailwind will give us a strength to go faster. The Headwind will make a bigger drag. And actually it's true. While we need to consider the direction of wind. There little wind is from 0 angle degree. So it will reduce the effort of tailwind. So we need tight jacket. And shave the legs and arms is necessary too.


Benefits of toe grips/toe straps I'm considering getting some toe grips or straps for my bike.

What are the benefits of these over normal pedals?

The main disadvantage to either toe clips or (even moreso) clipless pedals is that until you get used to them you're likely to have a few rather inelegant falls (like pulling up to a stoplight and just falling over).  There are other cases where they can contribute to falls (or exacerbate falls that would have occurred anyway), particularly in off-road conditions (which is one reason that off-road bikers often don't use them).

To me (being partly disabled) the main advantage is that I expend less energy keeping my feet on the pedals.  This isn't as trivial as it sounds: Without some sort of retention system you must constantly work to keep your feet centered over the pedals -- get off-center and your foot slides off.  Of course, people mostly manage this unconsciously, but it still takes considerable effort/energy, especially when you're tired or struggling against a hill or headwind or whatever.

The ability to "pull" on the pedal and gain energy on the upstroke is probably not significant in the general case, but can be important when you need a brief burst of power/torque.  More important, and somewhat related to the previous paragraph, is the fact that you can extend your power stroke slightly, beginning a few degrees earlier and ending a few degrees later.  You don't get more peak torque, but you do get more energy per unit time.

In a word..efficiency. I prefer the toe straps rather than the clipless pedals. I can see where the clipless pedals are more efficient, but all I really care about is more efficiency than just having flat pedals with nothing else at all. The footstraps do keep your feet in line and on the pedals without using energy to achieve that part. The strap type pedals also allow for using your leg to pull up as the opposite leg is on the down ( power ) stroke. You notice a real difference using this method when going uphill! And you can use any type of shoe with the strap type pedals. I wear a touring shoe which has a stiff sole that's not made for much walking off of the bike, but can still be done. Regular shoes can also be worn with the strap pedals. With the clip type pedals, you can't use them for walking very far because of the clips on the bottom, unless you have the guards that snap in the holes. Since I'm more of a casual rider, efficiency, especially on uphills is great, especially when you get into the 40 and 50 mile range of a ride. ( And of course there's ALWAYS a head wind! :)


Can I use WD40 and generic bicycle oil to maintain my MTB drivetrain? For years I've been using WD40, a brass brush, a rag, and some generic bicycle chain oil. My chain has no visible damage, and I have no problems with it. This is for a somewhat cheap MTB that sees everyday use for commuting.

What oil? I don't even know, and I don't believe it comes with any specifications. It is the absolutely cheapest I could find on eBay, it costs less than 1 USD including shipping, for 50 ml.

Is there any problem with doing this? If so, what is the problem? It seems to work great for me, contrary to what seems to be popular belief and advice found in professional (or not so professional, I have no idea who actually knows what they're talking about) maintenance videos?

The steps outlined e.g. here

             are incredibly elaborate, they involve among other things, using a modified pair of nailbrushes to sandwich the chain, just to make sure that it gets cleaned properly. It also stresses how important it is to degrease it first. It also mentioned how you must use hot soapy water to clean it. It also suggests using aerosol lube before applying the actual chain lubrication. It is mentioned how you should use grease, and is this the shot where he painstakingly applies it to each link of the chain, by hand? Finally, it says it is not essential (which means, it is a really good idea to do it, you just don't have to) to dismantle your drivechain every time you want to clean it. I don't do any of these things, at all.

I use a worn brush and just rather carelessly scrub a bit at it, removing obviously large chunks and lager pieces of debris. Then soak it in WD40, wipe it off with a rag, use copious amounts of the cheap oil and then off the excess again. I've never had any issues. This is also where it gets to way below zero, there is a lot of salt on the road, often a lot of rain. The bicycle is stored indoors most of the time.

This MTB has some cheap Shimano parts, Shimano M190 31.8, Shimano M191 42-34-24 CG, Shimano CS-HG30-8 11-32, and the chain is a KMC Z72.

Trying to improve my own knowledge about bicycles, particularly in care and maintenance, seems to quickly make me run into a wall of enthusiasts that are just on a completely different level. It is rather demotivating. If there is indeed something wrong with what I do, it would be nice to know exactly what the problem is, and what I can realistically do to improve it. Because, doing what is suggested in that video, I think, is completely unrealistic to almost everyone except enthusiasts.

You're basically using WD40 as degreaser (it's a very thin oil that will dissolve away thicker oily gunk) and then using chain lube as chain lube. This is fine, as shown by the fact that you've been doing this for ages and not had any problems.

The only thing I'd suggest is that there's no need to use "copious amounts" of chain lube. It doesn't take long at all to just apply a dot of lube to each link of the chain as thown in the video, then let it soak in for a  couple of minutes and wipe off the excess.  Alternatively, hold the nozzle of the lube bottle against the chain at one end of the rollers and use the pedals to rotate the chain once round, while dispensing a thin stream of oil, then repeat for the other end of the rollers. If your chain has a quick link or similar connector, you can use that to see when you've been round once. Ultimately, though, since you're wiping off the excess, the only question is whether you prefer to use less lube or less of your precious time.

Yes, you can use WD40 and generic oil for maintance. But also you can use diesel fuel and two old tooth burshes linked together with ducktape. Diesel is cheaper but if has few drawbacks. It can cause cancer if you don't protect your skin(with gloves) and after cleaning chain you should wash chain with soapy water.
I use diesel for over a year and chain always looks shiny.


How to cope with being rattled by the wake of a fast car? There's one long road that I bike on that has a decent bike lane, but the speed limit for cars is 50 mph. Needless to say, they drive 60+. Often I find myself being shaken or rattled by the turbulent wake of a car that has just sped by. This is not severe enough for me to lose balance, but I always fear that I might. These fears are amplified when there is a gutter by the edge of the road, because if I waver, the wheel might slip in and throw me off balance.

Now I realize that there is nothing I can do to change physics - fast cars are going to cause this effect. But mentally or physically, as a biker, how can I deal with this? Is this just a matter of confidence in biking on such roads or do you brace yourself for it if you sense a car coming up behind you?

It sounds like an unpleasant road to ride on, I'm sure you would use a different route if one was available.

If you can feel the slipstream, to the extent that it moves your bike around, things are passing to close. Paradoxically you may find that by riding further from the curb, passing vehicles will leave you more room.

People tend to leave as much room between themselves and you as you give yourself between you and the curb. More importantly if you ride hard against the curb, you are out of the area that drivers are paying attentions to, you become part of the background, invisible, cars will pass without having to move over, the car behind them wont see you, or notice the car in front move to pass you and so on.

All this may sound odd, its fairly mainstream Vehiclular Cycling, . If you are in the UK there's an excellent book Cyclecraft

Yeah, a rear view mirror helps.

I frequently cycle on the shoulder of a highway with a 65mph speed limit (which is to say that many are doing 75).  The shoulder is fairly wide, but unfortunately broken up enough that only the 3-4 feet nearest the roadway are usable in many areas.

I feel reasonably safe -- only an occasional truck, or (for some reason worse) a large bus will "suck" the bike to any significant degree (and having a helmet mirror helps enormously with anticipating this).

But, unfortunately, it's just not enjoyable (and not only because it's a slight uphill grade for 6 of the 10 miles).  You have to be constantly on your guard, and noise wears you down, if nothing else.  It's worth it to take a different route if you have the time and endurance.

Here's the road I'm talking about: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=44.028857,-92.615981&spn=0.099232,0.21492&z=12&layer=c&cbll=44.028857,-92.615981&panoid=gJHcf2Pvuqp8B7fjnwIBzA&cbp=12,103.38,,0,0

(The shoulder at that randomly-picked point is in a bit better condition than average, and it doesn't show any traffic, which suggests the shots were taken about 5AM on a Sunday morning.  "Normal" traffic is a vehicle every 10 seconds most of the day, and virtually bumper to bumper at rush hour.)

EDIT:

A couple of more suggestions:

If you haven't done so recently, get your bike tuned up. Wheels that are just a little wonky, shifters that don't respond reliably, even a handlebar or seat that's slightly askew -- all can "upset your game" and put you more on edge to begin with.
Drop down a gear and pick up your cadence. At a higher cadence you tend to wobble less, and psychologically you're less likely to be spooked by the whoosh of a vehicle, since the rhythm sort of carries you through.


Are bike repair shops averse to changing chainsets? I have found that bike shops will happily replace cassettes and chains.  In contrast, even if a chainset is showing wear, they will be unlikely to change it. My brother just went to get his bike serviced and I noticed that his chainset is shark toothed and they only replaced the chain and cassette.
Has anyone else noticed this? If so, do you think there is there any reason for this?

The chainrings last a long time but are expensive, and a lot of cyclists are surprisingly tight when it comes to servicing.
Worn rings should be replaced when necessary though, otherwise the shop is throwing away good reputation and good income.
The teeth on many modern rings are often quite pointy and shaped, making identifying wear that much less straightforward.
I'm sure there's no one true answer.

The reason is simple, it's due to the properties of the chain drive system.

A worn driving sprocket engages to both worn and new chains.

A new driving sprocket engages to only new chains.

So, by having a worn driving sprocket, your bicycle is superior to one that has a new driving sprocket. You aren't limited to using only new chains, you can use worn chains too!
For the driven sprockets, the rules are as follows:

A worn driven sprocket engages to only worn chains.

A new driven sprocket engages to both worn and new chains.

So, in the back you want to have a sprocket that isn't too worn. If it's worn, you can't switch to a new chain without switching to a new driven sprocket as well.
Because sprocket wear accelerates quickly with a worn chain, you'll want to replace the chain regularly. If you replace it early enough, you might get several chains worth of wear from your driven sprockets. But eventually you need to change the driven sprockets too because they refuse to work with a new chain.
In contrast, good chainrings last practically forever. You might want to rotate them occasionally to get even better lifetime because they wear according to the pedaling forces that are uneven. Rotation is ideally 90 degrees which is only possible with regular 4-bolt attachments. With 5-bolt attachments, you can only approximate, and with irregular 4-bolt attachments (like the one Shimano is unfortunately using) you can't rotate.


Simple brake test, pulling the brakes and pushing the bike by hand After installing and adjusting, there is this test, where you pull the front brake and try to push the bike forward, it should offer enough resistance to lift the rear wheel.

Then you test the rear brake, by pulling the lever and pushing... backwards? If I push backwards, it does offer enough resistance to lift the front wheel, but if I push forward, the bike will easily slide on the floor.

Is this correct? This seriously confuses me.

Test riding during rain or dry weather, the rear brake leaves a lot to be desired, it slows down, but seems like it takes ages to stop the bike. This isn't a question about braking technique, it's more about braking adjusting.

Is there any adjusting needed to be made in order for the rear brake to contribute for more stopping power, to make it behave like the front brake?

There are two tests for each brake. With the bike stationary, squeeze the levers hard to make sue that nothing is on the verge of breaking or has been mis-assembled. That test may seem silly but it reliably detects cables that are frayed to the point where they're dangerous, and also cheap shitty brakes (which will fail when you do this).

You can't effectively test braking power without having someone on the bike.  The force required far exceeds most people's arm strength (could you catch someone thrown at you at 30kph?). So, jump on the bike and grab one brake then the other, rocking backwards and forwards while you do so. That tells you whether the brakes work at all. If they do, start riding, then tap the brakes as soon as you're moving enough to do that without falling off. Make sure you're riding somewhere that a: you can fall off safely and b: you can stop safely without using the brakes. The whole point of these tests is that they might fail. If you're confident the brakes work reasonably well, find a quiet street or carpark and do more of those tests, speeding up slightly each time.

A good bike shop will have someone other than the mechanic that worked on the bike do this test (and a bunch of other tests) after they service every bike. Once you've done it a few times it becomes fast and almost second nature. Swing a leg over the bike while holding the brakes firmly, rock it a little, tap the brake as soon as you're rolling. That helps avoid nasty surprises.

If you have a front disk brake and not a through axle, that first tap will also tell you whether the front wheel is seated firmly in the fork. It will do that by lifting out of the fork, so it pays to keep that in mind (yes, disk brake mounts were designed for through axles on motorbikes, then the design was copied straight to bicycles with no thought whatsoever. My  bikes normally have the calliper on the right hand form blade, in front of the fork, so this can't happen)

Adjusting the brake depends on what sort of brake it is. Do a little research to find that out, then use the search box on the top right to find instructions for your brake (most likely it will be a V brake, but disk, calliper and cantilever brakes are all common too). Poor performance in the wet is normally a consequence of cheap brake pads, poor adjustment, or poor brake design (in that order, but you can suffer from all of those at once)

There are really only a few things that affect braking power and performance.  I see a lot of these answers cover most of the things that can go wrong, I'd like to add two more things to check that may have bearing on your braking performance.  Check that the rim is true(if rim brakes) or the rotor is straight(if disc brakes).  Also, on rim brakes pad orientation and angle can make a big difference.  Generally you want them to contact the rim flat to toed-in just a hair.


Baby Transportation Safety Statistics Is there a resource comparing different safety statistics for transporting babies on bicycles, specifically using different methods?

I'd like to see some information about how safe it is to compare a baby in a bike seat vs. in a trailer vs. in a box bike. Intuitively trailers seem to have the least risk of a fall, but might be more likely to be hit by an inattentive motorist. I've looked and I can't find any data about this.

I found this article - Tykes and Bikes - Injuries Associated With Bicycle-Towed Child Trailers and Bicycle-Mounted Child Seats

The paper estimates the numbers of trailer-related injuries and the number of child seat injuries:

  there were an estimated 322 injuries associated with the use of a bicycle-towed trailer (95% CI, 158-486) and an estimated 2015 injuries related to the use of a bicycle-mounted child seat (95% CI, 988-3042).

The paper notes that there is some uncertainty around these statistics:

  The data indicate the incidence of injury associated with the use of either bicycle accessory was low. However, injuries related to use of bicycle-towed child trailers were much less common (estimated 322 vs 2015). We do not know if this is because there are fewer bicycle-towed child trailers, resulting in lower exposure, or if there is truly a lower risk of injury associated with bicycle-towed child trailers.

Although not having any statistics to bring up, I have experience carrying a kid with me (my stepson), mostly in a rear rack home-made "chair" (between 5 and 7 years old), with two test-rides in a trailing bike and lots of km on a tandem (last three years).

I have no experience with kids smaller than 4 years old.

I think some PRINCIPLES are valid for whatever child-carrying system, and these would be, in my opinion:

The closer the kid is to the parent, the better;
The closer the bid is to "the center of the bike", the better (incidentally, this ends up being equivalent to the first principle);
Kids should not be ejected from their seat;
Kids should not remain "trapped" in their seat after a fall.

Besides that, I think there is a compulsory speed limit depending on age. For example, for under one year old, I think 10mph is the absolute maximum acceptable speed under ideal conditions.

For toddlers and very young babies, I think the main concern is protection from mechanical shock, and ability to keep it under your eyes, preferrably with eye contact. In the event of braking, the seat must provide support. In that sense, the following "concepts" seems UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE:

Instead of this freak, a solution similar to the photo below (a plain ol' bakfiets) is much better for the adult and for the kid, not to mention that it's almost impossible to eject the kid or use it as a bumper:

For kids that can hold a steady seating posture, but are still imature or unpredictable, I think the classic "behind the stem" position, although uncomfortable for the rider, is the preferred one because the kid surely feels protected, conversation is direct, and the kid have "nowhere to fall" without the adult holding her. That is a position with a fairly low speed limit, too, and I think a front-suspension/fat-tire combination can ease things a lot.

Then, from about 4yo until 7yo, the last step before the kid can ride his own bike or a tandem would be a rear seat. This is a situation where is desireable to allow a bit more of clearance between the kid's face and the adult's back, due to braking and also visibility. Communication is a bit harder, but the overall sensation is quite safe and stable, PROVIDED the bike has the "natural talent" to carry weight on the rear (which rule out almost any sport/race oriented bike). A longer seat stay, rigid rack brazeons, and a generous trekking rack are most desireable. Long tail bikes are the ideal solution, but shouldn't be actually necessary.

Until here, I haven't come close to answering your question, but from the most common alternatives, the one I wouldn't adopt at all (although I have some biker friends who have done so) is the baby trailer, Burley style, because if anything happens to the kid (even if she calls for help), she is too far from you, and in a position that you cannot reach untill a complete stop, coming out of the bike, etc. Not to mention the WORST problem: the kid being a bumper, gometrically WAY BELOW the average height of CAR bumpers... (I would not like to see the statistics of car/baby-trailer collisions, but the very scene of it creeps me).