What factors to take into account when choosing a hybrid bike? I've decided I'd like to start commuting to work, but I'm not sure what factors I need to take into account when choosing a bike. I figured a hybrid bike suits my needs best, since I will be riding on the pavement mostly. So far, I'm taking the following into account:

Brakes - My understanding is that hydraulic brakes are the best, especially for where I live (Vancouver, which is a very rainy city)
Fork - I've been told carbon forks are expensive, but worth it for the shock absorption.
Cost - I've limited my budget at $850 CAD (about $650 USD)

What other things should I be looking into? The materials of the bikes I'm looking at are usually a brand name of aluminum alloy. Are there any notorious wheel manufacturers that I should stay away fromDoes the handlebar and derailleurs really matter?

Thanks.

A couple of things I would advice on.

Firstly, from my understanding hybrid bikes tend to be very upright and commonly with front suspension. Have you looked at any touring bikes?

Hydrauclic brakes: Yes, they are usually better than mechanical ones. Although there are some very good mechanical ones too, look at TRP's Spyre or Hy-Rd for example. Hyraulic brakes come with their own problems too, which you should also consider. They are usually more expensive to maintain (liquid and tools cost more than cables). They are also not great with sub-zero climates.

Carbon forks usually have better shock absorb than aluminium, but steel forks are cheaper, have arguably the same shock absorb and can easily load them with pannier if needed.

You should be able to get a good entry ridgid steel bike for that price, if I were you, I'd buy the cheapest second hand steel rigid bike and use it for a while. You should then learn enough to be able to buy a suitable bike for yourself in the future, using your experience with the cheap bike as a guide.

You should read this article Best commuting bikes as it gives a detailed description of the different choices for commuting bikes. By looking at the bikes they recommend, you should look at what you might like from them, flat bars vs drop etc.

My only important recommendation here is that if you get a carbon fork, ensure you get a full carbon fork.  The bonded carbon forks with alloy steerers have been known to separate over time.  People have died from this (Trek bike).

Hydraulic brakes are the best, and not something you can replace easily later.  But I've got friends with mechanical discs that are more than happy with them. They'll stop just as well, but will just need a bit harder squeeze, and the modulation won't be quite as good.  Probably not things you'd care about really.

With wheels, it's really simple.  They more you pay, the lighter they get.  And they sky really is the limit.  You'll find very little difference at your budget and they are all really strong.  Make sure the bike you get has 10mm rear & 12mm front axles and you could always replace them later if you like.  Light wheels make the bike much more fun to ride, it's the one thing people that are serious change as soon as they buy a bike.

I'd recommend a bike with a good frame and groupset as these are the two areas that will make a bike long lasting and great to ride.  Avoid bikes with cheap frames and groupsets that have a few carbon parts to get you to buy.

If you can find a bike with sram Apex that's on special, it's a good beginning.

Carbon parts are nice and light, and do absorb a lot of vibration. They are however really expensive from brand names.  Companies that make counterfeit parts should be avoided.  There is a middle ground though, non brand names.  I have purchased quite a few RXL parts.  I've found them almost as stiff, but having very good shock absorption. If you are willing to do just a little wrench work, for $150 you'll get a full carbon fork, bars, stem & seatpost.  If you put these on your bike you'll have a really lovely ride that would have cost you over $2k in the shops. (And you'll probably drop half a kilogram in weight!) The good thing is that you can do this over time, and bit by bit.

https://rxlsl.aliexpress.com/store/2851081?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.46b925b8qv8d01

And for the actual bike, I'd be going to somewhere like planet x. gravel bikes are all the rage atm as you can fit more bigger tyres if you want to go off-road or the roads you ride are poor quality. I'd have to recommend this option over a flat bar as you get the ability to move your hands around which will keep you more comfortable while you ride.

Gravel bikes will be more upright than a road bike, and give you the ride it seems you are looking for.  They will have a well thought out geometry, but be a little longer and the fork will be slacker giving you a really stable ride.  Cx bikes on the other hand are much shorter, turn faster, and are more responsive. What you lose is that easy stable feeling. Against this, a flat bar road is a sort of Bastard.  It's a road bike with a few mountain bike parts put on them.  There's no real design towards anything in particular other than being a bit lighter than a mountain bike to ride on the road.

The below isn't on special, but you could find something similar ar the right time of year on special in your price range.

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXFMAPEX1MECH/planet-x-full-monty-sram-apex1-gravel-bike

Good luck!


Mixing Groupsets: Front & Rear Can you use a (e.g.) SRAM rear derailleur with a SRAM casette with a (e.g.) Shimano front derailleur with Shimano Chainrings?

Anecdotal accounts say "yes, you can mix within reason".

The manufacturers, however, will generally say a firm "no". On the one hand, they would, wouldn't they? They're in the business of selling kit. With road groupsets, there is Shimano, the main player. Then there is SRAM, who make their components to be largely compatible with Shimano. Lastly, among the main manufacturers, there is Campagnolo, who are compatible with...Campagnolo. For mountain bikes, things are a little different. Shimano still dominate, more arguably,, but SRAM's policy has generally been to buy existing, established brands. At this point I'm guessing somewhat, but I think incompatibility is the general state. Campagnolo aren't even players in the mountain bike marketplace.

With all systems, the width of the outside of thechain really drives everything else. Hopefully you can imagine, as you start putting more and more gears on the back, each cog must sit closer to its neighbour, and so the thinner the chain must become. This follows through to other components also. One of the most critical things is the rear derailleur, which is designed to shift the chain a certain distance every time you change gear. You can imagine that only the derailleur made for that number of gears will shift the chain the correct distance. If you mix this, the distance will not be quite right, although we're talking tenths of mm here between each gear.  So whilst the shifting is not perfect, you may judge it to be "good enough" by your standards. In that sense, it's a judgement call.

Lennard Zinn, who has authored a few excellent books on bike maintenance, has also written quite a bit on mixing over on Velonews.

The specific swap you describe may work just fine since nearly all SRAM chainrings and cogsets use the same spacings as Shimano.  So, mechanically, the SRAM cogs and Shimano cogs are interchangeable under whatever FD/RD you have.(Campagnolo, not so much!)

This assumes you are using a briter/shifter set that is compatible with your FD+RD combo.  (e.g. early D.A. or something else wacky won't work)  That's the real potential issue.

There are also concerns matching brake lever pull (range/ratio) if you use brifters too.  Those aren't even guaranteed to match across the same MFG line anymore... (e.g. Shimano's ultegra recently had a change to the brake pull setup... they'll still 'work' with mismatched components--old&new ultegra, just not as shimano intended--Brakes are one of the few dedicated safety systems on a bike, so make sure you're extra careful with mixing MFG/Lines there.)

In the end, it is all just simple ratios and lengths.  https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bicycles/Maintenance_and_Repair/Gear-changing_Dimensions may help explain some of this more in depth.  (as the question is a little vague for a really short answer.. e.g. would need mfg part#'s for chanrings, cogs, and shift-levers--which are not provided)

So, generally, for indexing to work, which I think is your concern... the gears really don't matter as long as the levers match them and the levers have a proper pull for the FD/RD.  (e.g. worry more about the lever compatiblity than the RD/FD)

However... After the swap, the bike will shift differently.  The big-three all sound slightly different when they change gears, so don't be surprised if the bike feels/sounds a little different after the swap.  A (new) chain that matches the rear cluster can help, but YMMV... your old chain may do just fine too!


Choosing the right size frame I'm planning to buy a bike. Based on my height (I'm 5 foot 6 inches / 167 cm) people suggested me to go for anything between 17"-18" frame.

When I calculated its coming as 17.5"

My dilemma is if I go for 17" (43 cm) as the frame is readily available is that right fit? Does 0.5" (12.7mm) makes a big difference in terms of comfortability and ride quality?

I'm looking for MTB or Hybrid. I'm 27 and my height is just below average.

Common wisdom is that upper body length, true inseam and riding style are important to bike fit, as is where/what you will be riding.

Riding offroad needs more frame/rider clearance than street or park riding.  You should have 4 inches/10 cm for true off-road mountain biking, and 1-2 inches (2.5-5 cm) for road or commuter riding.

One of the better bike fit sites: http://www.competitivecyclist.com/Store/catalog/fitCalculatorBike.jsp

Frame size is a very important issue, but don't stick to little details. That one inch will not really be the main factor of your final decision. You will be equally able to ride both with the right saddle height. What is very important Is for you to find and test some bikes around 17"-18" and choose one that will give you an upright riding position and won't force you to lean towards the bars to gain optimal control. Also keep that in mind: if you go for 29" or 27,5", 17" will be a better choice, but if you go for 26", 18" bikes will suit you better. Make a list with the bikes you are interested in, find sellers and test them. Don't be afraid to go for 29" or 27,5", 18" if you find a good bike. Changing a stem can fix everything. See ya on the trails!!


Worries about a gear ratio of 1:1? I'm planning a randonneur-like bike with drop bars, STI shifters, and nevertheless some low gears. The crankset could be a "compact plus" (I guess from Sugino), 44 and 28 teeths, and the cassette a normal Shimano 105 11-32.

With this setup, the second lowest gear ratio would be 28/28 = one.

I can imagine that this could add some particular mechanical stress on the the entire rear wheel, from the cassette to the spokes. But on the other hand, given that it's not the lowest gear, I probably won't use it for more than a few minutes in a row.
Should an exact gear ratio of 1/1 be strictly avoided ?

Edit: imagine a cyclist pushing from side to side as she/he stands to climb up a mountain road. As long as the 1:1 gear stays in, the rear wheel always get flexed in the same way.

1:1 and similar ratios are considered bad in automotive gearboxes. If there is one bad tooth it will soon take others with it, if it is always meshing with the same teeth. Automotive gearboxes tend to use coprime ratios (where the 2 gears have no common multiple) to avoid this.

There really isn't a similar issue on a bike. I suppose it might be a good idea to have a prime number of links on the chain to even out wear in case of a bad tooth, but the sprockets never come into direct contact, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Resonance shouldn't be an issue. the resonant frequency of the bike is going to be way higher than your pedalling frequency. It'll be in the audio range. Just give it a tap and you may hear it ring.

I have a cheap Walmart mountain bike and my 2nd lowest gear is also exactly 1:1 (24/24).  Why would you avoid a gear that is very useful?  I am setting up my bike so it has multiple underdrive gears instead of just 1 so I can better control my speed and cadence in low bike speed situations.  Having just 1 low gear is not as good as having several.  If all goes well with my conversion, I should have 3 underdrive gears.

So my answer is no a 1:1 gear should not be avoided since many bikes already use it even cheap $100 bikes like mine. So the logic is if a cheap bike can handle the stress, pretty much any bike should.  Also I will be going much lower than 1:1.  My goal is 0.59 lowest gear ratio (20/34) so I should be more worried than you, however, I would say avoid a 0.5:1 ratio because that is both a very low gear and an exact submultiple of a direct 1:1 ratio so that is one reason I am not going below a 0.59:1 target lowest gear.


How do I know if a given hardtail mtb frame is 'supposed' to have suspension forks? How do I know if a given hardtail MTB frame is supposed to have suspension forks? I read somewhere that if you want to convert a suspension bike to a rigid you need 'suspension corrected' forks which are longer. So I assume there are different types of frames based on if the forks are supposed to be rigid from the start and another design that is meant for suspension forks (?).
If that is true, assuming that I can't measure the slack angle of the frame, how do I know if the frame is designed for suspension forks or not?

Before suspension forks became commonplace, all mountain bikes were designed for a rigid fork. Fork length was sufficient to give good clearance between the crown and tire.

Suspension forks need to be longer than the minimum length rigid fork as obviously they need to compress without the tire hitting the crown. As suspension forks became available, frame manufacturers designed frames with higher headtubes to accommodate the longer suspension forks. Over the last few decades common fork travel length has gone from 20mm to over 150mm, and headtube height has increased accordingly. If you look at modern frames and frames from around 1990 it's easy to see how frame geometry has evolved.

So, one can say that a frame with a moderate to large headtube to axle distance is designed for a suspension fork. Modern mountain bike frames are designed for suspension forks with a specific travel and headtube to axle distance that results in a desired head tube angle. XC bikes have less travel and shorter headtube to axle distance, downhill bikes have more travel and hence longer headtube to axle distance. There are still bike frames that are designed for a shorter rigid fork: many fat bikes and minimalist rigid single speeds for instance.

I believe the term 'suspension corrected' comes from the early days of suspension forks when the previously typical rigid fork length used was shorter than contemporary suspension fork length. To replace a suspension fork with a rigid one, a longer 'suspension corrected' fork was needed to preserve head tube angle. Note that modern bike suspension is designed to 'sag' slightly with a rider on the bike. A replacement rigid fork needs to be the same effective head tube to axle length as the'sagged' suspension fork, i.e. slightly shorter than the uncompressed length.

What you really want to find out is what headtube to axle length and head tube angle a given frame was intended to have. If you know the brand, model and year, do some searching on the web, you might be able to find out what model fork it originally came with and what the length of that fork was. If you know the intended use of the frame (XC, enduro etc,) you can look up common head tube angles and use geometry to estimate the headtube to axle length.

Pretty much any modern mountain bike is designed for a suspension forks.

If you install a rigid then it will be suspension corrected.  There will be a gap above the wheel to the fork so it is the same length as a suspension fork.


Tire pressure on new bike I have the new Tommaso (was Timmaso) Imola bike with Tommaso Corsa TC20 wheels.  The tire sidewall says "max pressure 90 psi"

The tire is the kenda 700x25c.

I am 5'9" 220 used to be a power-lifter so pretty heavy. Question is can I inflate them to closer to 120 psi due to my weight?

This handy chart shows the recommended pressure for different rider weights.
Sadly it doesn't help you or me, both our weights are off the chart.

My road bike has 700x25 tyres, so I picked 100 PSI and aim for just over that when inflating.  The tyres are rated to 120 but that feels harsh and I get a lot more flats at those pressures.

Added: Since your tyres say maximum pressure of 90 PSI, you shouldn't go much over that.  Kenda's specs say 90 psi is the maximum for the "kenda street black mocha" so while they will survive more, the question is how much more.  Instead, consider replacing them with tyres that are suitable for higher pressures.

Note: This chart is purely referencing road tyre pressures.  If you have a MTB the pressures drop off really quickly.

Answer: I wouldn't go much over 90 PSI, but others have routinely put 100 PSI in Kenda tyres without issue.  Your weight suggests that a higher max-pressure tyre would be the best solution, aim for 120 PSI capable tyres in 28 width.

I'd just use the max. Start overfilling your tires and they'll probably be compromised and you'll bust em.


Does an adapter for a flat mount caliper to post mount fork exist? I have a CAAD12 disc which I'd like to fit SRAM Force 22 hydraulic to. I've been a bit enthusiastic buying things without really researching all the pitfalls of the different bits and bobs that go into disc brakes and compatibility thereof.

So, it turns out that the CAAD12 fork is post mount, but my calipers are flat mount. Is there an adapter to fit a flat mount caliper to a post mount fork?

From bikehugger.com

  What about fitting flat-mount calipers to post-mount framesets? Think again. No such adapters exist, and if I were you I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them to appear. It’s probably not geometrically possible.

Sounds like from that site that it's pretty much not even possible to get it working. Best option might be to sell your old calipers and get some new ones or see if anybody in your area is looking for a trade.

Yes adapters do exist in the aftermarket. But there are advantages and disadvantages

The pros include

You get to use the brake you want on the bike you want
other...

The cons include

You need to have another layer between your brake and your frame, which is another source of possible flex and loss of rigidity
Some additional Weight to carry around
Clearance may become an issue depending on lots of factors
other ...

Example of an adapter:

 from  https://www.assolutions.ca/


Giant ATX 2 2017 axle size? I have a Giant ATX 2 27.5 2017 and I broke my rear axle .

I sent it to my LBS, a week later they told me their axle fitted the front wheel but the back wheel was a different size.

They haven’t got the axle for it but at the mean time how do I get the axle size and what’s it most likely to be?

It has joytech hubs 32 spokes and has 27.5” wheels.

The info I have gathered on line suggests your bike is equipped with a 3x7 speed drive train. If that is the case the most likely axle is a 9mmx135mm QR (quick-release). You have apparently discovered the weak link in 7 speed freewheel drivelines. The issue with using a freewheel set-up is the drive side axle bearing is about 1.5 inches inboard from the edge of the frame. Unless you modify your riding style the axle is likely to break again. You can try to locate  a used 27.5 wheel with  an 8 speed cassette. Cassette wheels use a freehub not a freewheel. Freehub wheels mount both the bearings at the ends of the axle. You can have the rear derailleur adjusted to use only 7 of the rear gears. This will save the expense of buying an 8 speed shifter.

The Axle 'size' is really not relevant here. Axles are not a standardized part that come in a range of sizes.

I think what your LBS meant is that they had on hand, or ordered by mistake, an axle for a matching front hub, which is of course somewhat narrower than the rear hub. The axle you want is of course whatever part fits the model of hub you have.

By the way, if I took my bike to a local store and they took a week to just get back to me I would not use them again. Maybe they told you you'd broken the axle straight away and then took a week to admit they had not got the correct axle?


Is a damaged BB7 inner caliper pin dangerous? It was late when I tried installing some replacement brake pads, and for some reason the top of the replacement pads wouldn't fit properly into the channel that is supposed to guide the pads (lower picture). I didn't realize the pads were sitting too low after insertion due to an awkward angle and tiredness (and general incompetence). As result when I squeezed the brake lever the pin got squashed (first picture below).

Question

Does this damaged pin warrant replacement?  If so can this part be replace or does the entire caliper need to be replaced?

I assume brake force is not transmitted through the pin, as it is soft material, but I am not a brake designer so I am not certain.  Once I figured out the pads were not seating correctly, I knocked them in place with a rubber mallet and ran the brake.  Braking doesn't seem to be affected.

Side Note

Here is the channel that the top of the brake pads are supposed to fit

I think the only purpose of the pin is to retain the pad. So if you can convince yourself that the damaged pin isn't preventing the pad from sitting cleanly agains the "piston" and that it is prevented from dropping out, then I would be inclined to think you're ok.

I've seen instructions for rebuilding BB-7 calipers, which makes me think that parts might be available – at least in some markets. The SRAM/Avid number for the "internals kit" is A150080A and they appear to be available, I found links to the kit at shops in the UK, in the US Amazon lists the item, but doesn't have stock. In any case a whole new brake assembly isn't too expensive (considering that you get a set of pads and a disk as part of the deal), so if you have any doubts I'd just go ahead and replace the caliper (or see if you can get parts).

It looks that nothing else holds the pad on place except for this pin. So without this pin your pad should never sit well. I would say it even can fall down in some circumstances.
If I remember right, this part can be unscrewed all the way out, so you can try to find at least a second hand replacement of it.


Can your rims wear down from too much braking? I have a question about rims based on information in another question.  The person asking states that he doesn't want his rims wearing down.  Is this really a problem?  Assuming you don't wear the brake pads down to the metal, can the rubber pads actually wear down rims?  Does it make a difference if you use aluminium, steel, or carbon rims?  My rims are aluminium with  tiny grooves on them.  Is there anything I should look for to ensure that they aren't worn down?  I have over 10,000 KM of mostly city riding on my bike.

Short Answer: Yes

Longer Answer: Yes, but maybe not for the reasons you are thinking of. Rim wear is mainly caused by dirt and grime that gets caught between the brakes and the rim, rubbing it like sand paper. The most important thing to do is clean your rims and pads as often as possible. For that matter clean your drive train as well.

As far as different materials go, it is a lot easier to bend back steel than aluminium or carbon. So if you do have a steel rim you are better off if something goes wrong. There is a tool called a dental caliper (pictured below) that can help you find out if your rim is worn down.

Here is an interesting story and some good info on bent rims.

I had a Mavic 222 rim fail earlier this year.

The rim was around ten years old but had spent around 6 of these unused in a garage. The rim wall split, and the inner tub popped out locking the back wheel against the frame, I just managed to keep control of the bike, as I was going quiet fast at the time.

Thank goodness it was the rear wheel.

I replaced both rims, and now only use the back brake 90% of the time. I would rather wear through the rear rim, than the front for sure.


Is this a clipless pedal? I have bough a 2nd handed road bike recently. The seller said that the pedal could work as both platform pedal and clipless pedal.

Is it true? If yes, which system of clipless shoes can it work with?

Either the seller meant clipped pedal-as in you could bolt toe clips to it-or he didn't know what he was talking about. Those are not clipless pedals. They are VP road pedals that have an integrated toeclip:

As the comments said, adding a toe clip would make it a clipless pedal.

It may be too narrow for a platform pedal (depends on the width of your foot). The foot could slip sideways off the pedal.


Front brake cable loose from barrel adjuster The cable for the front brake on a rim brake has come loose, and I can't get it to squeeze into the barrel adjuster screw properly.

I'd guess that what happened is the other end of the cable slipped (at the anchor bolt on the brake). It probably wasn't tight enough and when the brakes were applied the cable pulled through the anchor bolt. Now the cable seems too loose at the barrel adjuster, but really it is too loose at the brake.

All you probably need to do is to loosen up the anchor bolt so that you can pull the cable back through and then tighten it down again. When you do this inspect the cable to make sure that it isn't starting to fray. If the brakes had been solid and this is a sudden change the cable fraying is one of the more likely reasons that I can think of for the cable suddenly becoming loose.

I had a very similar problem, I took it to a bike shop and they told me I was missing a brake pad.  Cost me $40 to get a new one and to get the brake tuned up.  Take it to a shop and they'll tell you what the problem is!


Crank pedal spindle hole thread stripped I'm attempting to reassemble my bicycle after it was shipped across the US. All is well; except one pedal cannot be screwed back in because the thread in the crank is stripped. The pedal itself seems to be fine thread wise, but I cannot screw it into the crank. I don't drive, and I live much closer to a home depot then a bicycle shop; I'm wondering if anyone has any repair suggestions? I bought a wrench to take the crank and arms off, but apparently I need additional tool too get it off; this was just an attempt at having more leverage to try and and screw the pedal in from the top. Anyone have any DIY suggestions? WD40, thread repair of sorts?

It turns out that the thread isn't completely stripped: just the first three or four threads at the entry point. I picked up some EPX cyle grease this evening, which I'll try tomorrow.

You can get parts to fix this, like the helicoil that work by cutting a new, larger thread into the crank then adding a spacer to bring it back to the correct size. They parts are relatively cheap, but the tool to cut the new thread is expensive. Which means that if you can find a bike shop with the tools it's going to cost quite a bit to have them do the work.

It's almost always going to be cheaper to simply find a second hand crank that fits, or if that fails buy a new crank.

As far as the rest of the tools, it might be worth buying a cheap bicycle tool kit rather than buying one tool at a time or travelling long distances to a bike shop. There are a number of specialised tools needed if you you're going to completely strip down a bike, and buying them one at a time adds up. My suggestion is buy the cheap-but-reasonable-quality set, then as you wear out the tools replace them with decent ones. That way the tools you barely use or where the cheap tool works well enough never get replaced.

Jb weld the pedal apply around threds or where the thread were hammer pedal on add more jb weld where needed let sit 24 hours problem fixed $5 for jb weld


Is it normal to have some soreness in your knees after cycling with SPD? I recently got some SPD pedals. Initially, my seat was too high (old pedals added about 3/4th of an inch to height), and at the end of the downstroke, pulled uncomfortably on my knees. After even moderate rides (~5k), it would be painful walking up stairs, for example.

Anyway, figured that part out, lowered my seat, no problems for several weeks. Weather gets better, start ramping up the distance I travel, and now I find that I get a (much) less painful version of the same thing after longer rides (>40k) with a headwind.

Is it normal to get some soreness in your knees, or is this a sign that the seat is still not at the right height? Is there an algorithmic way to adjust seat height?

If your bike is set up with a proper fit to your body, and your pedal's cleat position is set up for your body, soreness in your knees like you describe is not normal.

Whether the discomfort you are experiencing is simply muscle soreness, as in "I exercised heavily and my body noticed" or whether it requires corrective action, is harder to decide.

If the discomfort is only after heavy exercise, like 40+ km rides in a headwind, I'd be inclined to say its because the pedals are new to you, and you're building the muscle you need to use them, as your body adapts to pulling up, not just pushing down on the pedal.

However, if this continues to be an issue for more than a few weeks, consider having a bike fit done which includes cleat positioning.

Also, if you are not riding off road, and you have purchased mountain bike style SPDs, rather than the road version, consider getting the larger and more supportive version. Unfortunately, this would usually also require new shoes, but many riders report cramps, hot spots, and muscle soreness when riding longer, uninterrupted distances on MTB clipless pedal designs.

It's still not the right height. Try lowering it another half inch.


Gatorskin Wirebead vs Folding (Which gives a smoother ride) This isn't your usual wire bead vs folding question, I realise whenever anyone asks folding always comes out better.
I've just renewed the rear tyre on my Specialized Tarmac from the factory S Works 700x24C for Gatorskin 700x25C (wire bead as it's all the shop had) and it's like putting Nike Air shoes on my bike.
I live in Cornwall, UK it's quite rural and the roads can be bad, and the good roads the council likes putting stone chippings down which destroys the surface, changing to the Gatorskin as make the road so much smoother.
I now want to replace the front as well which isn't so urgent, if I invest in a folding will the ride be more/less smooth or the same?
Many thanks and stay safe.

Folding bead alone will not affect your ride in a notable manner.
Here are some things which will affect the ride a lot more than whether it's folding or wire bead:

Tyre width (bigger = smoother)
Tyre pressure (lower = smoother)
Rim width (wider = smoother)

The difference between folding and wire beads are not really about comfort.
You could argue that the sides of a folding bead tyre are a bit softer than one with a wire bead, so if the tyres are the same or similar price, go for folding. Personally, I have not noticed the difference between my folding and wire Gatorskins.

The main differences between folding bead and wire bead are

Wire bead has a metal loop in each side where the folding bead has a kevlar belt
The wire bead tyre weighs a little more than the folding tyre, compare the specs for exact numbers
The folding tyre takes less room so you could pack a spare tyre with you in less space than a fullsize tyre.
3b.  Also, the folding tyre costs less to freight as well because of the smaller package, but costs slightly more for the tyre.

Effectively to you the rider, there is no noticeable difference.  The weight difference is not noticeable.
Personally I go folding tyres on any bike I want to ride a lot, or up a lot of hills.  For shopping bikes I'd use the cheaper wire tyre.


What is the easiest to upgrade my chainrings from a double to a triple? I have a 2007 Specialized Tarmac Pro Double and I need some better gearing. I am doing more hill climbs and I feel that I need at least two lower gears than I already have. What would be the most efficient way to upgrade my bike. Would it be easy to get a triple chainring? Will I have to get a new derailleur? What else would I need to change?

You have a couple different options. I think the cheapest would be to switch to a compact crankset which would change the front chainrings from 52-39 to 50-34.  I'm pretty sure you could do this while still using the same shifter. Changing the front shifter is required if you want to go from a double to a triple, as is changing the front derailleur.  If you switch to a compact I'm pretty sure you can keep the same derailleur and shifter.

Another thing you'll want to look out for is the rear derailleur.  You currently have a short cage derailleur, and you may need a medium or long cage derailleur when you go with a compact crankset.

I don't think a triple should really be necessary on a 10 speed system.  I have triple, but I have an 8 speed cassette. I find in that case the triple is nice because you can still get lots of gear range while still keeping the gears close together, However, on a 10 or 11 speed cassette, this isn't really necessary.  I think that switch to a compact crankset is a much better option.

Also, according to This post, the maximum cog size of a short cage Shimano short cage is 27 and the total drivetrain capacity is 29.  To use a larger cassette, you would have to switch out the rear derailleur. If you used a compact crankset, you should be probably also replace your rear derailler for a medium cage, as your total capacity would be (50-34) + (27-12) = 31.  However, if you changed the cassette to a 12-25, you could get away with not replacing the rear derailleur and still getting a little bit lower gearing, although possibly not enough for your needs.

While there are many good answers from the community, it all depends on the rider. As being the rider for this scenario, the correct answer is to tough it out and just build up muscle to go up hill. Since posting this question more than a month ago I was able to train enough to be comfortable going steeper hills in higher gears thereby not needing a change in my components. Thanks everyone for your help, a vote up for everyone!


How do so many bicycles end up in the canals of Amsterdam? I heard this peculiar story about 20,000 bicycles are fished from the canals.

Found a video that show how its fished out

It's tragic, why can't they be recycled?

Why do you think they aren't recycled? EU legislation is pretty strict on what can go in landfill and it would be very surprising if the bikes fished out of the canals aren't recycled (i.e., melted down and the metal used for something new). 20,000 bikes is going to be at least 200 tons of scrap metal.

After being underwater for a while, the bikes are probably sufficiently badly damaged that their parts can't be re-used: components such as bearings would probably be damaged beyond economical repair and structural components such as the frame and wheels would have corroded to an unknown amount and can't be guaranteed to be safe.

so the bikes might not get recycled because the bikes have been in the canal so long that the bike parts deteriorate and corrode to the point of not being fixable. Now, I have never been to amsterdam and don't plan on it, but it could possibly salt water, and salt water is a moving part's worse nightmare.


Riding a Mountain Bike in the city I just moved from where there wasn't much of a biking system infrastructure.  There were lots of trails though, so I bought an OK mountain bike ($350).

Now, I've moved to downtown Seattle and everyone bikes.  I'd love to get into it but not sure if a mountain bike is efficient for road-use.

Should I look into a conversion kit?  Should I just get a road bike and have one off-road and one on-road?

I would at least put road tires on your mountain bike - they really improve your efficiency on pavement.

If your commute is urban w/ lots of stops & traffic navigation, the mountain bike handlebar setup can be more maneuverable for tight situations than a road/touring bike. I do miss the maneuverability of my mountain bike since switching to a road bike. A commuter or hybrid bike may be a very good option, with the handlebar & fork designed for more urban situation vs. being tuned for long-haul riding.

I put road rests(padded handle bar extension)  on my High Timber, it goes like a road bike but maxis out sooner, 20 mph on a flat road. A lot more agile than a racer style road bike though.


Cannot shift to lowest gear - chain too short? I’m in the process of switching from an 11-25 to 11-32 rear cassette.  The upgrade has involved replacing the cassette, rear derailleur (short to medium cage) and fitting a new chain.

I can cleanly shift through all rear gears on the small front cog, however on the large cog I’m unable to shift to the lowest few gears.  Towards these lowest gears the rear derailleur looks to be under a lot of tension, the upper jockey wheel is not engaged and things get jammed up:

I believe I’ve sized the chain too short but I’m looking for confirmation as I thought I used the largest front/rear without derailleur + 2 links when sizing.

If I have sized things incorrectly can I just pick up a few more link pins and add some links back?  Anybody able to offer suggestions on how many additional links to add?

Yep, chain too short.

Yes, you can add some extra links in. The chain is new so you wont have links with different amounts of wear.

What I would suggest is splicing the left over links into the chain first. Then you will have a chain a few links shorter then original unshortened chain. Then size, re-cut and join it.

UPDATE: I was reminded by a comment that you cannot push out the link pin used to join the chain. You have to break the chain in a different place and push out a regular pin. Therefore, when you splice a section of links in you will have three link pins in the chain (the one you first joined the chain with and one on ether end of the spliced in section). This is very important. The link pins are of a slightly greater diameter than the regular pins and widen the hole through the outer plates when pushed in. A link pin installed where a link pin was pushed out will be substantially weaker.

I prefer Park Tool's recommended method to size the chain because it is far easier to perform (and safer). All you do is size the chain on the largest sprockets without threading the chain through the derailleur (because the chain would be pulled straight through the cage anyway). Without tension on the chain it's easier to hold in in place and mark the appropriate link.

No need to be cross-chained like that with multiple chainwheels and my experience has been that only an SGS caged derailleur with handle 30+ sprocket teeth reliably.  Try moving B-tension screw clockwise to give the guide pulley more room.
It's troubling when you've followed the directions for chainsizing correctly and then it seems too short in practice. I've seen set-ups on mountain bikes where the derailleur cage is laid out pretty much horizontal on the big-big (XT shadow on Cannondales) and the shifting is quite fine.


Derailleur adjustment: front or rear first? When adjusting both front and rear derailleurs, which should be done first?

If the derailers just need minor tweaking (they are basically in adjustment but are "not quite right") then you adjust the one that is obviously wrong, check the overall adjustment again, then again adjust what needs adjusting.  Often only one derailer needs adjusting and often the adjustment is just a half-turn of the barrel adjuster.

If they are completely mucked up (but nothing visibly bent/broken), I usually first check the front for parallel and sprocket clearance (they often get knocked out of alignment), get it on the center sprocket, then address the rear.  Once the rear is basically correct, get the front to where it will shift to all rings with modest accuracy, then, trying all combos, adjust the rear some more.  Finally, fine-tune the front, then fine-tune the rear.

But it varies with the bike, how recalcitrant the derailers are, and specifically what is out of adjustment most.

Start with the rear derailleur, then work your way up to the front. For a tutorial search for GCN on Youtube. They have a pretty good series of videos about this topic.


What is safer...coaster brakes, rim brakes, or fixed gear braking? I currently have a 'regular' bike, i.e. a bike with hand rim brakes but I've been more fascinated recently with single speed and fixed gear bikes. One of the reasons that I've held off on getting on is the braking.
How does coaster braking and braking on a fixed gear bike compare to rim brakes?  I live in NYC and want to make sure that I can brake in all situations!

A track bike (fixed gear) has no front or rear brakes.  You slow the bike down by resisting the turn of the pedals but you need to be careful to not push too hard, which can lock up the rear wheel and cause a skid.

But most fixed gears aren't true track bikes.  You should be able to find one that has standard brakes on both the front and rear wheels.  The front brake is especially important since that's where most of your braking power comes from on a normal bike.

A coaster brake is basically a drum brake in the rear hub.  Pedalling backwards engages the brake.

Personally I would expect a bike with a normal front rim or disc brake to be "safest".  Front brakes have much more stopping power because your weight shifts to the front wheel when slowing down.  Plus you can control the amount of braking power more easily by hand than by resisting with your feet.

Hand brakes are great for emergency stopping but horrible when you just want to SLOW DOWN your speed to round a corner.  The bike jerks to an abrupt halt and you can come crashing down. I feel more in control with coaster brakes.


Clicking noise in rear wheel that stops on load. Bearings? The bike is a Merida Speeder 10 flatbar and about a month old.

I've noticed a rhythmic clicking from the rear wheel. At first I thought the wheel may be bent and the break pads were catching, but that is fine. I also noticed that the noise stops when there is load, eg: when I am pedaling up a hill.

The noise occurs both when cruising and when free wheeling. It happens in any gear and at any speed.

Could the bearing be worn?

Yes this was the bearing. The wheel was cheap, as was the bearing, and was slightly buckled. The bearing just got worn out.

I would not recommend this bike (Merida Speeder 10) as the quality is terrible.

There are many issues possible. It could be the rear gears need tuning or the axles could be bent. It could also be that the wheel is simply out of balance. I would recommend taking the bike to a shop to at least diagnose it as the problem could be from a variety of factors.

However, if the problem isn't really affecting your ride, i would just leave it as most times you end up wasting money fixing trivial problems.

But thats just my opinion. Good Luck!


Is this a helmet defect or not? I bought a new Giro Savant helmet online and, after unboxing, noticed that the EPS foam seemed to be quite jagged and uneven at the intersection with the dial system (see photos below).

This does not look like damage to me and the foam was probably cut that way. I have seen a few images/unboxing videos online that also seem to have quite jagged foam at the intersection, so this suggests that maybe most of the Savant helmets are like this.
I am not bothered with the cutting of the foam if it is just cosmetic but obviously I would need to know that the helmet is not compromised before I can use it.
I would really appreciate any advice so that I can determine whether the helmet is safe to use.

The jagged and uneven edges you are seeing around the straps are merely cosmetic. At best they are at the minimum tolerance for manufacturing quality and at worst are an isolated case of tolerances going wrong during production.
Either way, as long as the integrity of the foam in the helmet is not compromised (by virtue of crashing or the like), then it is safe to use. Happy riding!

I am not bothered with the cutting of the foam if it is just cosmetic but obviously I would need to know that the helmet is not compromised before I can use it.

Every single helmet built barely to spec is compromised.
If you consider the bicycle as a rod whose weight is evenly distributed, when the bicycle falls with tire contact point as the pivot point, the moment of inertia is
I = 1/3 * m * L^2

The rotational energy is
E = 1/2 * I * w^2 = 1/2 * I * v^2 / L^2 = 1/6 * m * v^2

When the bicycle falls, its energy comes from its center of mass at approximately height of L/2 converting its potential energy to rotational kinetic energy:
1/6 * m * v^2 = m * g * L/2

Calculating for v:
v^2 = 3 * g * L

Helmet spec (EN 1078) uses v = 5.5 m/s (about) so v^2 = 30.25 m^2/s^2.
In reality, when you fall, you get v^2 = 3 * 9.81 m / s^2 * 1.8 m for a rider with 1.8 meter height. So, in reality, v^2 = 53 m^2/s^2.
So, the speed squared of the head when falling is 75% greater than the speed squared in EN 1078 test. Energy is proportional to speed squared, so its kinetic energy is 75% greater too. For a rider with greater height than 1.8 meters, the problem of underspecced helmets is even more severe.
I wouldn't trust my life to a funny looking expanded polystyrene hat.
I think you'll find every bicycle component and accessory, helmet or otherwise, is built to be as lightweight as possible. The bicycle itself and its components are built to fail in an amount of time most riders consider acceptable. The helmet is constructed to barely pass the helmet tests, which severely underestimate the velocity of the head.


Do I really have to replace the cassette when I replace the chain, or is this a scam? My chain broke so I brought the bike in and the guy told me "Well you don't have the old chain, so we have to replace the cassette also. They go together. If you don't replace the cassette then the chain will skip when you pedal hard."

Is there any possible truth to this, or is it just a scummy attempt to turn a $20 job into a $75 job?

For reference, the chain and cassette were both only about a month old, and had both been installed at the same shop - although they didn't seem to remember these facts when making the case for needing the new cassette.

At our shop, we suggest a new cassette every 2 times you replace your chain, IF you stay on top of your maintenance schedule. With 99% of customers this would mean a new cassette every 1-2 years depending on how much you ride it. If you are a commuter and ride everyday, your timeframe for replacement gets much smaller.

We would also assess the condition of the bike. If it looks like it has been neglected, we can, with high confidence (we do hundreds of these bikes a year), tell that you would need a new cassette as well.

What I tell every customer in your situation is as follows:

  A chain that is not cleaned regularly will attract and hold dirt. That dirt will act like 50-grit sandpaper on everything it touches. When the chain stretches out, it will wear the cassette equally. If we try to put a new chain on a worn out cassette, the teeth on the old cassette will match the old worn out chain and won’t properly hold the new chain. We recommend replacing the cassette for every 2 chains so we can guarantee shifting performance from our tune. If replacing the cassette is something you want to hold off on we can try to put a new chain on the old cassette, however we may find that we can tell what your favorite gears are and it may skip under load.

You can always ask them to just put a chain on, check to see if they can make the adjustment, and call you if it is skipping or poorly shifting.

However, since your chain and cassette were only a month old when the chain snapped, unless you have a bent/broken tooth on your cassette, it should be good if everything else is adjusted correctly.

As far as the snapped chain, it may come from manufacturer defect, improper installation, or you may need to revise your shifting strategy.

  You want to make sure you’re not cross-chaining. This will put a lot of stress on the components and will wear things out quickly and possibly snap your chain. Also, your bike doesn’t have a clutch, so you have to back off on power when your shifting. Right before you’re about to shift, let off pedaling a bit and wait for the gear to change. This will increase shifting speed and accuracy.

We do see a lot of customers resolve shifting problems with proper information on shifting. (If you’re shifting the proper way, then disregard. It’s more for people who will view this post later.)

if youre going to buy the same chain brand with the same length and size as the old one then i dont think the cassette needs to be replaced too. Maybe the mechanic doesnt have the same chain type that you have. If you could buy the same chain brand new then i think its better. Im using Shimano olive chain for my fixed gear. 50:17 gear ratio.


Can the Shimano front derailleur prevent a gear of my bike from working? I recently bought a used rigid mountain bike, I'm very happy with it but I realized yesterday that I couldn't access the smallest chainring.

This one has a total of 3 front gears, but only numbers 2 and 3 are accessible.

I tried to adjust the Shimano but nothing works, I can't use chainring 1. (I am a beginner not an expert)

Can the problem come from the Shimano? Should I look at something else?

Note: bike reference: B'TWIN Rockrider 5.0

Photo from priceminister.com

Your front derailleur is probably just badly adjusted, although there may be issues with the shift cable or housing, or potentially even the shifter.

I'm not sure if by 'chainring 1' you mean the innermost or outermost. If outermost the cable is probably just too slack so the shifter cannot pull the cage outward enough. If innermost something is preventing the cage from swinging inwards, perhaps too much cable tension or something is jamming it.

Adjusting front derailleurs can be a bit tricky as cable tension, limit screws and alignment all potentially have to be dealt with. Park Tool has a good series of videos on derailleur adjustment that walk you through the steps and explain what each adjustment does. Front derailleur video is on this page. It's a good idea to go through these steps as if the derailleur has been knocked out of alignment no amount of adjustment will fix it.

You can work through that but it's not entirely guaranteed to produce success. If you are a real bike novice find a good local bike repair shop and have them fix the problem. It would be a good idea to have them check the rest of the bike at the same time, especially brakes and rear shifting.

There are two screws on top of your front derailleur:

They adjust, how far to the left/right your darailleur might move, and thus the chain. This is to prevent the chain from being shifted off the cogs, which is possible with the screws untightened and enough slack on the cable for shifting.

Vice versa, these also can prevent the derailleur from moving far enough to the right or left to push the chain onto the outer cogs. So, as in the picture, take a screwdriver and fiddle with the screws, until everything works. As stated, be careful not to loosen the screws too much, since this might result in the chain going off the cogs.


Chain vs chainless options Could someone provide a comparison between having a bike with a chain, with a shaft drive and with a belt drive like the Gates Carbon Drive?

It could be good to know who fares better in terms of low maintenance, durability, and efficiency.

For fixed, single speed and hub gears belt drives are great, if slightly more expensive initially.  They don't work with derailleurs.

The key difference is that as chains wear they also wear the sprockets and chainrings and therefore all need replacing if you leave it too long or don't lubricate often enough.

Belt drives are used in many applications which are harsher and less maintainable than bike drivetrains - 70k Miles @ 3000 RPM for a car cambelt should give you confidence to fit and forget a belt on a bike. Also used on big motorbikes (Harley, Yamaha, Buell) as a chain replacement.

Shaft drive is too inefficient and heavy for practical use on a bike.

I have both chain and belt drives on different bikes - they do different things but are both fit for their respective purposes. The chain needs lubricating frequently and replacing from time to time. And the belt-drive simply doesn't.

Bike radar did a pretty good article on this, which you can find here.

My personal opinion is Carbon Drives/Shaft drive are quite fancy but pretty useless. They are more expensive, require specific frames which are usually quite expensive, and their try to solve a problem that simply does not exist. With a carbon/shaft you can only run a single gear hub (maybe with internal gears, but that's not the point). A normal bike chain lasts a few years in mountain/road riding and keep in mind rear derailleurs play a huge part diminishing a chain life. On a single speed bike the chain pretty much has no wear and just lasts and lasts.

Regarding maintenance, if you live in a dry climate, the oil on the chain will last a few months, and if you constantly ride on the rain I don't believe you don't have 20 seconds per month to spray it with a good oil. Because that is all it needs.

I do have a bunch of cheap (around $150) single speed bikes with chain that have been working perfectly for a few years with once a year maintenance.

Please keep in mind this is an opinion assuming money is a conditional when searching for a new bike. i.e., I am saying that for practical purposes, when you justify them comparing features and price, chainless options are not worth it. In the same it is not "worth it" to have a Ferrari, even though I sure would love one in my garage.


How can I make it clear to other road users that I'm an inexperienced cyclist? I'm in my mid-20s and I'm currently learning to bike, on my own, as I don't have anyone to teach me. My goal is to be able to commute to work when I want to, be able to travel to nearby towns, and more generally to get over the frustration of not knowing how to bike.
Practicing turns, signals, maneuvering and the like on an empty parking lot is one thing, but I figured if I wanted to do the above, I'd have to actually get on the road at some point, so I've begun biking in the city. I had no extremely close calls so far, but I'm occasionally given "weird" looks by other road users, or honked at. When it's cyclists or pedestrians, I explain that I'm currently learning and ask them what I did wrong; folks are usually receptive ("we've all started somewhere!") and describe what I shouldn't have done, what I did by the book but they didn't expect me to, etc.
However, I can't stop motorists, and shouting "SORRY I'M NEW TO THIS" is unlikely to be heard, and more likely to be misheard as an insult. I have no way of knowing whether I was honked at because I was doing something dangerous, or the driver was just annoyed by me biking slowly, as my current average speed is about 10 km/h (6 mph). At the same time, the driver has no way of knowing whether I'm a cyclist unconcerned by road rules, or just an inexperienced one: people will make the natural (but wrong) assumption than mid-20s me being on a bike means I know what I'm doing.
I'd like to have something to make it blatant to other road users that I'm a newbie. My goal here is twofold:

Motorists being a bit more cautious around me (though they should be to begin with, since as a cyclist I'm more vulnerable than they are)
Not harming the cyclist community by having people think stuff like "cyclists are jerks who behave like they own the place, just look at this one".

Since I'm mostly thinking of high-speed users here, it should be something that can be seen and acknowledged in a second or so. For instance, in my country, young drivers (driving license obtained less than 3 years ago) have to stick an "A-disk" to their trunk:

I've thought of patching one up with a white cloth and red marker, but I'm not sure it's the best thing to do:

I'm not sure how I could make it stay on my backpack;
I have very long hair (it reaches the middle of my butt), which I have trouble keeping tucked under a jacket while biking. I'm afraid my hair may hide the A-disk;
I've never seen a cyclist with one, so I'm not sure motorists would understand it's a serious thing and not some kind of accessory.

What else could I use, or how could I improve the A-disk idea?
Some precisions, if relevant:

Location is a French city with more than 30k inhabitants. From my inexperienced cyclist's point of view, it has a decent amount of bike paths and bike lanes, and the car drivers seem pretty patient (compared to the "cyclist nightmare situation" I've heard of in the biggest cities like Paris, Marseille, etc). I'm careful of taking the routes I've judged to be the most cyclist-friendly, but there are still cars (i.e. danger) on them.
I have a helmet, a bell, a (weak) front light, a pump, side and back reflectors. I am thinking of buying a rear light and a high-visibility jacket.
I can signal but only with my left hand.
I can't bike while standing up on the pedals (yet).
I don't have anyone to ride with me, and I can't attend the biking lessons given in my city (I'm at work when they take place).

I've searched this site for beginner signal, inexperienced, without success; and Googling variations of this question's title only bring up results about learning to bike as an adult, what to think of when biking in the city, etc, not this specific point about "beware the newb" signalling.

This is an interesting and thoughtful question, and just the fact that you are thinking carefully about how other road users think about you is very valuable and will contribute to your safety on the road.
Your question makes a lot of sense. How do you indicate to drivers that you need and deserve their consideration and patience, especially when you have doubts about your own skill on the bike and the road right now?
Unfortunately, I am not sure that being seen as inexperienced will result in drivers being more considerate. I think it is likely to have the opposite effect. Just look how impatient and inconsiderate drivers can be when dealing with a learner driver who holds them up or inconveniences them.
Even children, unfortunately, don't in my experience get treated with more patience or consideration.
My warning would be that making your inexperience clear to other drivers is likely to have negative results.
Three points
Instead, I believe that the key things are to be:

noticed - the driver has to see you in the first place
thought about - can you give the driver reasons to think more carefully about you?
respected - can you give the driver reasons to consider your value and needs?

One of the best things I've read to help think about this is David Martin's Theory of Big. I won't repeat its points here, but I think it's well worth reading.
Regarding those points above:
To be noticed
Are you brightly lit, visible, do you stand out, catch eyes? Do you ride in a visible position, make clear, large signals? How do you dress, and move?
Mostly, these are easy things to do. Riding in a visible position needs confidence though; that's not always so easy.
To be thought about
It's not enough merely to be noticed. You want to take up some space in the thoughts of drivers. What can you do to achieve this?
Unfortunately, once again it often does take some confidence to ride in a way that helps you get thought about.
For example, on a road that I know has pot-holes or gravel in awkward places, I will ostentatiously signal and move widely around them; this can help a driver think "oh, this person moves around and does stuff" (not: "I can slip by this cyclist without a moment's thought or without leaving much room").
If you need to signal, signal in big, clear, impossible-to-miss ways that look like they express meaning. What you signal are your intentions. The physical act of signalling will get you noticed, but the expression of your intention is what will get you thought about.
More: at a traffic light on a busy road, if I am stopped in front of a car, I might pretend to fiddle with a brake or pedal or gear, or tug at the strap of a pannier, just to occupy some attention of a driver while we wait for the lights to change (when? sometimes I just get a feeling that this might be a useful thing to do).
Or, if I spot an on-coming car on a narrow country lane, I will make sure to move clearly across the line of sight of the oncoming driver before slipping in to the side of the road to make room. I don't disappear into a hedge before the driver has seen me.
Generally, you want to ride in ways that are cautious and predictable but without appearing to be too predictable. If a driver is sure that they know what you will do, that can be very dangerous. Better that they are never entirely sure what you will do, so that they stay alert for what you actually do.
I try to look as though I might do something that needs them to respond to appropriately. I want them to imagine that the wheels might suddenly fall off my bike, that my bags might burst open strewing shopping in their path, that I might suddenly stop to admire a flower or greet a friend.
It's important to note: I am absolutely not recommending foolish or dangerous behaviour. Weaving around unnecessarily around other road users is dangerous. Doing unpredictable things is dangerous. Riding on unreliable equipment can be dangerous. Actually having a loose bag is dangerous.
There are two more important ways that help you get thought about. They are to:
Make strong, clear eye-contact
Eye-contact is valuable. You exchange a lot of information - for example, you can communicate an intention - but you also simply place yourself in another's thoughts by it.
Avoid eye-contact
Sometimes, the opposite is called for. If a driver thinks you haven't seen them, they will be thinking about you and wondering what you will do. That's exactly what you want. So sometimes, I studiously avoid catching a driver's eye.
Which of these two techniques you adopt in any particular case will depend on the precise circumstances; I'm not sure I could formulate a clear rule. Both require and demonstrate a kind of confidence.
But either way, you don't want to appear as an uncertain, diffident road-user whose intentions and future actions are of no consequence and don't need to be thought about.
To be respected
Finally, you need to be respected. There are two senses to being respected:
You need to be respected as a human being
People, mostly, will recognise and respect another's humanity. Show that you are a human being, a being like them, to whom they have a duty of care.
The acts described earlier that help you get thought about flow directly into this. Now, as well as being thought about as a road user or as another vehicle on the road, you want to take another step, to be thought about as a human being.
So do human things, and look human.
I might take my hat off (I don't bother wearing a helmet, but it's not a discussion I'm much interested in having) and scratch my head on a long downhill stretch. "Oh," thinks the driver, recognising that I am a person just like them, "that person has an itch." Or I will tuck my top in, or pull it out. I might blow my nose at the traffic lights. Something that shows that I have a human body will never be to my disadvantage.
I'm not suggesting to make your bike rides into an unrelenting pantomime of extravagant gestures and unnecessary actions. You don't need to put on any kind of absurd performance (which in itself would be dangerous). It's rather that what you do, when you do it and who you do it in front of makes a difference, so you need to think about it, and use it to your advantage.
You need to be respected as a respectable road user
As well as automatically deserving respect as a human being, which you'd hope would be recognised by all, it also helps to earn respect. Maybe this shouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately, it often is.
Ride politely and considerately. Obey the rules of the road, and make a point of doing so. Stop at lights. Courteously invite motorists to pull out or pass when it's safe to do so.
If a driver makes way for you, make it clear that you thank them. Don't just wait to notice it, try to catch drivers in the act of being considerate so that you can acknowledge it.
Finally, people often respect people who behave as though they deserve respect. That is a good way to ride: confidently, as though you belong on the roads, as though you expect their consideration and respect. Diffidence and uncertainty will unfortunately lose you that respect from some drivers. Act confidently - such as making signals and decisions - even when you don't feel like it, or at least, as much as you can.
This is why I think that advertising your inexperience can do you more harm than good.
It's really hard to do many of the things that I have advocated above. They take confidence, and experience, and practice. Many of them involve demonstrating your vulnerability as a road user, but not your weakness.
I hope this helps, and I hope it helps think about how you need to appear in the eyes of other road users.
I wish I could offer more useful advice about how to do this, for a person who doesn't know already how to. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy your riding and acquire the confidence you're looking for.

My recommendation would be to relax.
Do not excessively worry about drivers around you.
Just stay to the right of your bicycle lane like most laws specify.
I have seen riders not caring to stay to the right of the bicycle lane.
They are just asking to be hit.
Do NOT run stop signs or lights no matter how tempting it is.
When I am driving a car, I will go to the left lane to allow clearance for the bicycle rider.
But many drivers do not do so.
Take care,
Andy


Is it OK to have a single front chainring paired with 7 speed at the back? I'm planning to have a single front chain ring to be paired with my 7 speed at the back. I'm still saving up for a 10 speed.

Without taking into account whether it's a good idea or not; yes it's possible, with a few caveats.

You have two issues:

Chain line i.e., alignment between the front rings and rear cassette.

The single ring needs to be aligned with the center of the cassette so you minimize the lateral deflection on the chain and avoid excessive wear on the chain and sprockets.

With a 7 speed rear its likely that you have a triple set of rings. If so just us the middle position for the single front ring as it's aligned with the middle of the cassette. If you have a double, things are trickier but you may be able mount the ring on the inboard side of the spider.

Dropping the chain

The front derailleur helps to keep the chain on the front rings. Outer rings help keep the chain on inner rings. With an unaided single front ring there is a greater chance of dropping the chain from it.

1x11 setups feature a narrow-wide chainring that have alternating narrow and wide teeth that fit between the inner and outer chain connecting plates to more firmly hold on to the chain. If you are looking to do this conversion as cheaply as possible you probably don't want to get a new chainring. Leave the front derailleur in place to act as a chainguide.

You don't say whether you are saving for a whole 1x11 bike, or or planning to replace the drivetrain on you current bike. In either case this article may be of use to you. If the latter, bear in mind you will need to check compatibility between your freehub body and an 11 speed cassette.

Absolutely,  it's like having a triple with a broken cable. Keep the derailleur on if you can.


Alex CXD6 Wheelset Clincher or tubular? The 2015 Kona Jake the Snakee has Alex CXD6 wheelset installed, but i could not find any information is it for tubular, clincher or for both tire types ?

It has Challenge Grifo Comp 700x32c tires but apparently there are both tubular and clincher version of those available too.

That wheelset includes clincher-style rims that are tubeless compatible.

Be sure not to confuse tubular with tubeless. Tubeless looks similar to a clincher (beads on each side, open on the bottom), but doesn't use an inner tube, while tubular is a single whole tube with tire and inner tube combined; these tubular need to be glued on the rim.

100% Clincher. Nobody makes a production bike with tubulars - way too much of a liability issue. An improperly glued tire is extremely dangerous. Also gluing tubulars on is a very time consuming process which isn't possible in a mass manufacturing environment.


What percent of crashes are due to bicycle failure? I find myself avoiding steep/fast downhills. Not because I'm afraid I'll lose control, but because something might happen to my bike that will send me face-first into the pavement.

Are there any statistics on this?

Edit------

By "crash due to bicycle failure", I mean a crash that would not have happened if something hadn't happened to the bicycle. This would include, for example, pounding your bike over bumps, resulting in the stem breaking. This would not include losing control because you pounded your bike over bumps.

By "crash", I mean an accident serious enough to be documented. If you fall over at a stoplight because you couldn't unclip, that obviously won't be documented and therefore doesn't count as a crash.

There are some statistics available from Great Britain for Contributory factors for reported road accidents. Below are the 2014 figures for Pedal Cycles, the first column is number and the second is percent.

Note that only reported accidents where a police officer attended the scene are included in the statistics. This Wikipedia article has some details of the methodology used to collect the statistics.

The complete data set is available here. The data above is taken from the table RAS50005 - Vehicles in reported accidents by contributory factor and vehicle type, Great Britain, 2014.

No, there aren't statistics on this; "crashes" are not generally reported. Even if we we had all equipment-crash* data we don't have all human-crash** data.

*Crashes caused be equipment
**Crashes caused by cyclist error

EDIT to add for Frisby's sake:

The statistics that some guy compiled based on observations he makes by looking out his front window absolutely defeats my statement that the statistics don't exist. But that's obviously absurd. The point is that the data is not collected, it's not compiled, and no conclusions can be drawn - ergo no statistics which can be used to calculate risk.


I want to ride a bike, but its dangerous for me to have weight on my arms I ride about 6 miles a day to work and back.  I would like to ride more, but because of a bum shoulder I am increasingly getting into dangerous situations and I want to give up riding.

I have a Giant bicycle that I got used off a guy.  It's a fine bike, but the angle is such that all my weight is pressing down toward my hands.  I have dislocated my shoulder at least five times from things that should not have even caused a problem (e.g. I ran over a walnut and my shoulder dislocated.  Another time a dog barked and the startle made my shoulder dislocate.  Both times I fell off the bike in the middle of the street).

Hopefully in the near future I can get some surgery to rectify the shoulder problems.  But I am looking for a bike that I can use for getting to work and back, with a more upright seating position that would put the weight on my butt, not on my arms.  I would also appreciate a bike whose gears do not ghost shift while going up a hill.  Any suggestions for what I should be looking for in a more suitable bike?

I don't have the rep here yet to upvote or +1 a comment re: @jqning 's answer so instead; I offer this "I second what he said about Townie."
I suggest Townie (w/ admitted/disclosed bias) because it is what I ride. I don't have a bad shoulder but I do have 1 artificial knee, 1 artificial ankle and nerve-damage in my right hand; all of which limit mobility. The model I chose is a 2011 18-spd 2200d electra. It suits my physical handicaps more-than adequately; being a "bike-person" few of my materiel possessions out-rank it. it would be almost impossible to replace; if I had to I'd go with their current model; which would not be optimal for me...but for someone with shoulder problems -- it would.

the problem with your current bike is the stance. you're pitched too far above and in-front-of the bike's center of gravity.

for your shoulder, you want to be hanging-back...behind it--like on a cruiser-style frame--- where the handles are elongated and reach back (even downward a bit) to get to your hands. **This needs to be done comfortably, safely and most of all, the bike still needs exceptional vel. & accel. (because it's a commuter) and primarily, **it needs to be fun to ride.****

check out their specs .... test drive an Electra -- the current models comes in 7speed (1 up front, the 1st gear in back is extra-extra low-low). try similarly-designed-bikes too. if I could list other brands/models I would...well Schwinn and the brand you have now likely produce a similar style - many of the larger brands have knock-offs; some =ly good; some (possibly) better; depends on your budget. This style can easily (prob. w/o a custom/after-mkt handlebar, seat, etc) be adjusted to lower your center of gravity so when ur ON the bike, it takes all (an extremely significant amount of...)the pressure off your shoulders and redirects/displaces it to parts your body that can bear it.

bottom line - in your question you said "...I want to give up riding." even though I take this a bit out-of-context...there it is; in the lead of your question - if you really did? you would not be on SE asking other OCD socio-paths what to do.

The bike is the problem - scrap it:

try a bunch of new bikes
new designs
new brands

Change "I want to give up" to "I should change bikes- don't give up."

Hope I don't sound like an advert-- the company no longer manufactures the 2200d - which to me, is a neg on their business strategy. in all fairness this statement should bring some objectivity back into my inherently biased answer.

If you LIKE riding; please don't quit. it beats walking, it's healthier and safer on your bones & joints than jogging and is comparatively FREE as opposed to a combustion engine, electric or hybrid ANYTHING. ALSO; the energy spent makes YOU healthier, as opposed to the spent energy of other vehicles; which mainly damage pocketbooks, the economy and the air.

Stay up, Tapper

First of all, make sure your saddle position is correct. With proper seating position and strong enough pedalling the stress on your hands and shoulder is greatly reduced. Otherwise professional cyclists wouldn’t be able to ride for dozens of hours per week.

If saddle position alone doesn’t help you should be able to raise the bar with a different stem and more fork shaft spacers.

If it’s impossible to solve your problem with the existing bicycle I’d suggest a recumbent.

Cruisers and Citybikes are highly inefficient, heavy and have lots of aerodynamic drag.


Cycling shorts: comfort vs bacteria / fungus? I picked up endurance cycling a few years ago (30 - 100 km rides), and bought a few pairs of padded lycra shorts because that's just the thing to do. I wash them after every ride -- at least soap in the shower, if not a proper machine load -- but I'm finding that I still get a flare-up of jock itch after every ride that takes a day or two to clear with medication.

Over the past week I've been trying the experiment of riding without the padded lycra; just normal shorts, and have had no jock itch whatsoever. I'm also pleasantly surprised that I don't really notice a comfort difference with pad vs no-pad; I guess my sit bones have hardened up :)

Questions:

Is this normal / expected?
Is there something else I should be doing pre-ride to reduce jock itch?
What is the point of padded lycra, and is it worth putting up with infections?
Should I just throw out my lycra and wear simple running shorts instead?

Normal detergent should be enough even with cold water. I do have sports wash but don't use it every time. Getting stuff properly dry (ideally not machined-dried if you want it to last) is crucial though, and keeping it dry for a while seems to help too. Some sports fabrics can feel dry when they're not completely.  Washing stuff out in the shower is a bit of a last resort - OK when touring but not really enough, and hard to get the pads dry in a reasonable timescale.  I'd rather wait a day until I've got enough stuff to fill the machine.

I didn't bother with padded shorts until I was doing 70km pushing hard, and now up to about 4 hours saddle time even cheap foam-padded ones are adequate.   You seem to be in a similar position, so you could try buying another cheap pair or two, and always thoroughly (machine) washing them and thoroughly drying them.  Store your existing shorts thoroughly washed and dried. If you start pushing the distance further you might find you need (gel) padding after all.

Ditch the riding shorts, if you're not having health issues when you don't wear them you've answered your own question. Best of luck to ya!


Would a MTB frame be too long if fitted with drop handlebars to build an adventure bike? I would like use a MTB frame to build an adventure bike, for the following reasons:

Use disc brakes
use wider tyres
avoid a using a gravel/cyclocross bike/frame because doesn't allow wide tyres and they are expensive

I am worried about the fact that a MTB frame is quite longer than a road bike and a cyclocross bike, and so the top tube will be long and with stem and dropbars will be too stretched and so uncomfortable over a long day on the saddle.

Would these factors make an adventure bike on a MTB frame too long, and so too difficult to ride over long distances? Or are there other considerations?

How long is a piece of string?

Any bicycle is possible, which is the beauty of a bicycle in general. Bicycles can be anything really - roadies, MTB, single-speed, recumbents, even giant A-frame types that have steps to get to the saddle!
Your question is very theoretical and will require a proper re-write because you're not being specific to a particular bicycle or size that we could say ok.. here's what you need.

As an "answer", all I can say now is that you take your frame and your new build to a competent bike fitter and get fitted for the bike! You may find all that geometry might have to be thrown out the window for the sake of your posture, back and skeletal health.

Good luck!

Another consideration is hauling gear.  Mountain rarely has rack eyelets. Front suspension does not take rack and is inefficient.

You could get a slight shorter mountain it still lacks many features of an adventure bike.

You are going to pay like $300 for drop bars and good fixed fork to take a rack.

This is just one model

I find them used for less than $1000 every once in a while.  Someone thinks they are going to ride across the country and never get around to it.

You can install touring tires and use it as touring bike.  Also great for shopping.


Freehub pawl system vs star ratchet system If you were to choose between a Hope Pro 4 hub and a DT Swiss 350 or 240, purely based on their freehub types, ie Hope's pawl system or DT's ratchet system, which would you choose and why?

The main question is, which system is better, and why?

Just to be clear, these are the two types

Pawls System:

Ratchet System:

Hope hubs are a very refined, reliable execution of the pawl design. They don't do much to illustrate the disadvantages of the concept that designs like the star ratchet are trying to address.

One potential downfall of pawl systems like Hope uses is that when things go wrong with them, either the pawls or the part inside the hub shell that the pawls engage, which I'll heretofore call the "drive ring" as it's named by some manufacturers, can become damaged. Typically the drive ring is a hardened steel piece threaded into the shell. Some potential scenarios:

If the pawl mechanism is underlubricated, contaminated, underpowered and/or imprecise, partial engagement between the pawls and the drive ring can occur. In this situation the pawls haven't sufficiently sprung up into the mating teeth of the drive ring at the moment the rider applies drive force. Instead the tips of pawls and the drive ring teeth ram into one another and may slip, potentially causing damage to either or both. Pawl-based drive systems can all do this under the right circumstances, it always has some destructive potential. It's also possible for issues with unequal spring tension, damaged or displaced springs, or other imprecisions to create a situation where some pawls get overloaded and become damaged or fail. Avoiding any such issue is one of the main goals of systems like the star ratchet.
There can be hardening problems with the pawls or drive ring. Sadly I've seen this on the drive ring once or twice on well-known, expensive, small production hubs, which were at least able to be warrantied. Issues of this sort are of course possible with other designs, but see below why it's painful with drive rings.

In either case, the teeth of either the pawls or drive ring can become chipped and deformed. At that point the problem can begin to build on itself. The teeth have to be sharp for the system to work as intended.

One thing about drive rings is that few manufacturers make them easy to replace if something does go wrong. When it is possible, either you need a new one plus a weird, expensive, proprietary tool that goes in and mates with the teeth, or in some cases you need to send your wheel in to the manufacturer. High-end aftermarket hubs and some wheelsets will typically give you one of those two options. Beyond that, neither option usually exists. You can find some high-dollar wheelsets where once the warranty period has elapsed, addressing a drive ring problem is difficult or impossible.

So while the drive ring is not technically a dynamic surface that's integral to the hub, in practice it might as well be in many cases, and my experience is they can be a little more damage-prone than people realize. Pawls and their hardware are typically more available, although sometimes they can only be replaced along with a new freehub body. And for older, lower end, or OEM hubs, they may be unobtainable.

More aggressive sealing and spring force are both design weapons against engagement issues on a pawl hub ever occurring. (Hope hubs take both pretty far). Reliability is increased at the expense of marginally increasing drag while coasting, the funny thing about coasting drag of course being that to a point, it's not a great concern in most riding disciplines where it's reasonable to split hairs about performance.

Systems like DT Star Ratchet and King Ring Drive, which I'm going to arbitrarily call "drive plate" designs, are trying to make partial engagement closer to being physically impossible, even with contamination and poor lubrication. Contact area is increased at every step of the torque transfer, and it's between two unified pieces, rather than separate pawls that are only as good at engaging all at once as their spring tensions are equal. Extant examples of drive plate hubs make all parts fairly easy to replace but very seldom need it, due to their efficacy at distributing load over more area. This quality is of heightened value in a hub one invests in with the intention of re-using indefinitely as rims wear out.

Pawl systems have an advantage at each approximate price point in the rate of engagement numbers they can obtain while still being reliable overall. At the high end, Industry 9 is a poster child, with ROE numbers down to 0.52°. Plate type systems have in contrast seemed to find their limit at 5-6° for a King or 240, presumably because their torque-transferring parts are smaller by necessity and so making the toothed/splined parts any smaller would sacrifice too much strength or otherwise become impractical.

Another way of looking at is that pawl and drive ring systems, and especially the highest performing ones, need to push everything to the limit in terms of materials, hardening, machining precision, matched spring tension, etc. The best ones are only the best because of how close they fly to the sun. Plate systems don't have that dynamic, but at least as far as what exists to date, they take a little hit on rate of engagement potential.

I personally feel that between the Pro 4 and 350 freehub, both are reliable but the star ratchet design gets there in a way that's more elegant and robust. But, the 8° ROE on the Pro 4 versus 18° for a stock 350 would be a reasonable deciding point. Different riders value ROE very differently, and for good reason.

Let us revisit what the goals of a freehub are:

To transmit rotational forces reliably in one rotating direction only
To do so silently
To do so with minimal backlash (quick engagement)

The star ratchet isn't very good according to those criteria:

Reliable
Noisy as hell
Backlash the same as the tooth angle difference in the ratchet rings

The pawl system is much better:

Reliable, unlike what the star ratchet fans would like you to believe
Can be made silent
If there are 4 pawls, it is possible to offset them in such a manner that backlash is one fourth of the angle difference in the ratchet ring

Based on these, a good implementation of pawl system is the superior choice and
even the worst possible implementation of the pawl system is better than a star
ratchet.
Unfortunately, many pawl system implementers fail to see that elasticity of the
mechanism causes only one pawl and tooth to handle all of the load at a time.
Thus, for example a system of 4 pawls is often designed in such a manner that
all pawls engage at the same time, meaning the backlash is the same as the
angle difference in the ratchet ring. This symmetrical placement of the 4 pawls
achieves nothing (the intention is probably that all teeth would distribute the
load evenly but due to elasticity it won't happen) while at the same time
maximizing backlash.
Often times, star ratchet is much more expensive too. It is mainly made by DT
Swiss at a great expense. For example Shimano hubs have a much better silent
pawl freehub body and the right side bearing in Shimano hubs is very close to
the right end of the axle, minimizing axle failures. Furthermore, Shimano hubs
are far cheaper than DT Swiss. Of course this doesn't mean that all pawl hubs
are cheap: certainly there are pawl hubs ten times as expensive as Shimano but
not ten times as good.
Also, it is worth mentioning that no matter what freehub system you have, the
freehub body must be made of steel. An aluminum freehub body will have the
sprockets dig into the aluminum. So if you have a choice between star ratchet
with steel freehub body and pawl system with aluminum freehub body, you are
better of selecting the steel one.
Similarly, there are other considerations when selecting a hub too. One of them
is the material of the axle: it should be chromium molybdenum steel. Any hub with
aluminum axle will break in no time. Also hubs where the right side bearing is as
close to the axle end as possible should be preferred, and cup-and-cone bearings
should be preferred over industrial cartridge bearings because the cup-and-cone
bearings have a full complement of balls.


What method or algorithm is used for computing power curve on Strava? Many cycling analytics apps like Strava, TrainingPeaks or GoldenCheetah are offering the critical power curve chart, computed from the power meter data.
I'm familiar with the curve meaning and usage, but I'm curious how the curve is computed from the time series.  I guess it is a more general statistical method, but my search for the literature with method description was not successful so far.

From Strava Support:

  The Power Curve shows your best average power for time periods of 1 second up to the length of your ride. We search your entire ride and find these best efforts and you can compare them with your best efforts for your last 6 weeks, the current year, years in the past, or all-time!

  -- Using your Best Efforts Power Curve (Summit)

As you are already aware, your critical power (CP) is the maximal power you can sustain without fatigue for a very long period of time. CP is also sometimes defined as the maximal power produced over a finite time period (e.g., CP30 would be the maximal power you can sustain for 30 minutes). The Strava power curve  therefore gives a variety of CP values across an array of duration intervals.

In the past might have been done with lab experiments (e.g., you warm up, then do a maximal effort on a bike ergometer or on a power meter equipped bike for a series of set durations), where you would then infer intermediate points based on some type of interpolation or statistical model (e.g., Monod-Scherrer).

With continuous performance tracking (i.e., bike computer + power meter) this can be done empirically  by querying all data within a ride or over a period of time (e.g., last 6 weeks) to determine the maximal power over a set of differing time intervals. These independent queries are then used to build the power curve displayed.

The Strava Power curve, is therefore an empirical curve based on cherry picking your best efforts for a series of durations, dependent on context (i.e., current ride or past effort(s)).

If you never put in a hard effort for a given duration in your ride, or in the past, then the empirical curve will underrepresent (i.e., biased low) your actualized potential if you were to do a real maximal effort. That said, if you didn't put in an maximal effort over a given duration (e.g., a 5 minute interval) you will clearly see it in the power curve associated with the ride, as the curve at the 5 minute mark will be lower than your historical best.

What About Statistical Model Fitting?

Another possible way to generate the curve is to assume that the true power curve of the athlete (what you would like to estimate) follows a particular mathematical form (i.e., parametric) and estimate the parameters associated with that mathematical curve based on your observed values and some sort of objective function (i.e., likelihood).  The problem with this approach is that you have to get the form of the latent curve correct, which can be difficult as people do not have uniform abilities across differing timescales.

For example, some athletes may have very strong short-duration power (e.g., 30 second CP), but lousy long-duration (e.g., CP60, otherwise known as functional power threshold [FTP]). As such correct form of the parametric curve will depend on the athlete, making a generalized fit routine problematic.

There are of course other alternatives that are more flexible with regards to the shape of the curve. Some of these include fitting splines, general additive models, or kernal smoothing. These are all computationally expensive and come with their own set of assumptions and drawbacks.

Given the volume of available data, an empirically based curve is simpler and likely more robust.  You typically start fitting parametric statistical models when you are more data starved and each individual data point is more trustworthy.

It is probably more simple than you think. The data we have is usually a series of wattage readings collected every second. Open the GPX in excel (I export a csv from golden cheeta) and then you can sort the watt column by largest to smallest. The average of the top 60 readings is the 1 minute cp, top 600 - 10 minute CP and so on. So you can just make a new table with cumulative minutes and then write a formula to grab the averages of the different numbers of top data - something like =average(large(A1:A800,1:60). This is then easily plotable from there.


When do bearings need to be replaced? How do I know when bearings need to be replaced?

Should I go by time? Or is there a symptom to guide me?

I refurbish a lot of older bikes for re-sale.  The first thing I do is to pop off the wheels and manually turn the axles to see if the bearings are suspect.  If the axle turns roughly, has side-to-side play, or is hard to turn...They probably do.

There should be "no more friction than supplied by the grease" when turned by hand.  You cannot do this with the wheel on the bike.
If you have the tools; cone wrenches and such, then a wheel rebuild is both easy and cheap.  The best-grade #25 bearings are inexpensive.   If the cones are shot it's a different story.

Time?  My police patrol bike, with well over 3000 miles, still feels perfect.  If you ride in the rain a lot, or ride off-road through mud and sand and through water crossings, naturally you're going to need more frequent maintenance.
Bearings are something to check say...Yearly for most riders.

If you turn your handle bars with the front wheel off the ground and there is clicking or friction then your bearing is bad and needs replaced