Is it more economical to true a cheap wheel or to buy a better wheelset? Truing wheels around here costs about 20 dollars.

I have a cheap rear wheel that has 32 spokes. This is a rear wheel that came with a Bikes Direct bike, to give you an idea of its quality. The hubs are unbranded and the rims are Alex DA14s. The wheel is severely out of true and I've resorted to taking off the rear brake pads. The front wheel is better off but not by much.

I could buy a new Shimano wheelset for about 100 dollars. From what I read online these wheels come true and stay relatively true for a few thousand miles easily. My experience with lower-end, big-brand wheels has been wholly positive too - they've all stayed very true and none of them have required re-truing.

I could also spend about 90 dollars and get the Performance Titan wheelset. The thing about these is that they crack after a few thousand miles apparently. But I don't mind since Performance has a lifetime satisfaction warranty, so even if they fail, I can just exchange them for a new one, free of charge.

Would it be worth buying the new wheelset and running them down into the ground or truing up my cheap wheels? To me, truing my cheap wheelset once gets me halfway there to a new wheelset that likely won't require any truing during its lifetime. What do you think?

Whatever you decide based on answers here I suggest you get a decent, dedicated spoke tool and print off or even buy on paper a comprehensive guide to truing wheels. You may have a multi tool with a spoke slot. Pretend you haven't. Use the brakes pads as a guide and hang the bike off a car rack or put it upside down, rather than spending a lot of money on tools which you might not use again. A spoke tool is cheap and handy for replacing the odd broken spoke.

If all goes well, you've got true (or true enough) wheels and you've learnt a skill. If you get the wheels true, and they won't stay true even though you've relieved the twist in the spokes you've got your answer and you can buy new wheels. If you find you can't improve matters enough, you're back to choosing new wheels or taking them to the shop. But you'll be better placed to make that judgment once you've developed a bit of a feel for it. It sounds like they're bad enough for now that you can't make matters significantly worse.

Buy the new wheelset. The shimano $100 wheelset is great value.


I got glow-in-the-dark tape. Where do I place it? Would I be able to use glow-in-the-dark duct tape to help illuminate a bike at night? I already ride with forward and rear lights.

You don't want glow-in-the-dark tape -- it's only useful if you store your bike in a dark shed and need to find it. The amount of "glow" is such that it's only visible in pitch darkness -- and that's for only a few hours after it has been exposed to bright light.

What you want is called "retroreflective tape" -- it reflects light back in the same direction regardless of the angle of incidence. It essentially turns your whole bike into a bike reflector. You can also buy it in adhesive rolls. Go wild with it, put it on anything and everything on your bike -- especially things that move as the eye is more sensitive to motion. The side of the bike is particularly important since we tend to have front and rear lights, but little on the side except wheel reflectors (which often fall off).

This is some retroreflective tape that I put on the rear fender and seat stays of my commuter (I have more retro tape on the sides and front that aren't visible in this photo). Left is under normal light, right is with my camera flash.

Photos by me, released to public domain.

Reflective tape works well on the sides of your bike where you might not have lights. On the side of the forks helps people to see you coming out of an intersection. I've also seen it wrapped around two spokes. the movement helps catch peoples attention.


Compact crankset, how to use and criticality of cross chaining I have a road bike with 50/34 compact crankset and 12/27 10sp cassette.

While I don't think I could run a 53/39 one given the hills I happen to climb, but sometimes I get the feeling the right gears are precisely close to the cross chaining limit.

I get the feeling when riding on the 34 that it is always too easy unless I ride on the 12/13/14t cogs, or when on the 50, that it is too hard unless I get on the 21t cog...

I mean, when on the flat, I feel better on the 50 as I could get faster spots when smaller cogs will definitely be better, but when riding at ~25kph, it just feels like I am all the time "in between"...

Any tips?

Also, given that the crankset only has two rings, is the cross-chaining less of an issue than on a triple?

A 53 x 39 won't really make things better for you as you'll be even more cross geared in your 53. That said, riding a 50 x 21 on your 12-27 cassette can't really be considered cross gearing.

If you'd like less of a jump in ratios when shifting the front chain ring, might I suggest a cyclocross crankset? Shimano's cx50 and cx70 offer a 46x36 up front. They'll let you ride more in the middle of your cassette on the 46 and still give you a decent low ratio. You do lose a little top end but few people are exceeding 50kph for any length of time.

I have a cyclocross bike with a 46x36 and a 12x27 and find it fully useable for the speeds I pedal at and shifting the front doesn't result in 3 gear changes in the rear.

Here's a link to the Shimano cross cranksets: http://www.shimano.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/us/index/products/cyclocross/cx70.html

I SO know what you mean. Whenever I ride my winter bike, that has 50/34, I'm forever swapping cogs and rings. My tips? Try a triple. My personal views on a triple can be read elsewhere


Disk brake and wheel is moving: is my fork too long? In the  links I gave below, the website is in French but you can change the language.
Following this thread
I bought new bike components to build my own bike. In particular I bought Surly Steamroller frame and a this Surly fork. I have a QR system to attach this wheel because I wanted to install a disk brake system: disc, brakes.
When I am braking, the front wheel is moving on the left of the fork.
I tried to change the QR attach, tighten it very hard but same problem.
Is it possible I have an incompatibility issue especially between the fork and the frame?

edit: I followed the remarks from here and I tightened the QR even more but same effect.
Could it be my fork that is moving and not my wheel?
I notice that the spacers on top of my headset may be too long (4.5 cm of spacer) and could cause the fork to move, is it relevant? I think I will shorten my fork removing spacers.

The front wheel (of wheel set you linked to) has a 12x100 mm front axle (road thru-axle) but comes with an adaptor for 9x100 quick release axle, and the fork is made for 9x100 quick release axles. Did you install the adaptor kit correctly on the front wheel hub?
If you grab the front wheel by the tire close to the top of the fork and push/pull the wheel from side to side, do you notice the wheel moving at the quick release?
If it moves, there must be something wrong with how the quick release holds the wheel to the fork. Do the end of the axle of the wheel hub protrude out of the fork so the quick release can't make correct contact with the fork?
Minor notice:
The brake disc and brake caliper is not 100% compatible. The RT70 disk is ment for calipers using narrower brake pads, and the MT 200 uses wider brake pads. This means the brake pads is slightly larger than the brake area of the discs, but I'm not sure what the actual consequences will be in this case. Shimano has a document that state compatibility of their products:
https://productinfo.shimano.com/download/pdf/com/2.6/en

You noticed that quick releases are unable to hold the wheel still when braking on the front brake. Quick release forks with disc brakes should not be manufactured at all since they are a general danger. Unfortunately, such monsters are available for sale.
The problem is that the disc brake directs its braking force to cause ejection of the front wheel left axle end. The force is so great that it exceeds all forces at which quick releases are tested.
By tightening the quick release as much as you can and by using the best quick release you can buy (use a genuine Shimano component and not some knock-off brand), it is possible to make the left axle end appear to not move. This is just appearance; actually it moves slightly due to repeated brake applications, gradually wearing the left dropout. Then the quick release someday becomes so loose that the wheel ejects when you brake. Only if you repeatedly before every ride check the quick release tension and adjust as needed, can you prevent this.
This failure mechanism is well known.
The solution of the bicycle industry for this dangerous effect is to switch to thru-axles on disc brake bicycles. You should do the same; if you're planning to buy a disc brake bicycle, do ensure the front fork has a thru axle and not a quick release dropout.
Unfortunately, the fork you have cannot be used safely. It, as a fork lacking cantilever / V brake posts only allows disc brakes (and you don't want to ride a bike not having a front brake, relying only on the rear brake). The quick release dropouts on the other hand are not suitable for disc brakes. You might be able to somehow hack a caliper brake there assuming the reach is within the available reachs for caliper brakes.


Can you identify this vintage MTB? I have quite a bit of experience with cycling in general mountain bikes especially. This bike got me stumped, it has a Titan racing stem, vintage Easton peregrine carbon str8 bars, Easton answer Manitou front shocks, headlock headset, deore LX groupset, and a seat post that has an "A" and a star and USA. The frame itself has a couple numbers under the bottom bracket but I haven't been able to come up with anything. Also on the under side of the down tube it has what appears to be an "easton" "E" stamped. Thanks for any insight!

My Google-Fu comes up with the 1991 Alpinestar Ti Mega.  It looks like they made an aluminum version as well. The tube shapes look to be about the same.  Might be a good starting point for you.


Are black bikes really stolen more than other colors? Is there any evidence that thieves prefer one color of bike than others?

I'm not asking for opinion but for a citable reference.

Finding statistics is extremely difficult, but one set of data was located from the Chicago Stolen Bike Registry http://chicago.stolenbike.org

Their statistics page (http://chicago.stolenbike.org/report-statistics) is now dead/404-ed but if you go to the WaybackMachine, you can get archived data from September 2012.

And tada!

This one is probably a bit less than scientific, but seemed interesting.
Also, unlike all of our other stats, it's based on a free-form text entry,
rather than a select-box type field.
Color
Black   14.23%
blue    7.60%
Red 5.28%
Silver  5.21%
White   4.87%
Green   2.30%
Grey    1.63%
Yellow  1.26%
Light Blue  1.17%
ORANGE  1.15%
Gray    1.09%
purple  0.91%
Gold    0.83%
Black/Silver    0.80%
Brown   0.74%
dark blue   0.74%

However, to make sense of this data we'd also have to know what proportion of colors are the most popular amongst bike sales because if Black bikes make up 25% of the market but only 14% of thefts, then black bikes would be proportionately less likely to be stolen. So some further research is needed.

Screenshots:

Black Colour Bicycle is Bicycle Thief choice is for One reason:

Thief can just paint it with black coloured Spray and Not get detected

Black colour bicycle is the world's Most favorite colour,Even I want it

Black coloured bicycle (Mostly Plain bicycle) Is very common in US


Replacing a crankset after 1 hour! First time here!
My brand new bike arrived this evening and I’ve broken it with an hour.
It’s a Vitus Nucleus 27 VR Bike (Altus 2x9) 2020
I took it out and about 50 mins into the ride I noticed the right pedal was feeling a bit off.
I just had the default plastic pedals on so assumed I’d just pushed them too hard.
Turns out I must have cross threaded the pedal and now there’s no thread left in my drive side crank arm.
The crankset is the SR Suntour XCM 36/22T 175mm.
I can’t find a direct replacement - it’s out of stock everywhere.
My question: What are my options for replacing this? Is there another crankset that I could easily slot into place? Is there an obvious upgrade?
Thanks for your help!

You could replace the crank with any Shimano 2x9 crank for a square taper cartridge bottom bracket (with the same chainring sizes are crank arm length or course). If the bike is equipped with an Altus groupset then an Altus 2x9 crank would be a reasonable choice.
There is a bit of an annoying wrinkle to this, different square taper crank models require different specific axle lengths to achieve the correct chainline. The existing bottom bracket axle might not be the correct length for the crank you choose.
As an example The Vitus Nucleus 27 VR page helpfully tells us the the BB axle length is 113.5mm. The Altus FC-MT101-2 crank needs a 'LL123' code bottom bracket axle which I think is actually 122.5mm.
Often it's easier to buy and install a crank and the correct bottom bracket at the same time. This also opens up the possibility of a 2x9 crank with a Hollowtech II external cup bottom bracket, which I think are in the Acera line and would be an upgrade.
Special tools are required to remove and install bottom brackets, and a crank puller is needed to get crank arms off square taper axles. Bottom brackets and crank arms should also be installed with a torque wrench. It's especially critical to get square taper crank arms tightened properly.
If you had a an issue with pedal installation you'd probably want a bike repair shop to do the installation for you, and they will of course have the tools.

I know this is late and you’ve sorted this now, but the easiest thing to do is replace the arm and ditch the pedals. New arm would cost around £10 and get some half decent pedals. Can get Burtecs for around £40 half price from £80 from most places.
This may help someone


Would variable crank arm length be beneficial to a rider? I was thinking it would be cool to have a bike where the crank arms can be adjusted automatically "on the fly", depending on load.  If that is not  so safe then maybe a manual adjustment that the rider could make from a control mounted on the handlebars while riding.  For example, when extra torque is needed, the crank arms could be extended to maybe 180mm.  When cruising along on flat pavement on a windless day (or with wind at the riders back), shorter crank arms might be desirable to save on excessive leg motion.  Having adjustable crank arm lengths might actually extended the effective gear range even wider.  For example, suppose the crank arm length adjustment is between 180mm and 140mm and is currently set in the mid portion of 160mm.  The rider then attempts to ride up one of those spiral walkways that are part of a pedestrian bridge over a roadway.  If the lowest gear has already been selected but more hill climbing torque is needed, extending the crank arms from 160mm to 180mm should help.  Even if 180mm is excessively long for the rider, it is only temporary until they crest the hill, then they can be reset back to 160mm.  I think that would be another fun thing to play with on a bike.

So my question is would this be beneficial to a rider and if so, why don't I see these available?  Has anyone attempted to make this, either homemade or available to the general public?  From an Engineering viewpoint, can it be done?  If so, how?

The system you propose is just a third way to change gear, in a mechanically very complicated way. Any benefit that could be obtained by lengthening the cranks can already be obtained by moving to an easier gear and a bike with two or even three front chain rings and anywhere between five and eleven rear sprockets has plenty enough gear ratios available to cover all situations. And if the range of gears available isn't wide enough, replacing the chainrings and/or rear cassette is a much simpler fix.

There is great possibility in this question. I agree with the technical assessments already given here but wouldn't it be interesting to simply dump the derailleur and change the amount of torque by varying the crank arm length? More weight? Sure but you loose 2 derailleurs, a freewheel and it might even out. The engineering would be in the bottom bracket. A synchronized gearbox that lets the crank arms move as the torque goes down might do the trick.


How should a good CX riding position "feel" (alternative to highly scientific measurements...) I'm switching from MTB full-suspension down-hill riding to something more flat - at the moment I'm looking at a CX for 80% road, 20% offroad usage.

Unfortunately, I've never, except for short test rides, used a road bike for any amount of time. So I know somewhat how to sit on it, but I don't have much experience with how it should "feel".

So I'm quite at the mercy of salesmen right now. Sure, I will assume that they have the best intentions, but the problem is that I find it hard to judge whether a specific bike geometry is as it should be. It could well be that there is the perfect bike out there for me, but as I'm not used to the lower riding position I may only notice that after a few weeks of riding, after my body adapts and all such.

Is this the case, in your experience, or should the "correct" position just feel great right off the bat? I am not talking Tour de France performance level here, just standard hobby riding (I am reasonably fit and agile). Are there particular "body signs" I should be looking for, which tell me that the bike is a good fit; in addition to the expert at the store measuring my limbs and all that good stuff?

Most of your riding is on the hoods.  I race CX, city ride CX, and road ride on a CX.  I spend very little time in the drops.  In the city pretty much no time unless into a head wind.

On the hoods out of the saddle it should feel a lot like a mountain bike but no shock.  Come off a curb out of the saddle.  If you feel like you could go out the top it is too small.

Since you are not used to it you should feel only slightly stretched out.

When on a drop bar bike, just like any bike, it should feel good. More specifically, you shouldn't feel pain in your joints, including your back. You should be acme to comfortable ride in the drops, and you should consider the drops as your primary position. There should be no excessive movement, such as your hips, as you pedal.

There are a lot if scientific type measurements out there, but what it comes down to is being able to put down the power you need for as long as you need it while not causing pain to anything but your leg muscles. The kind of pain you grow to love as a cyclist. It takes time to tweak the fit. After three months I'm still tinkering with mine. Just yesterday I dropped the stem about an inch.

You may not feel a good fit right away, but you will feel a bad fit after some time.

Edit: to simplify, awkward feeling = ok
Pain = bad

The awkwardness of switching to a drop bar will pass in time. I thought I could never get used to it and now I can't imagine living without drops. The fit takes tweaking and a lot of time in the saddle to get exactly right. Your knees may not hurt during a 15 minute test ride, but they can be in serious pain after a couple centuries.


Can't get over 50psi in bike wheel I've just replaced my mountain bike tyres/tubes with new 26x1.50 city slicks.
Max psi is 80 but my foot pump won't push more than 50 in.
Is this because it's a schrader valve, or do you think my foot pump is past it.
If it's the valve type is there any work around apart from bying presta tubes.

The valve isn't the limiting factor for the pressure -- you can go well above 80 psi with a Schrader valve.

If you're holding 50 PSI in the tire (the tire should feel a bit firm, but you can likely push it in a bit with your fingers), you shouldn't be leaking. I'd try depressing the core (pin in the center of the valve) a bit with a key/small screwdriver/finger nail to make sure its free and try pumping it up again.

If you're not holding the air in the tire, you either have a bad valve or a leak in the tube (in which case, get a new valve core/tube in the former case, and patch/get a new tube in the latter case and check the tire for damage).

Failing that, I'd try a different pump -- not all pumps are able to reach high enough pressures, but 50 psi is on the low end for the limit of a bicycle pump not specifically intended for low pressure situations like fat bikes (then again, a pump designed to do sports balls only needs to pump about 8-10 psi, so its possible). I'd try a floor pump like this one.

Luckily for you, it doesn't matter, because you do not need more than 50 psi in 1.75" tires; it's around perfect.  For most of the summer, I rode my 1.75's 45 psi rear, 40 front. Currently running 50/45.

Refer to this table. The 1.75" thickness lands between 1.7 and 1.9; around 51 psi is the baseline recommended from both.

You probably want a little more in the rear and less in the front. You're close enough there.

The 80 psi stamped on the is the maximum, not the best pressure for optimal performance.

That said, it should be easy to get to 50 psi with your pump. If you're struggling to get there, there is some issue there.

One common source of frustrations is that the pin inside the pump's chuck (the part that you clamp on to the inner tube's valve) is not pressing down on the valve stem to open the valve. This is a problem with Schrader valves somewhat more than with Presta valves, because in addition to both types of valves being held in place by pressure, the Schrader valve stem is spring-loaded.

Many cheap pumps have a plastic valve pin inside the chuck. These plastic pins tend to get marred and deformed and stop pressing down on the pin properly. Before buying a bicycle pump, look inside the chuck and make sure it has a metal pin (such as brass).

When attaching the chuck to the valve, you must press firmly.  The dial on the pressure gauge should jump to indicate the tire pressure (except when the tire is completely flat). You then know that the valve is open. At that point, flip the lever to clamp the chuck. If you clamp the chuck before the needle has moved, you're clamping it on with the valve still closed; it will be impossible to pump.

It's possible to half-assedly clamp the chuck onto a Schrader valve in such a way that the valve is somewhere between the fully open and closed situations. The chuck's pin is exerting some force on the valve stem, but not enough to keep it open; however, if enough effort is put into pumping air, then the valve opens due to the pump pressure, and air is forced into the tire. Effectively, the valve is then acting as an ad hoc pressure regulator! If you exceed the regulator's pressure (say 100 psi or whatever it happens to be, by dumb luck), then the valve opens slightly and lets air into the tire (where the pressure might be only, say, 40 psi at the moment). Then the valve closes unless you keep working hard to maintain that 100 psi). The result is that you're making a 100-psi-grade effort to get a tire from 40 to 50 psi. If your pump has a pressure gauge, you will see exactly how much pressure you're generating, from the swings of the needle. When the valve isn't opening, the gauge shows you the pump-side pressure, not the tire pressure.  If you see the needle swinging well past 50 psi, you know that your pump is well capable of that; just the air is not getting through the chuck and valve, or not very easily.


Bits "peeling off" schrader valve? I've got a bike that hadn't been used in a while until a couple weeks ago, it was in a place where it gets direct sunlight (I'm trying to fix that) and as a result some things like the seat have spoiled.
Anyway, I inflated it just fine and have used it several times since then. About a week ago, another bike's tyre exploded (my guess is sun + overinflation); I spent a while trying to inflate that one to see if I could spot the rip, unsuccesfully and then just lt it be.
Since then, I've been unable to inflate the first bike's tyres due to major resistance (I guess the valve on the pump is not working properly)
Today, I was trying to inflate it before going out when I noticed there are bits peeling or being shaved off the side of the valve and I'm wondering whether this could be dangerous?

The type of damage shown is often due to under inflation or not centering the valve stem in the hole. When under inflated the tube doesn't exert enough pressure on the tire bead. This allows the tire to spin on the rim. That in turn causes the tube to shift pulling it at an angle and chaffing the valve stem.

It looks to me as though the pump head, the part that attaches to the tube, is damaging the valve stem of the tube.  Personally I wouldn't worry much about some minor scuffing and gouging, as shown in your second picture, but when pieces start flaking off, as in your first picture, then I'd replace the tube, because it looks as though the valve stem might fail.
If the valve stem fails then the result will be a "blowout", meaning that there will be a loud bang and then you won't have any pressure.  If you're riding at the time then you can do damage to the tire (or tyre if you prefer).  In the worst-case scenario, a blowout could result in a crash if you were cornering at the time.
I don't think I've seen damage like that before.  I would suspect the pump head first, especially since you reported trouble with it.  Maybe you aren't using the pump correctly; the lever on the pump head is meant to be flipped one way to grip more loosely when you're pushing the pump head on the valve stem, and then flipped the other way to grip tighter when the pump head is in place.  If you are not using the lever at all, or using the lever incorrectly, that may be part of the problem.  With most pumps these days the lever is parallel with the rim to put the pump head on, and perpendicular to the rim to lock the pump head in place.
If the pump head is the problem, most bicycle shops will be able to sell you just the replacement head, which is cheaper than an entire new pump.


Trek FX 7.7 rear tire is rubbing the frame I have a Trek FX 7.7 and the rear tire is rubbing the frame with 100psi in the tire.  Stops rubbing at 96psi.  I have 26mm Continental Grand Prix 4 Season tires.  The original tires were Bonetrager 24mm(I think).  I would not think 2mm would make a difference???  Any suggestions, am I missing something simple and stupid??

Update to the information I posted, new tires are 28mm (went to my receipt, sidewall hard to read), previous tires 25mm.  The rub is on the face of the tire, the picture shows with 96psi and not rubbing.  One of the comments I received said that specs for my bike said that 25mm tires would fit, I went to Trek website before I posted this question, and could not find that information.  I did not realize that going up in width would effect the diameter as well.  Sounds like I need to get some new tires.

For some of the other responses I got, 1. Yes the wheel is very slightly out of true, 2. No bulges or anything in the tire, and 3. I carefully checked to make sure the wheel was mounted correctly and straight.

To everybody that responded - THANK YOU!!!

Uploading a picture

Three steps:
is it rubbing the entire rotation? If not true your wheel.
Is it rubbing all the way round but just on one side, fix the dish of your wheel.
If it is neither of the above, you need a smaller tyre.

All tyres will expand to a point as you increase the pressure. They will expand less and less as the pressure increases up until the point that they either explode or you destroy the rim.

There is also the question about why you are using more pressure?. Pressures much over 100psi are only faster as the road gets much smoother (dependant on weight of rider and tyre width), that's why they still use pressures towards 200psi on the track, but road pressures have been declining for years.  It takes less energy for a tyre to deform than it does to push the entire bicycle up as it encounters a bump in the road.

Update to the information I posted, new tires are 28mm (went to my receipt, sidewall hard to read), previous tires 25mm. [snip] One of the comments I received said that specs for my bike said that 25mm tires would fit

You're the victim of low tire clearance!
Good bicycles have ample tire clearance so you can run tires without fender, tires with fender, narrow tires, wide tires, slick tires, patterned tires, studded tires, etc. And no matter what configuration you use, there's ample clearance between the tire and the fork/frame/fender/brake so you can ride your bike anywhere, including mud.
Unfortunately, it appears your frame is only designed for at most 25mm slick tires, and even then riding on mud can deposit mud on the tire to scrape on the frame, fork and brakes. That's very typical of road bikes: they often have too little tire clearance.
There's no simple way of fixing this apart from changing your frame, your fork and your brakes (the brakes seem to be sidepulls with very low reach, so they won't fit on a frame or fork with ample tire clearance). I'd recommend V brakes or cantilever brakes, or better yet, disc brakes.
Because frame and fork swap is the most difficult replacement job in a bike, the best way to approach this is to sell the obsolete bike if someone really really wants to have a bike that can't take reasonable tires (most probably you won't find a long line of prospective buyers) and buy a new bike. When buying the new bike, avoid bikes that are labeled as "road" bikes and prefer bikes that are labeled as "cyclocross", "gravel" or "touring" bikes.


List of tools to take apart a bike to minimise space for storage I have a bike that I would like to take apart to store for the winter. I live in a college dorm and don't have much space. What are the basic tools that I would need to take it apart?

I think taking apart the wheels, pedals, and handlebar will be enough.

Ex: Screwdriver, wrench

The bike is a Trek 7.2FX

You want to remove the wheels, seat post (you may be able to get away with setting this all the way at the bottom or doing nothing depending on how you're storing it), handlebars and pedals. If you can go to your local bike shop and get a (cardboard) box for shipping bikes, the bike should pack in nicely for storage. This video shows you the steps in a nice way visually. You're not shipping it, so you don't need as much bubble wrap and straps and foam, but bubble wrap is nice.

The tools you'll need are likely a set of metric hex keys (mostly 5 mm, possibly 4-8 mm) and a thin adjustable wrench (maybe a pedal wrench too).

To remove the wheels, you likely have quick release wheels, so just pop the lever and unwind it. Undo the brake's quick release and the wheel will come out. Be careful not to let the derailleur get impacted as that can make it come out of adjustment (e.g. don't drop the bike when you have the wheels removed).

The seat post will be either a hex key or quick release. If its a hex key, try the appropriate size hex key (4-8 mm). If its a quick release, pop the lever and unwind it. If you're not using a bike box, I'd stuff the seatpost with a bit of newspaper or something in case critters make a home there. The seatpost is also likely to be greased, so wipe it clean.

The handlebars should be removed and put to the side of the bike. I wouldn't disconnect any cables.

(from http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/moots-rsl-road-bike-review-stem02.jpg)

Simply remove the bolts on the front of the stem (the four bolts on the front of the red piece, in this picture), put the handlebars to the side of the bike and re- attach the red piece (so you don't lose it). You may want to tape them to the bike to prevent them from moving.

For the pedals,  you'll either want a thin adjustable wrench which can adjust to about 15 mm or a pedal wrench of the appropriate size (a combo 15 mm + 9/16" will be fine). Note the left hand side pedal (when you're riding the bike) is counter threaded -- that is, it tightens counter clockwise, rather than clockwise. The right hand side pedal tightens clockwise. Remove the pedals. Wipe the pedal threads and crankset eye clean.

This should all fit nicely into a bike box which would be ideal for storage. Gloves may be nice for preventing your hand from getting messy. To re assemble the bike, do this in reverse, making sure to grease your bolts + pedals + seatpost appropriately.

Just a 5mm allen will get you a lot if you have quick release wheels.
Just drop seat and spin the bars. Lace the pedals between the spokes of the removed wheels. In a dorm closet you can hang socks on the bar. You just need to get it against the wall.

For college you might as well get a kit to also do basic maintenance.
Essential Tool Kit
ESSENTIAL TOOL KIT
HOME MECHANIC STARTER KIT
Starter Tool Kit  - 90% of what I do is with this kit


Non U-Lock that can be mounted for carrying? I recently moved away from NYC to the suburbs. In NYC, I always locked up my bike with the New York Lock, which is a super heavy duty U-Lock. With a plethora of signs and parking meters, NYC works amazingly well for a U-Lock. Now however, the security is overkill and also there's very few signs and no parking meters in the suburbs. I find that I spend at least 10 minutes when I get places trying to identify a U-Lock compatible location to lock up.

I'm looking for a bike lock that isn't a U-Lock but is still fairly secure. I might not need such high security still, but you know the old saying... (You can take a man out of the city but you can't take the city out of a man.)

My one requirement is that whatever chain/cable lock I end up with needs to have a mount for the bike. I don't want to be carrying this or draping it on the bicycle.

I've found tons of cheap, really insecure locks with mounts. I can't find anything that's both secure and mountable.

Cost is no obstacle here. A bike theft would cost much, much more.

Any specific lock recommendation is going to be out of date in a year, so I'll focus on identifying the best kind of lock:

Any cable locks are going to be insecure by nature, but it's unfortunately the only other kind of lock available just now. (I'm not counting big-ass chains with giant locks; those are more for show than for security.)

One of the heavier Kryptonite cable locks is probably your best bet. To beef up the security, I'd get two of them and lock up different parts of the bike. I'm told that keyed locks are harder to crack than combination locks.

However, have you considered getting a smaller U-lock and a long cable? You'd get the best of both worlds that way. Since places to lock up are scarce, you'd usually end up using it as just a cable lock, but it'd give you flexibility in the event you find a good sign or bike rack.

Bike mounts: These tend to fall apart rather quickly. I recommend focusing on a small pag to carry your locks, rather than use a frame mount. There are triangle frame bags and small trunk bags that do the job nicely. However, cable locks have a great advantage over U-locks--you can coil them up and hang them from your handlebars. Unless you have smaller drop bars, it's amazingly convenient.

I just got this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00165S5FK. I don't know how secure it is yet, since I haven't used it, but it does come with a frame mount.


Downgearing with a road triple My mother is trying to get back on her bike after years of knee problems + surgery, which so far has gone ok, but she has had some trouble with climbing hills. She's thinking that she should try to get some lower gearing on her bicycle. She currently has a "road triple" with a long cage derailer and a (relatively small, in my book) 11-26 tooth rear cassette.

I figured that with a long cage derailer, she should have plenty of flexibility in downgearing her cassette (with a new chain, of course). She took it to her local shop though, and they insisted that she couldn't downgear any more than to a 28 tooth cassette. When I called to ask about it, they said that even if she replaces her derailer, "with a triple it just won't work". I wasn't able to get more details, just a repeat response, even after I asked if the issue had anything to do with taking up chain slack or chain length on the large front + large back combo.

Every source I've found about the issue doesn't mention anything very triple dependent. Sheldon's site seems to think that shops are generally overly conservative on their downgearing recommendations, but that page seems to expect a bike with a double chainring.

What are the usual limiting factors on a downgearing conversion? What specific concerns should we have with a triple in front? How can I figure out how large a cassette I can get away with? And what ill effects can she expect if she violates the advice of the shop and puts a larger cassette on?

The triple is irrelevant. So long as the derailleur has enough capacity(which is determined by the size of the chainrings and cogs in the back; this is basically controlling how much chain length derailleur can keep tensioned) and largest cog ratings (for clearance ratings), you can put a bigger cassette.

There may be other ratings on the data sheet -- minimum cog rating, and maximum front chainring difference. These aren't really important. Exceeding the maximum front chainring difference may increase the chance of dropping the chain since the derailleur will need to take up some amount from a front shift.

The capacity is generally conservative -- if you don't use combinations like small-small, you can exceed whats written on the derailleur. Obviously, the derailleur needs to be matched for compatibility to the shifter.

That being said, you may also want to switch to smaller chainrings depending on the size of your chainrings.

Another item might be switching the type of bike your mom is riding -- if she has a regular road bike, a more relaxed geometry like a dutch bike may be more comfortable and ridable. Spending some time working out bike fit may also pay off, even with the existing bike.

This article talks about total derailleur capacity and gives a triple chainring example https://learn.performancebike.com/bikes/advice/buyers-guides/bike-parts-and-components/understanding-rear-bike-derailleurs.

As far as I know, there is nothing intrinsic about a triple that prevents fitting a larger sprocket cassette. If the derailleur has the required capacity (and accommodates the largest sprocket in the cassette), then it will work.


If I am using DRY lube, do I need to clean my chain between applications? Do I need to clean the chain before reapplying dry lube if I am only using dry lube?

Yes you should clean the chain occasionally.  Where does the dirt go if you don't clean it off ?

True that dry lubricants are not as sticky as wet ones, but there's still dirt there and it needs to come off, not get further into your chain's gubbins.

Yes. We should clean our chains regularly irrespective of the type of lube.


How do different frame materials affect the handling of a bike? I can appreciate that some materials are lighter than others and some have more flex than others, but overall, how do different frame materials affect handling of the bike?

Assuming the same geometry and design. What are the main handling characteristics of each of the below common frame materials?

Aluminium alloy
Carbon Fibre
Steel
Titanium

There is a plethora of alloy and carbon bikes which contradict a lot of the above.
Certainly with early alloy framed bikes a lot of what has been written above was true - fat tubes, straight gauge, non-profiled. This is where alloy got its harsh ride reputation from. And cheap alloy frames probably still bear this unfortunate hallmark and reputation.

If you look at the other end of the spectrum with the likes of Canyon's Ultimate SLX AL or Cannondale's CAAD12 - you will see careful design can produce a frame which is both compliant and light. The Canyon frame weighs in from 1kg - lighter than a lot of carbon frames. It has a stiff bottom bracket and the over-sized head tube ensures handling is tight. The stays are pencil thin for compliance - and I can confirm it rides great. I would have no hesitation riding it on distance rides.

On the other hand - if you look at a Cervelo S5 aero bike - that has one of the firmest rides I have ever experienced. Harsher than an old Scott Foil. And these bikes are carbon. Supposedly "Soft, You can feel the Flexing".

Then you look at the Genesis Volare in Reynolds 953 steel. You'd instantly think sublime ride - but the frame had to be revised because it was too harsh. And this coming from feedback from the race team.

My point being - material choice alone - does not dictate handling of a bike.

Frame materials can severely effect the handling of a bike.. Even different steel materials can. For example when you steer quickly on a bike, that steering force is transmitted through the frame which then acts like a spring and you can feel it. Softer materials will 'give' making for a slower steering response. Not only that but a lot of pedaling force can be lost/absorbed by a flexing frame.

Materials like aluminium and carbon are far stiffer and this can be felt both in quicker & sharper steering and also when sprinting on the  bike. The frame will flex much less which transmits more power though the drive train to the rear wheel, as opposed to that potential effort and energy being absorbed & lost through a springy frame material.


Can a bike computer be used on the rear wheel? As the weather gets colder and colder, I find myself on a trainer more and more. The only way to gauge my workouts is by time, unless I set up the sensor for my bike computer on my rear wheel.

Will the computer work accurately on the rear wheel? Are there any disadvantages having it on the rear wheel?

Totally fine - its a good idea.  You'll need to move the sensor and fit a second spoke magnet (or move your front wheel one)

Another option would be fit an ant+ or bluetooth sensor and look at virtual ride tools like zwift, but they're not free.

Another option is count your pedal strokes and aim for 90 every minute, but that gets boring.

decathlon actually sell a computer designed to use with the turbo trainers it has 2 sensors that fit on rear wheel and pedal arm. then you use app on you phone to get live display.


New brakes for 90s road bike I am riding 90s road bike with Shimano 105 dual-pivot brakes and brake levers, and 2x7 downtube shifters. Since braking becomes less and less reliable I want to replace both brakes and levers with something new.

There's a plenty of good opinions on 105 br-r7000 but I am having hard time to find matching levers. I don't think there are any compatible shiftless levers. Can I go with cheaper claris shift levers or do I need to pay for 105?

Bonus question: could I use 11 speed 105 shifters to work with 7/8 rear derailleur if I do STI conversation?

EDIT:

First, thanks for so many great comments. I see I have missed some important information:

my goal is to improve braking performance - it feels underpowered and my rear brake lever has a crack already.
I have already replaced cables, brakepads (swisstop) and my bike is running brand new wheels (frame was cold-set to 130mm)
fit 28mm tires

From what I have found, here are some interesting brake / lever combinations:

Shimano BL-R400 ($35, brake levers, no shifter, SuperSLR) + BR-R2000 ($50, NEW SuperSLR)
Claris: ST-R2000 ($130, NEW SuperSLR) + BR-R2000 ($50, NEW SuperSLR)
Claris+105: ST-R2000 ($130, NEW SuperSLR) + BR-R7000 ($75, SLR-EV)
105: ST-R7000 ($185, SLR-EV) + BR-R7000 ($75, SLR-EV)
SRAM S 500 ($75 brake levers) + SRAM Rival 22 brake ($75)

Most likely the problem is not with the actual brakes, but cables and brake pads. Replacing these is very likely to fix your problems.

If you want to replace everything and keep everything in official Shimano spec, it seems that there aren't non-shifter brake levers. The options are to install the expensive and useless shift levers, non-Shimano brakes or use a non Super SLR lever that results in slightly mushier feel.

Save your money, clean your shifters, replace your cables and housings and replace your brake pads with Koolstops.


Looking for advice - cracked rear hub along bearing races - How to buy a new rear wheel? TL;DR below

My bicycle is an old used Trek hybrid (1994?) that I got a few years back. When replacing the tires recently I discovered that my rear axle was significantly bent (not surprising for a freewheel bicycle), and upon removing the axle and bearings I discovered massive cracks all along the freewheel side of the rear hub. (see photos below)

I'm sure that the hub is toast - but where do I go from here? I could buy a hub and rebuild the wheel, but I am guessing that is a waste of money compared to a new wheel.

Where/how do I look for a replacement rear wheel? Rear dropout spacing seems to be about 138mm, rims are 700c and about 26mm wide. I have a 7-speed freewheel that seems fine, but I am wondering if it makes sense to just get a freehub and a new 7-speed cassette to avoid future bent axles. Currently have all Shimano drivetrain components, not sure what model.

I mostly do road riding and commuting, with occasional light gravel. Brakes are rim cantilever style.

imgur photo album

Thanks so much for the help!

TL;DR: Rear hub cracked - new wheel? How much, where to look?

The bearing cup is toast from being ridden with a bent axle. The hub shell does not appear to have structural cracks.

With a new axle you could potentially get some life out of it, but you're probably on the right track with replacement, especially if this is a bike you're riding indefinitely.

With either the freewheel or cassette route, the sort of wheel you'd need are very common repair items that are easy to get from a shop or internet retailer. You need any rim brake 135mm 700c hybrid freewheel rear wheel, or any rim brake 135mm 700c hybrid cassette rear wheel plus a new 7 speed cassette and a 4.5mm cassette spacer.

Replacement hybrid wheels with 7-speed freehubs used to be commonplace and are a little technically superior when applicable due to their wider flange spacing, but aren't made by any large wheel producers I've seen in recent years, in part because those bikes are aging and in part because of the explosion in repair wheel compatibility permutations shops and wheel producers have had to deal with in the last decade. Hence running an 8/9/10 with a spacer has become the norm for replacements.

Given it's bent axle problems that got you here, there's a case to be made for switching to cassette. In almost all cases it makes sense to start out a new chain at the same time, and the potential gotcha then becomes the wear state of your chainrings.

Honestly I don't see anything wrong with the hub. But if it were me I would pick up a generic replacement hub on eBay for a few bucks if you don't want to start the upgrade spiral.


Is it possible to make a larger bike fit a smaller person? I bought a used road bike to commute into school each day (only about 4 miles roundtrip) and to go on casual rides for fun. I've only had it for about 3 weeks and prior to that have not had a bike since I was a kid. Anyway, I went to a bike store for the first time in this area and as I was getting a replacement tire for a flat, I was fitted. According the salesperson there, the bike I own is for a person 3" taller than me.

He suggested I test ride some bikes from the store and buy a new one, but I'm not able to do that right now. Is there anything I can do in the meantime to adjust the bike to better fit my body, besides buying a different bike?

A couple of things to tide you over:

Obviously, put the seat down as far as you can. If the post can't go any lower, you might see if you can get a shorter post, or have the current post "chopped" to a shorter length (although that will probably cost you).
Move the seat as far forward as possible. To do this, you loosen the seat from the post using a hex-wrench; move the seat up, and then tighten back up. To really get the most possible, you can even try tilting the seat forward, although this might leave you feeling like you're sliding off of the bike (this is what my wife did to fit into her antique 3-speed).
You can loosen the handlebars and turn them upward, so you're not as stretched over the frame. To take it one step further, you can remove the handlebars, turn them around, and put them back on backwards ("bull horn" handlebars), but that will require re-taping and doing some more serious cable adjustments. It sounds like you just want to make a quick fix without too much work.

In general, being 3" too short for a bike probably isn't too bad. All of these fixes will lead to the overall fit changing. Stay on the lookout for someone who looks a tad too small for their own bike, and maybe you can engineer a trade at some point!

I am in a similiar position. I can stand over the cross-bar alright but its a bit of a stretch to the handle bars. I adjusted the seat and that felt alright. I just tried reversing the seat post so that the curve goes forward. I'll be cautious. The seat points up more than I would like but my initial impression is that this will work.

I have also thought about bending the seatpost - I'll consider this but its not easy to recover from this and would make the bike difficult for a 2nd owner.

Another suggestion would be to put 1/2 inch or 1 inch 'lifts' (would or plastic) on the pedals to shorten the reach. Likely using raised shoes may be more practical.


Should the bike or the rider take the jolt from a bump, and how? The last part of my commute to work has some significant bumps in the road which are really quite jarring, since I'm on a road bike that, of course, has no shocks (but has a carbon fork).

Most of the bumps are caused by cracks in the asphalt that have separated or curb corners that don't totally flatten to the road level at the crosswalk... or tree roots that have started to push up from beneath the pavement.

Should the bike take most of the concussion from hitting bumps? If I lift myself off the seat only barely and just for a moment, I don't have to feel the brunt of the force, and my bike has more freedom to take the hit instead of me. (These aren't so large that I am at much risk of totally flying off the bike if I stand up slightly for those moments. I'm still holding on, but maybe more lightly.)

Will the bike last longer if I kind of use my legs as springs, or should I stay firmly planted and take the jolt from the bump? What's the tradeoff, if any, between my health/safety and the longevity of the bike?

This is not an either-or proposition. Your bike is hitting the bumps and supporting your full weight (minus the very small proportion of weight that might be falling at that exact moment) regardless of how you stand when you hit the bumps.

The difference is whether you're going to let the additional damping effects of the down tube, seat tube, bottom bracket, cranks, and pedals absorb some of the shock before hitting your body, and whether you take that shock on your feet (which are protected by hard soles and socks and are connected to your springy ankles) or just take it right on the sit bones (which are hard and part of your skeleton). Obviously one of those is going to feel a lot worse than the other.

It's helpful to imagine an analogous system: a very light car carrying a heavy load. Our choice is whether the load is supported on a suspension system or not. If we rigidly attach the load to the frame of the car, the load isn't "taking the hit" when the car hits a bump -- rather, the shock is worsened because there's nothing to absorb some of the energy of the shock. If we suspend the load, the total weight the car is carrying remains the same (it has to), but we let the suspension system absorb some of the energy.

You and your bike are both better off if you get off the seat a bit and let your legs (and the frame, to some extent) act as a suspension system.

Rather than acrobatic movements with your bike, could you not find a cycle lane to your destination to avoid this? I had the same problem as you but got over it once I used cycle lane for part of my journey. They are usually better in this kind of circumstances. I would recommend you do that for once.

I know that it would be mental, but could you possible post a picture of the actual road surface? We could give you an improved answer based on that.

If you really need to be on the road, the best way is to balance out the concussion between yourself and the bike. YOUR SAFETY IS FIRST, you can buy another bike not your limbs or arms. A solution would be to determine if you can streer your way around the contiguous cracks and potholes. This will help you to improve your attention to the road surface too. BE CAREFUL OF THE CARS BEHIND YOU. If this is not possible, the other way (which has worked for me so far) is to find course through that specific road which would result into less number of bumps and concussions to yourself and your bike.

What you mentioned (i.e. lifting yourself off the seat for a short while to avoid experiencing the concussion) works sometimes, but may be not in favour of road bikes. MTB users often perform a basic bicycle lift where they lift the front wheels first, raise themselves from the saddle a little bit, dash back, and perform a jump around obstacles. This is however, not recommended for road bikes....... I would have thought.

There may be youtube videos where people have done this type of safe cycling around cracks and holes. I also recommend you find them.

Again, post some pictures if possible please.


Can the top tube on a mens bike be cut off? I want to cut the crossbar on a mens bike to make it easier to get on and off.  Will it damage the bike?

This is downright dangerous and should never be done on a bicycle someone intends to ride. The top tube is integral to the strength of the bike. The frame can buckle or worse when you try to ride it.

First, make sure you're looking at the right size of frame. If its too big, it's going to be hard to get on and off from. You can buy a stepthrough frame or a mixte frame if you want something easier to get off and on, or a recumbent bike.

I've often wondered this myself. There is a manufacturer that eliminated the downtube and replaced it with a cable.

I have broken the seat tube on a frame and ridden it home that way. It was more flexy, but it was rideable.

When you ask these kinds of questions, you get an immediate kind of response exactly as you see above, usually with no empirical basis.

Based on what it felt like to ride a bike with broken seat tube, I think you'd find WAY more flex, and as the frame flexed, your seat tube and headtube angles would change. I believe you'd notice that in the way the bike handles. Would the frame eventually fail? It probably depends on the frame. If you have a chunky steel frame, it might just flex and steer differently, but hold up indefinitely.

If it's a steel bike you can afford to lose, my advice would be to try it and see. Steel fails in a slow predictable way. You'll see if it bends past its ability to recover or start to crack. Take it on an easy ride first, somewhere flat.


Why top touring bikes have no suspension forks? I'm in the search for a new long distance touring bike, and I'm surprised that most top models have no front suspension (IDWorks, Tout Terrain, Koga, etc.).

It looks like front suspension is a rarity at the top, but available on middle class trekking bikes. The top bikes with specific long distance touring geometry and specs are less available with front suspension. Some trekking bikes that I've found with front suspension:

Cannondale Tesoro 1 2014
Rose Black Creek
Koga-Miyata Feathershock
Giant Expedition AT 2013 (not sold anymore)
Schwalbe's balloon bike concept in general http://www.balloonbikes.com/en/

Background:

I have been riding a Cannondale Headshock bike for commuting and touring in the last ten years, and I loved the front suspension. I find it softer on the hands/wrists, especially on long rides. If the suspension is off, and I ride a full day, my hands get much more tired, vs. with the suspension on. Handwriting for example is much harder after a long day of riding, with suspension off.

I had zero issues with the fork, functions since 2004 without issues. I do have a front rack, too. The bike has wide tires (IRC Lover Soul, 26x2.25).

So it seems the benefits are there, there are no maintenance issues (was serviced regularly), racks can be mounted on them, and cost in the upper segment shouldn't be an issue. And the top touring bikes are still offered without front suspension. Why?

Edit:

Let me ask again: my question is NOT about the pros and cons of using a suspension fork in touring in general, or whether you think I need it or not, or what is my definition of a touring bike, or whether there are touring bikes with suspension or not (there's a lot of them).

My question is:

Why is that while many middle range touring bikes are with front suspension (1000-2000 Euro bikes), then most of the TOP of the line touring models (4000 Euro and above) are without?

My logic would be that if it is offered in mid range, it's also offered on the top bikes, too.

See for example the range of Rose bikes, who are one of those manufacturers who sell among the highest number of touring bikes. Rose has 20 different "Tourenräder" for 1000-2000 Euro, so these middle range touring models are almost all with front suspension. If I look at Tout Terrain for example, from the 10 top of the range models, they only have two model with front suspension, the Panamericana, and all the rest is fixed fork.

Money: it is not a reason while these bikes are over 4000 Euro anyway, and mid range bikes are with suspension.
Ease of repair: I see not a reason while disc brakes, carbon drive, hydraulic brakes, XT derailleurs are equally fine machinery that need care, and difficult to repair on site. To me, the dérailleur is the most delicate part of any bike, it gets damaged during transport or hard terrain easily, and very difficult to repair. And anyway, parts can be delivered by DHL anywhere. And again, mid range bikes are with suspension.
Weight: these bikes are 15+kg, just the Schwalbe tyres are 700-800g each, the pack is around 20kg, so shaving off 200-300g from the bike weight doesn't matter.
Force: if a fork can withstand downhill, they should handle touring.

So none of these justify why offer lots of mid-range touring bikes with suspension, and then the top range much less.

There are a couple of reasons.

The KISS Principle

If anything vital breaks while you're touring and you can't fix it on the spot, you're stranded. You're too far from home to call your mom for a ride. Unless you have a spare for the broken part, your options are some DIY jerry rigging and/or praying that someone with a truck comes by who will carry you and all your stuff to the nearest town. There's less that can go wrong with a rigid fork, so less chance of being stranded.

Standard parts are easier to replace and repair

Rack-ready suspension forks are irreplaceable, irrepairable abominations. Ok, that's an exaggeration. But it's definitely harder to get a replacement or get it repaired. Head shock? Only one of the three bike shops in my town sells Cannondale stuff. If you end up in a smaller town with one bike shop (or none) you may be out of luck. If you find yourself limping along to some no-name town in the middle of nowhere, your best hope for repairs is to have standard parts.

It's true that you can find mounting apparatuses (apparatii?) that will allow a rack to mount to a standard suspension fork but they all require additional parts, violating the KISS Principle.

Weight

In spite of (or perhaps, because of) the abundance of gear that tourists carry, there are weight-weenie tourists. Suspension forks are heavy. Or at least heavier.

Efficiency

Another reason is that a suspension absorbs energy, and rationing ones energy is a primary concern of the long-distance tourist.

Physics (supposedly)

When I first got into touring there was a notion that suspension forks weren't designed to withstand the lateral forces of braking well enough to add weight to the fork. The idea was that the forward force of the bike's weight on the steer tube and the forward weight of the panniers on the lowers would flex the fork and damage it. This seems to have either been overcome or disproven, but old ideas sometimes die hard. This is probably the reason that Giant used such a bizarre contraption on the front of their Expedition AT, to compensate for those forces.

Most people just don't need it

Most people tour on the road where suspension doesn't really do enough to justify all the other costs.

As others have mentioned in the comments, if you're having wrist pains there is most likely a fit/setup issue with your bike. There are any number of possible solutions, all of which would be specific to you and your bike. See your LBS for advice.

Established riders haven't used modern upgrade like disc brakes, or front, let alone full suspensions because they were new and riders feared they would break in the middle of nowhere. Reliability and nothing else. You can blame cost, you can blame weight. Once durability has been proven on the road and trail they will become standard on most bikes. I ride a full suspension 26" steel tour bike built in Germany. She is equipped with a Rohloff 14-Speed transmission, a front hub dynamo that provides lights and that keeps small electronics charged while riding. The front pannier rack carries all the weight on the fork at the bottom of the headset using the bottom tubes of the fork only for stability. What this means is that all the weight carried in the panniers is suspended, not just the frame of the bike. Massive disc brakes and an Edelux II headlight. Since I am old'ish I wanted as many creature comforts with me as possible. From a multi-pound blue-tooth speaker to a portable shower, a solar oven, even silicone wine glasses. I decided early a trailer would be necessary. With over 100 lbs. of gear on the bike and 70 lbs in the trailer, I realized I needed the help of another person or a boost from tech knowledge. I had a 1 hp. electric mid-drive motor installed. The motor makes it possible to carry the gear I want but adds significant weight. Not so much in the motor itself but in the batteries. Another necessity that I have been unable to afford yet is a 300w folding portable solar panel. Hopefully, this will allow extended periods away from a 120v power source. Why don't top touring bikes have front suspensions? They do. There just aren't many at the top.


What sort of wipes should I use to clean a bike with disposable wipes? I'm the sort of person who doesn't have time to clean his bike after every ride in the rain. It occurred to me that there are probably 'bike wipes' like there are for everything else these days that can help me just give the bike a once over super-quick. There are, but then I started reading a lot of people use baby wipes to do the same thing.

Are baby wipes the way to go, or should I be buying de-greasing 'motorbike' wipes etc? I do plan to lubricate parts that need it afterwards.

Ideally, I'd like a wipe that's safe to use on the frame and that can remove grime from drivetrain too.

Of course you may use moist wipes. Although, it certainly is not faster than very quick and rough techniques, for example, simply pouring water over it.

Using wipes is certainly less effective than pouring water over the bike, flogging it dry with an old rag and wiping of the drive train with another one.

A thorough cleaning may be done in three-and-a-half minutes.

Finally, there is the amazing panacea to all our muck related problems, the jet wash!

The ideal for everyday washing is jetwash, it's relatively cheap (in France there are spots where you can do that for 50cts), it's ecological, it's quick and there is no problem for the machine.

For more drastic washing what I do is I go straight for acetone. You don't need much of it but it's great for the grease/brake dust deposits, even for wheels (you maybe want to remove the tires before doing the wheels but except for that no problem). It's less costly than wipes, less complicated (because wipes tend to shred on some parts which is tricky) and you don't need much of it so it's not that bad for the planet (since it's for yearly/bi-yearly cleaning)


Can I install a back bike rack without attachment to the rear part of the frame? Can I install a back bike rack without attachment to the rear part of the frame?

Also, if someone can clarify, whenever I google

  bike rack

I get hits on racks designed to carry bikes on a car and such.

I am referring to the racks on the bikes themselves which will allow me to haul things on my bike.

I bought a bike recently assuming it would have attachments near the rear part of the frame but they are not present.

I have seen some bike racks which secure only to the rear wheel axle, but that does not seem too stable.

As you can see in the pic there are no holes for screwing into like I see in many other bikes and nearly all of the racks I looked at.

Several manufacturers make replacement seatpost collars with integrated rack mount holes. Just make sure you get the right diameter for your seat tube. Here is an example:

There are bicycle racks which mount directly on the rear hub which ar completely stable and effective.


Crack in frame near forks This is a Raleigh 06 grand prix. I've been trying to find a stem that gives me reasonable comfort. I ran a stem that didn't have the proper spacing and rode it a while observing a knocking sound with a little play in the handlebars. Eventually I got the appropriate spacers in and thought all was well. Then I saw this crack near the forks.

Was this likely caused by my stupidity? Is this a dire mistake or should I ride it cautiously and check regularly it to make sure it's not spreading? Is there anything I should consider doing to reinforce or protect further damage?

Was this likely caused by my stupidity?

I wouldn't go that far, but play in the stem/headset assembly certainly could have been a contributing factor. Just take a second to imagine to torque and force applied to that small area below the weld when you hit a curb or pothole if the assembly is not tight. The bottom of the headset is somewhat wedge shaped, and if the whole assembly is loose it can be like pounding up on it with a hammer each time you hit a bump. That said - it's a 10 year old aluminum frame and there can be myriad reasons for that failure.

  Is this a dire mistake or should I ride it cautiously and check regularly it to make sure it's not spreading?

Considering that if this fails catastrophically at any speed you are likely to end up going head first into the pavement, I would personally not ride a frame with a crack like that.

It is possible to have a crack in an aluminum frame repaired by taking it to a specialty welder. That said, you could encounter a range of quality and durability issues with that repair. Add to that the fact that after the repair and repainting you will likely have spent at least as much as you would on a used but good condition frame, I would just replace it.

  Is there anything I should consider doing to reinforce or protect further damage?

I would not trust my face, head or life to a homemade preventive repair. Junk the frame.

Maybe it's because the fork is too large for the frame.Therefore,causing the crack.


Why are there almost no bikes with a single chainring? Bikes with two or three chainrings are the norm, and then there are singlespeeds, but except for kids' bikes, you see almost no stock bikes with a single chainring in front but a cassette and derailleur in the back. It seems like for a lot of people this would be a nice balance with respect to simplicity, weight, maintenance, so why are there so few?

1x9 setups are more common on a mountain bike or commuter bike setup with rapidfire shifters than a drop bar setup. However, due to a lack of front derailleur they can have chain jump issues due to the effect of the rear derailleur on the chainline.  This has to be compensated for, often with a chain guard on the outer side and jump stop on the inner side of the front chainring. It's also a bit weirder to have 2 STI brifters and only have one of them for shifting on a road / cross bike. Especially when brifters cost a lot of money.

Most groupsets come with all the drivetrain and shifting gear for a 2x9 or 2x10 setup. So, they install it on the bikes as a set, It would probably be cost prohibitive for manufacturers to break up the groupset and they would probably have to pay for extra parts (like a chain guard) to make it work.

There are however several bikes on the market with a single front chainring and an internally geared rear hub. These bikes don't suffer the downfalls of having to deal with chain jumps as much as bikes with derailleurs since the chainline stays consistent (and hopefully releativly straight).

UPDATE: Modern mountain bikes and some cyclocross bikes have been switching to 1x drivetrains as a standard drivetrain option. New technology, clutch rear derailleurs, narrow wide chainrings (there are several variations), and wider range rear cassettes (up to 44t) have made it so you can have a wider gear range and get rid of the extra chain retention gear that you used to need for this setup. SRAM and Shimano both sell 1x drivetrain groupsets and now some frame manufacturers are dropping support for front derailleurs.

I have a 3x8 converted to 1x8, and the trick is to put a 48 tooth big ring with a road cassette.  That is even in gear size increases otherwise it wont work.  The chainring being 48t holds the chain well as over half its diameter is biting the chain.

The only time I have a problem is if the chain is worn and slack, and I do a big jump in 8.  The chain has fallen off once but overall you get a nice smooth shift transition.

I'm on a 22 pound (10 kilogram) mtb with 2.4" tires and it keeps up with and often beats skinny tire race bikes on road and then at the same speed can ride offroad and do massive jumps. I did this 6yrs ago and haven't looked back.


do DT Swiss 240 hubs need proprietary tools to maintain them? the bearings in my DT Swiss 240 hub appear to be shot, I have the toolkit for and am used to maintaining Chris King hubs but I wonder if I have to get special proprietary tools for the DT hubs as well?

For the bearings you do need the tools. The hub is advertised as a tool-free maintenance hub, but that's only for light work. Check this post out on bikeradar.com:

  I recently e-mailed DT-Swiss on this
  topic and here's the conversation -

  Me - "This one has been mentioned by a
  couple of people - you advertise a "No
  tool concept" and a "No tool
  maintenance concept" while in actual
  fact only the drive mechanism is
  serviceable without tools and the rest
  of the hub requires expensive special
  tools. I've tried to explain before
  that bearing replacement probably
  falls outside of "maintenance" and
  enters the "overhaul" category but the
  quote "No tool concept" has being
  thought misleading. What answer do you
  have?"

  Them - "I've fielded many questions
  about the no tools concept too. It
  simply means that you do not need any
  special tools to perform normal
  maintenance such as ratchet cleaning
  and re-greasing. This should be done 1
  to 3 times (on average) a year,
  depending on your riding conditions.
  This is a 5 min procedure, even for
  the inexperienced. When you open up
  our tech manuals, the first picture
  you see is of a tool set, which looks
  scary and complicated. I can see how
  this seems misleading. The tools are
  required for more in-depth work such
  as bearing replacements. Want
  cartridge bearings? Then you need
  tools to install them. If tools were
  not part of the equation, then your
  bearing would simply fall out and the
  hub would be chronically loose. Show
  me a hub of any quality that does not
  require tools for complete
  tear-downs."

The tools are pretty expensive though.
http://www.amazon.com/DT-Swiss-DT-240-440-FR-front/dp/B001CK0S22

You might want to drop at the local bike shop.

Came accross this question and here is what i did. On the commets you can see other videos i watched before I made this one.

Enjoy


How much hydration is enough hydration during long rides? I have been doing some experiments to see if I'm hydrating enough during rides of moderate length and intensity. Basically, I weigh myself (naked) and my water bottles before and after a ride, to measure my weight loss and water consumption. Also keeping track of ride time, average speed of the ride, and the outside temp (per my phone's weather app), and any snacks I eat.
My questions is: if I'm hydrating enough, should I expect my body weight to stay approximately the same before and after a ride? Or would I expect to lose some measurable amount of weight independent of water loss (i.e. from respiration of CO2). For example, this weekend I did a 48km ride in ~2:00 hours, over which I consumed ~44oz of water (with electrolytes and sugar mixed in, no other snacks). After the ride, I was about 1 lb (0.45kg) lighter than when I started, though I wasn't feeling especially parched or exhausted. Is this difference mostly water weight? And if so, should I be drinking an extra half liter of water on similar rides? Or is it possible this weight difference was mostly from calorie burn, and my hydration level was adequate?
Obviously it isn't too much trouble to make up a small water deficit post ride, but I'm training for my first 200k brevet, and trying to establish a good baseline for staying hydrated over a substantially longer time-frame. For context, I'm a fairly overweight dude at ~225lbs. So I may need more water than other riders would on a similar ride.

When I first started doing longer distance rides, the rule-of-thumb I was told was "drink a bottle every hour."
Obviously, that's a very rough figure, and it's going to depend on a lot of factors, including how much you're sweating (a combination of workload and heat+humidity), how much you weigh, and just generally how much fluid you personally need.  The first time I did a century (160km/100mi) I was loaded touring and it was very hot; that day I drank 9l of water on the road, and still needed to keep rehydrating that evening.
But to get to my point.  After many years of riding, I've found one of the best indicators that I'm getting adequate hydration is that I keep regularly needing to urinate; if I find I'm going more than 2.5h without needing to relieve myself, I'm getting dehydrated.  Again, there's a certain amount of knowing your own body here, and my numbers won't be the same as yours.  But if you're doing a long ride, you're going to need nutrition; metabolizing nutrients (especially protein) produces water and metabolic waste products you need to get rid of.  If you're not doing so regularly, it means that your body is starting to hoard water and you need to drink more.

I have been doing some experiments to see if I'm hydrating enough during rides of moderate length and intensity.

It only matters for rides of high length or high intensity. For rides of moderate length and intensity, hydration is not required during the ride as the human body has enough spare water for a 50 km ride built in.
Long time ago, I used to do a daily 50 km ride. I never once needed water during the ride.

if I'm hydrating enough, should I expect my body weight to stay approximately the same before and after a ride?

For long-distance riding, this is the rule. The body weight is reduced by exhaled carbon dioxide and evaporated water. Of these, the evaporated water explains most of the difference.
However, for moderate-distance riding, you have to allow some flexibility. Nobody cares whether you weight one or two kilograms or half a kilogram less, or zero kilograms less for that matter, after the ride.
There is spare water built in to the human body. I suspect the reserve of spare water is around 2 liters (2 kg). A healthy human that was not thirsty before the ride can lose this amount of water (weight) during the ride without any ill effects.

Or would I expect to lose some measurable amount of weight independent of water loss (i.e. from respiration of CO2).

Yes, as I explained CO2 removes some carbon from your body.
A human producing moderate power can produce 200 watts of power, burning 800 watts of hydrocarbons to do that. A 2-hour ride burns thus at most 1.6 kWh = 5760 kJ of energy.
If we assume half of the energy comes from hydrogen and half from carbon, 2880 kJ of carbon is burned. Carbon has 32.8 MJ = 32800 kJ of chemical energy per kilogram. You thus need 2880 / 32800 = 0.0878 kg of additional weight reduction for those 2 hours.
You said you were 0.45 kg lighter and consumed 44oz of water. If I calculated correctly, 44 oz is 1.23 kg so your weight reduced by 1.68 kg. Of this, 0.0878 kg was due to carbon burning to carbon dioxide and the rest 1.5922 kg was due to evaporated water. Carbon dioxide exhaling therefore explains only 5.5% of your weight loss. The rest, 94.5%, is explained solely by water evaporation.
By the way, the 1.5922 kg evaporated water is entirely within the safe limits, so the length of your ride does not need you to carry 1.5922 kg of water with you. 1.5922 kg is the difference between weight of an expensive bike and a cheap bike. Save some weight and drink only after the ride.
For longer rides, let's say 70-100 km, you may need to drink during the ride.

And if so, should I be drinking an extra half liter of water on similar rides?

No. As I explained, a human can lose 2 kilograms of water easily with no ill effects.

Or is it possible this weight difference was mostly from calorie burn, and my hydration level was adequate?

No. As I explained, only about 0.0878 kg is explained by calorie burn.

Obviously it isn't too much trouble to make up a small water deficit post ride, but I'm training for my first 200k brevet, and trying to establish a good baseline for staying hydrated over a substantially longer time-frame.

For this your experiments are useful. While a healthy human can do a 50 km ride without drinking any extra water during the ride, 200 km is way above the limits for riding water bottle free. In fact, I would argue that during a 200 km ride, you need to not only drink but also eat.


Is it possible to change to a larger and type of crankset from a one-piece Ashtabula style? I made an E-Bike out of a cheap bike. It uses those one piece cranks. I was wondering if I could get a bigger gear. The motor top speed is 36km/h and I would like to assist the motor while going at that speed. But as is, past 24km/h, it's too fast to allow me to assist.
With this types of crankset I never found anything different than that size gear. If I found some other crankset types would it fit into the frame's crank shaft? Is it standardized?
My bike has a 5 speed derailleur, 20inch wheels. The crank is as seen in the example bike image. Motor is front hub.

One piece cranks are used on inexpensive adult bikes so larger chainrings should be available as replacement parts. The crank-chainring interface is standardized. See Sheldon Brown's page on one piece cranks.

Note that the size of the chainring will be limited by the clearance between it and the drive side chainstay.

I have a Sondors Fold X single speed ebike and I spin out at too low a speed. I installed a larger chain ring and it works great.  Bought this one:   53 teeth

I had to add a couple of chain links to accommodate the larger chainring.

Did the same thing to my Sondors X, 7 speed. I had to turn in the "low" adjustment screw on the derailer to eliminate the two lowest gears, which were too, out of line, to the chain ring. Runs great- don't need the low gears with the hub motor anyway. Goes very fast now.


The bike shop won't fix my newly bought bike I bought a new bike, a trek MTB marlin 7, and for the first moment (a week later) it started having issues, it was clicking awfully, the pedals broke, the brakes were rubbing, the mudguard broke which I noticed they attached with little plastic things and holes drilled; I got it mostly fixed but clicking didn't go away, I brought the bike around 6 times to the bike shop for them to fix the horrible clicking that came from the back, every time it was a temporary fix, then they said they changed the freewheel and it went away and I thought I finally got a breath, guess what the clicking is coming back, this time creaking too, I don't want to go for seventh time to the bike shop, I just would like to get rid of the bike at this point and have my money back. I honestly don't know if this is normal, this is my first bike, any advice?...

Your new bike doesn't work properly: of course this isn't normal.

At this point, your best option is surely to return the bike to the shop for a full refund and buy a new bike from somewhere else. If there are no other Trek dealerships nearby, buy another brand.

You exact legal rights in this situation will depend on where in the world you are but I would expect that the right to return faulty goods for a full refund should be pretty much universal. One would hope that the shop will just accept your request for a refund. If they don't, you'll need to find out about your rights, and maybe ask on Law Stack Exchange.

clicking

a lot shop can't find the problem, I did. it's mostly from BB/pedals thread. You can tell your shop to do the following:

you can listen carefully, to see if the clicking is from rear hub, if so, the position of that clicks is very clear.
if you can't quite point out the clicking position, it has a big chance those clicks are coming from the BB/pedals.

how to diagnose and fix:

BB:

change the BB with a know good BB.
if good luck, its the cheap BB thread is not aligned, it should never bother you again.
if bad luck, the frame BB thread is not aligned, you are going to get a new frame.

pedals:

same thing as BB, just do the same thing with both cranks and pedal.

the thing is, the frame and crank tube transmits clicking sound to all over the frame, so you can't pinpoint the problem, you have to try them one by one. PS: if you don't change the broken part quick, in time, it will damage good threads from on other side.


Recommendation on new $400-500 hybrid Analysis paralysis.  My wife says I can spend up to $500 on a first bike.  I don't want to spend it on the wrong stuff.  My intention is to use it as the "last mile" on public transit on commute/weekends, quick to the grocery, leisure ride, and perhaps even intentional exercise.  I've read tons of other posts on this site talking about what to look for in the abstract.  Now I need some concrete advice.  Which bike to buy?

At 6'4", 36.5 inseam, This calculator says my ideal mountain bike measurements are 21.5" seat tube and 180mm crank.  I don't know how that equates to a hybrid.  I think the larger frame size limits my options - bikes stores don't seem to carry these sizes.  So perhaps I have to order online?

Besides being the best value in all parts, certain luxuries I think I'd like are wheel splash guards and a rear rack as I might commute to work.  Can these be added to any bike?  Front suspension?  Not sure if I need it, but I know to want lockout if I do.  Aluminum vs Steel?  I've read that aluminum is less shock absorbing than steel, yet my known options below are all aluminum.

Here's what I'm looking at:

http://www.marinbikes.com/2011/bike_specs_compared.php?serialNum1584=1584&serialNum1581=1581&serialNum1580=1580&serialNum1882=1882

http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1094212_-1_20000__400321

Are these any better than a Dick's Sporting Goods Diamondback brand hybrid?

What others should I look at?

Thanks.

I've worked on a number of Marin bikes and they are impressive IMO.  Simple, straightforward design.

Here's the bottom line.  In this price range, regardless of what you get, you are looking at a Chinese-made frame built to "spec" (what the company wants).   Then, various major-manufacturer components are bolted on and the bike is shipped.

They are all really rather similar; variations in frame geometry are minimal, variations in component spec are also minimal.  It's common to throw on an "upgraded" rear derailleur as this catches the consumer's eye... Costs the manufacturer only a few bucks more.

Not that these are not perfectly fine bikes... The main thing you are looking for is fit, which you already recognize as important, and the best components you can get for your money.
Most hybrids are made with a frame that leans more to the "road" type, with a straighter top tube.  Most mountain bikes have a more compact design with a sloping top tube so that the rider can maneuver on the bike while off-road.
The old "standover height" or "inseam" height measurements date to when road bikes were built with the standard diamond frame with a flat top tube.
Modern bike design is a little more flexible.

Nice bikes like that quality Marin and that affordable Fuji are nowhere near as exciting as getting a 'Bicycle Shaped Object' ('BSO')...
Instead of getting one of those quality numbers you cannot fully decide on, why not get a 'BSO'?
Key advantages:

Get to learn lots of mechanics with components that need to be setup totally precisely or else they do not work
Get fit pushing a big and heavy bike
Reliably safe to park outside with no danger of anyone stealing your wheels
Get to spend more on bike parts to keep the show on the road
Become an expert at punctures in next to no time
Most importantly, be able to revel in overtaking people on 'proper' non-BSO bikes

In fact the 'BSO' is so good that you should consider two - one to leave at the other end of the train journey and one for home. In that way you will have a ready-made supply of spares. To read on the subject some more you might like this blog:
http://bicycleshapedobject.wordpress.com/
If that should inadvertently turn you off the idea of getting a 'BSO', pop down your local bike shop, tell them what you have been looking at and let them provide you with some recommendations. They will sort you out the correct size, do you a bike at a reasonable price and provide it fully setup and working, complete with a warranty and maybe a first service check.


How to fix/prevent blocked cleat bolts I've had my SPD touring shoes for about seven years. The cleats are the originals and are now quite worn and I noticed recently that one of them (not pictured) is at a rather wacky angle that can't be doing my pedalling action any good.

As the shoes are more or less OK, I'd like to replace the cleats.

The problem is that the cleat bolts (hex-shaped) are jammed with grit, mud, stones and whatever else I've walked on in the past 7 years. So the allen key won't go in.

Last night I tried picking the dirt out with needle-nose pliers, chiselling it with a nail and hammer and even resorted to trying to drill the bolt out. This last attempt barely damaged the bolt, but heated it up so much the bottom of the shoe started to melt.

Is there any way to prevent this from happening or to fix it when it does?

Try a pipe nipple extractor or similar stripped screw extractor (Example:  http://www.plumbingsupply.com/extractors.html).  It is designed to grip the inside sides of a pipe using the same turning direction that will unscrew it.  It shouldn't need much depth to work and it will try to drill itself in.  You may still have to drill some of the junk out, but go slow and select a bit that is smaller than the head opening.

The thing that you want to prevent the most in these allen type assemblies is the melting which will lead to loose threads. It will make removal and assembly so hard to do as it won't bite the allen tool anymore.


Explaining the effects of frame geometries I asked about buying a bike here, and someone asked on my behalf about test-riding a bike before buying.

My question is, what should I know, or should have known, about the sizing or 'geometry' of a bike?

In reply to my question about buying, people talked about the wheel size etc.; but not about the frame size, or the fork angle.

In the question about test-riding, people talked about aspects of the 'fit' which I think can be adjusted (i.e. the height and front/back position of the seat, and the height of the handle-bar) ... and which are documented elsewhere ... and which are therefore maybe superficial and less important for the purposes of this question.

But, what about the geometry which can't be adjusted: the distance between the wheels, for example?

On a bike which I've just bought, I've noticed for example (since buying it) that the front wheel is rather closer to my foot than I am used to; I expect that's just one example (of a geometry/metric which as a novice it hadn't occured to me to think about).

This Wikipedia article "Frame geometry" introduces the vocabulary but without much detail. Googling reveals mostly short articles too, more ad-bait than detailed/informative.

Given that I'm asking for details, a kind of 'science' question, this question is probably too long to answer here. What I might be asking for then is a link to a suitable introduction/reference (online, or a book...).
Alternatively you might (I don't know) be able to give a short/summary answer along of, "The most important measurements to look at are A, B, and C, which have the following effects... Taken together these few most important measurements account for 90% of the effects of geometry on fit/performance/handling/comfort."

Or, is this a topic that people don't learn about by reading, and which can only come from extensive experience of riding multiple bikes? How did you come by your understanding of geometry? Can you look at two bikes of a similar type and say, "Oh, those have different shapes/measurements" and understand what that (difference in measurements) means or implies?

PS.: interested in 'ordinary' frames: not frames with a suspension (so, not frames for off-road/all-terrain/jumping); not recumbent; not track/racing; not exotic/expensive materials.

I see frame geometry having 3 primary affects

Fitting the rider; which you're already addressing and I won't talk about here...  But a lot of geometry stuff comes down to making the other stuff work with fitting riders on the bikes. It's very important.
Fitting stuff on the bike
Handling characteristics.

Since you asked, I'm talking about your basic on-road diamond-frame bike. Cruiser, road, commuter, urban, touring, racer...
Fitting Stuff On the Bike

Wheel clearance affects how big the tires can be and how easy it is to mount fenders. For the rear wheel you need to look at the chainstay bridge, seatstay bridge and seat tube. For the front wheel, look at the fork crown and downtube. Often either not measured or simply given to you as a maximum tire size measurement.
"Toe overlap" -- how close the front wheel gets to the front of the pedals. More of an issue with fenders, and not really an issue once you're going any kind of speed. I never see this on the geometry specs from manufacturers, but definitely worth checking. You can get used to moderate toe overlap, though.
Longer chainstay length gives you more heel clearance for loading panniers on the rear rack. I know from personal experience that the most likely place to kick a pannier off the rack is in an intersection, so if you plan to carry panniers this can be very important. Short chainstay length can be compensated for by getting a rack that allows panniers to be mounted further back (longer top, top further back, however they do it).

Handling characteristics
First off, the way a bike handles, "stability" and "maneuverability" are essentially opposites. It's a tradeoff. Whether you want stable or maneuverable depends on what you're going to do with the bike, how fast you'll be going, your riding experience, etc. And there's some more complicated harder-to-understand secondary effects.
I really think that for most of the handling stuff you're best off just test-riding bikes that fit you. Experiment with the handling. Try going slow. Try going fast. Try making a sharp turn. Try making a subtle turn. Try a dodge/weave. Try those turns at different speeds. Try a fast start. Try a fast stop. Try all that in all the handlebar positions. Unless you're designing a bike, a lot of this is all very theoretical, heavily interrelated (can't really change one variable without changing the others), and likely to be very small differences when comparing actual bikes.

Bottom Bracket (BB) height (sometimes you can find this out, sometimes you have to make a guess based on wheel+tire radius minus BB drop).  Higher bottom bracket makes it easier to go over stuff. Not really an issue if you stick to roads, but can be a factor when trying to pedal through sharp turns. Higher BB also lets you use longer cranks which some people want. Compare a Cyclocross to a Road bike and the CX bike will have a higher BB.

Wheelbase length (distance between hubs/contact patches). A longer wheelbase will make the bike more longitudinally stable. In other words, less prone to wheelies and less prone to flipping you over the handlebars.  This could theoretically translate to better ability to stop faster. Note that one way to give you a longer wheelbase is longer chainstays. The position of your center of gravity makes a big difference, too.

Headtube angle (steering axis angle). A shallower/slacker (more pointed forward) angle gives you more trail. A shallower angle also increases how much the weight can make the wheel flop on its own and negatively affect stability at low speed. This is usually measured from horizontal, so a steep angle will be closer to 90° and a shallow angle will be a lower number.

Fork offset/rake (how far the front hub is in front of the steering axis). More offset gives you less trail. More offset also tends to give you more toe clearance.

Trail is how far the front contact patch is behind the steering axis. Note that while the trail is the important measurement, the headtube angle and fork offset (and wheel size) are what determines the trail. A bicycle with no trail would be unrideable (but many people like having very little trail).
There's different ways of measuring the trail (along the ground, or perpendicular to the steering axis) that make comparisons more intuitive, but more trail means more stable, and less trail means more maneuverable. Or to put it another way: less trail means more twitch and more trail means less responsive.
The stability from trail increases as the bicycle goes faster. If you look at some cruiser bikes they'll tend to have a shallow headtube angle and a lot of trail: they're stable and easy to balance at low speeds but probably hard to steer at high speed. If you look at a road/racing bike, the headtube angle is usually much closer to vertical and the trail is fairly small: they may feel unstable and wobbly (hard to balance) at low speeds, but are still easy to steer (responsive) at high speeds.
Note also that the handlebar setup and rider preferences/experience make a huge difference whether your prefer maneuverable/twitchy/responsive or stable/unsteerable/unresponsive.

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics

the below link offered some good insight on the topic of frame geometry numbers and how they influence riding characteristics.  I do agree and should stress that rider preference and experience is an equal factor and when looking for a new frame, being informed and identifying this balance should be taken in consideration.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2011/02/the-geometry-of-bike-handling/


Map app for avoiding gravel roads I use Google for mapping out long distance tours in areas I don't know. Often it takes me on gravel roads. I can't tell from the app that is not really road bike friendly till I get there. This can really mess up my plans (since I may I have to back track and go around adding hours to the day and getting to my camping destination.

That said - any favorite apps for bike travel - camping? Maps?  (I do have warm showers!  Love it for emergencies!)

There is no tool that I know of that solves your problem for you.

The way I solve the problem of finding out what a road is like, is to

use Google maps to find a route.
then use Street View to check the roads at important points. Of course, if the road is gravel, Street View is probably not available.
if the route is not what I want, drag the route line to another road, and check that.

In addition (I didn't know about these and haven't tried them) there's Gravel map and similar sites that perhaps could be used to see where the gravel is, so you can avoid it.

I personally use MapMyRide by Under Armour. It can track routes as you just bike along, or you can plan them out first. It also has community routes that others have completed.

When planning out your route, it tells you elevation and can also indicate gravel or other materials (dirt).