Damage hole in seat tube after sandblasting, is it possible? I had this 29er steel 853 Reynolds frame, with the paint in very bad state, no rust or corrosion,
so I decided to have it sandblasted and repainted,...
The result I think that it is that I got it damaged with a hole in seat tube, just over the housing stop, after sandblasting, is it possible?

The picture lacks the resolution needed. Rust can creep under paint from a small chip, and in that spot(behind the seat tube you say?) it would get a large amount of water and slop. As for the shop, a bad operator with the wrong blasting abrasive can easily erode a hole like this, with a reasonable operator it is not likely, even a brass plug should be safe unless it was soldered improperly and basically fell out.

Do not leave it open or it will collect splashes, condensation, and then rust inside. A spot of siloxane/silicone caulk or gasket maker will suffice, get clear or try to match the color a bit. Another option is a smooth/round headed sheet metal screw of the right diameter, "thread cutting" type.(fine thread not the coarse "self tapping" sort)
 Be sure to dope the threads with some low strength loc-tight, grease, or gasket maker(only one, not all three) so it doesn't rust in place or rattle out.

No visible rust. Sand blast only has the power to blow out rust.

And I would have gone for powder coating.

What would they have in the shop to punch a hole like that and not leave a dent?


Breaking and reconnecting modern chains I started riding in the eighties back when derailleur chains didn't come with quick link connectors (master links).  Since that changed I've been using my chain breaker to get new chains to the correct length and then use the quick link to connect it.
I have a SRAM 8 speed chain that's pretty new that I need to remove and reinstall on the bike.  I don't know if disconnecting and reconnecting the quick link is a good idea.  Any reason I can't do things the way I did back in the eighties and nineties?  Have modern chains changed?

Shimano chains are still connected using the connection pin and the chain tool. There is nothing wrong about it, just use the special pin. But do not do that for chains that are not made for this and for which there are no special connecting pins available.
So, use the quicklink for SRAM chains. The Shimano pin will probably work, but one does not know how reliably. Some SRAM chains even use special hollow pins or what not so use the approved joining methods.

I have a SRAM 8 speed chain that's pretty new that I need to remove and reinstall on the bike. I don't know if disconnecting and reconnecting the master link is a good idea. Any reason I can't do things the way I did back in the eighties and nineties? Have modern chains changed?

A long time ago, I bought some SRAM 8 speed chains too. The reason I did so was that I found some old brochure about the connecting methods, and they specified chain tool as one possible connection method (with quick links being the recommended connection method). The brochure had a model of a chain that was still sold although the brochure was few years old.
Since I don't like quick links, I threw the quick link away. I connected the chain with a chain tool. Then, when just pedaling along, the chain suddenly snapped. I had a chain tool in my emergency tool kit so I just reconnected it, thinking that I must have done a poor job in connecting the chain. Then some time later, the chain again snapped. I had to reconnect it again.
After this, I carefully investigated the chain. I noticed that the chain pins were punched. So the press fit between the chain sideplates and the chain pins is not strong enough. The chain pin is pushed to the chain sideplate and a machine punches it at both ends to improve retention.
If you push a chain pin of this type through the sideplate, both the punching at the end of the chain pin, and also the sideplate hole, will be damaged. When reconnecting, these damaged parts do not have a secure press fit.
A new SRAM brochure no longer listed chain tool as an allowed connecting method. So what must have happened is that SRAM changed its manufacturing method to have poor press fit and improve the retention by punching the pins, without changing the model name of the chain that was sold.
This caused me to switch to Shimano chains and never look back. The Shimano special reinforced connecting pin can be pushed to side plates that have been damaged by pushing a punched chain pin through them, costs some extra, and does not allow using the same connecting point again so you must be sure to break the chain again at a different point. However, the Shimano special reinforced connecting pins are cheaper than quick links, weigh less than quick links (important for keeping your emergency toolkit weight down since ideally you will be carrying not one but few of these), and are very easy to install, far easier than installing a standard chain pin. The benefits outweight the drawbacks: most chains see very few if any removals in their lifetime so the extra costs are not an issue (these stupid bushingless chains last so little with proper care anyway and are cheap so it's not worth the time and effort to clean them properly off the bike), and the maximum amount of times you can reconnect a single chain is equal to its link count, usually 116. I don't think any chain will be removed more than 116 times in its lifetime.
At least the Shimano still sells chains that allow not using these stupid quick links.
So, the short answer to your question is: YES, modern chains have changed, and NO, you cannot use the old chain connecting methods anymore. But with Shimano you can use these special reinforced connecting pins with a standard chain tool.
There may be some benefits of the punched pins. They allow shifting when under load. On a non electric bike, an experienced cyclist does not do that, but the response time of electric bike motors is not so fast that shifting without any load would be feasible on electric bikes. About the only way electric bikes would allow shifting not under load is electric shifting -- standard mechanical shifters are not connected to the motor computer, so the motor computer doesn't know when you are about to shift and cannot reduce its electric assist in advance to anticipate the shifting.


Which puncture-resistant tires? I commute on city streets and have had two punctures in 5 months: first a roofing nail, second a small shard of glass.

Punctures are a nuisance.

I've read some people recommend Schwalbe "Marathon" tires. A comment in reply to Are slick tires worth it for commuting? also mentions "Conti Gatorskins, Specialized Armadillos, Soma Everwears, et al."

Is there anything to distinguish one from the other? For example if an LBS stocks Conti Gatorskins should I say, "No, I'm looking for Marathons"? Or are they more or less equally effective (price and, more importantly but less easy to measure, puncture resistance and rolling resistance)?

My wheels are 700x32.

The Schwalbe Marathon Plus (not just the Marathon) is widely regarded as the most flat-proof tire out there. It's also heavy and expensive, but if your priority is avoiding punctures, I don't think it can be beaten. ISTR reading about a round-the-world rider completing 50,000 miles on a pair without a flat.

Specialized Armadillos are not, in my experience, particularly flat-resistant, although there might be a beefier version than the one I was riding on. I have no experience with the Gatorskins.

Anyhow, there are definitely differences between flat-resistant tires. There are even differences between Schwalbe Marathons variants.

I never really understood this obsession with puncture proof bicycle tyres. Bicycle tyres are lightweight and full of air. If a 3 inch nail is heading for your tyre then it IS going to puncture it, no matter what tyre it is. It`s mostly luck and recommending one tyre over another because you didnt get a puncture with it makes me think that person was on his lucky streak at that time.


Cause and diagnosis of wobbling crankset/chainring I was replacing the chain recently.

When spinning the crank I noticed that the chainrings are slightly wobbling along the axis. I was able to see the wobbling with my eyes.

First check

I kind of verified the wobbling by holding a screwdriver next to the largest chainring's teeth. When spinning the crank it was touching the teeth when the right hand side crank was the bottom.

The wobbling was in the range of 1mm - 3mm.

I removed the crank from the bottom bracket. Then I pulled and spun the bottom bracket axle to verify it's not loose or grinding or wobbling itself. It was OK, no slackness, fluently spinning, no noise.

Note that, though it looked fine, back then I had problems fitting the new bottom bracket due to a damaged bottom bracket thread.

Fortunately I had a spare crank set at hand. I attached the left hand side crank at the right hand side. Now I had two cranks attached, none with chainrings. The idea was to match the cranks for their masses and eliminating any imbalance of the chainring crank compared to the left crank.

Then I gave the crank a hefty kick assuming that, if the bottom bracket were off-axis, the cranks must wobble, which I could feed and maybe see.

Holding the bike firmly perpendicular I felt no major wobbling of the bike. So I assumed the the bottom bracket is on-axis.

Not knowing how to further diagnose the problem I reassembled everything and finished the chain replacement.

Second check

After a couple of kilometers cycling I checked for the wobbling again using the "screwdriver method" (this time with the chain in place) and the wobbling appears to be gone.

Additionally I did another check with another method:

Pointing a laser beam perpendicular onto the chain's teeth "bottom land" orthogonal to the axis. Then I spun the crank. The idea was, that if the chainring was wobbling, the laser beam must "touch" the chainring plane.

This time I was unable to detect any major wobbling.

Other issues

Before dis- and reassembling the crankset I had a clicking sound for months when pedaling.

It only happened when putting force on the right hand side crank and only along the way from the crank arm was parallel to the ground to when the pedal was at the very bottom. (Inspired by one intermediate answer: it might have occurred when the force reached its minimum.) I narrowed it down by putting force on the pedals separately and at different positions (angles).

The clicking sound is gone now. Re-seating the cranks was on my to-do list for isolating the clicking sound anyway.

I also had the problem of a slipping chain covered in another question. Though it might was caused by another issue (mentioned in the other answers), that issue might be related to this one too.

Further: I now realized that a periodic scratching sound of the chain on the front derailleur arm may have had its cause in the wobbling.

What was wrong?

Could I have attached the crankset badly during the previous assembly? Is it likely that a octalink crank may misfit the axle (mounted at a non-zero degree angle for example)?

Is it unlikely that there was a wobbling in the first place that could have been cured by re-assembling? I mean, if there was a wobbling and a clicking that are now both gone, I find it very likely that there was definitively a fault.

I want to understand possible faults and causes I should look out and avoid in the future.

May the misalignment, if there was any, have permanently damaged the crank or the bottom bracket?

Since I had trouble with the bottom bracket thread, might the bottom bracket be misaligned by some millidegrees?

Setup

Crankset FC-T521 (octalink)
Bottom bracket BB-ES51 (octalink)

Edit: added a little more explanations and clarifications to observations and questions

For me, that clicking sound nails the diagnosis - the only thing I have ever seen that causes that is an issue with your bottom bearing - either it isn't tightened up enough, or the bearings are worn and can slip. As you put maximum torque on a pedal, a loose fit on your bearing allows the crank to force movement in the bearings outside the bearing race. They can then click back in as pressure is released.

This matches up with having a "wobble" in your chain ring.

Tightening things back up can very easily have solved your issue - although be aware of any future problems, as the time you spent with the clicking noise would have induced more wear. I had this problem many years ago, and ignored it (I know...) and by the time I got round to looking at it I had to replace a number of components that were damaged...

I just read your story. The octa link system has a flow and crankset never sits perfectly on bottom bracket. Shimano has realized this and the are phasing octalink out and replace it by one piece crankset. Jus stay away from octalink system as it doesn't matter how many times you try and fix, eventually it would go wrong.


Clicking/cracking noise while seated My initial suspicion was that the clicking/cracking noise my bike makes was coming from my bottom bracket. But today, I noticed that when applying full power while standing up, no clicks are present.

When I am not standing, my center of mass obviously goes to the back of the bike. Therefore, I suspect the problem comes either from the back part of the frame (closer to what I hear) or the rear wheel (less probable in my opinion).

My frame/rear wheel have a warranty of 2 years, so I would really like to know if the noise comes from the frame or the wheel. Is there a way to diagnose such a thing? Removing the bottom bracket and inspecting the interior of the frame would be worth?

The only way to rule out a wheel issue would be to get another wheel to test?

The noise was coming from the seat post. Removing the dirt, reapplying some grease and re-tightening the clamp solved the problem. I have also identified that the seat clamp is kind of broken, and the saddle was not leveled.

Thanks for the comments, I didn't know that noises coming from the seat post were that common.

I point out a thorough review on the bike.

Dismount the Botton Bracket, hubs, derailleurand(front and rear) and chain.

Lubricate parts, then, do a new test.


When should I not use my front brake? I have only been riding for a short time and I remember when I was a child there was a belief that if you used your front brakes going downhill that you would fly over your handlebars.

However, my friend who is a long time rider said I should use my front brakes more often as they are more efficient and you would have to be doing something crazy to go over.

Is there any truth to the belief and should I use my front brake the most?

This comes under the category of things taught to children which simplify the whole truth in order to facilitate learning and keep them safe. Late on they will be ready to learn how to use the front brake effectively.

When children are learning to ride, they are learning lots of new skills. Balance, pedalling and braking. They don't need to apply a lot of braking force as generally they are travelling slowly - whilst still learning - and also have lower mass - than most adults. So, for safety's sake and to simplify the learning they are taught to apply rear brake first, and front brake later to reduce the likelihood of going over the handlebars. In the conditions children are learning in - generally not wet slippy roads - the risk of skidding or fishtailing from applying the rear brake first is lower than the risk of going over the handlebars and the consequences are likely to be lower impact.

Once you have learnt the balance and pedalling and can ride the bike reasonably well. You can move on to more advanced skills to become a really competent rider. One of those is how to stop more quickly when going at speed and with more weight on the bike (i.e. you're bigger). Now the risk of skidding the rear brake, or just not stopping in time due to inadequate braking force applied for the speed and mass is greater and needs to be dealt with. If the front-brake is used properly it can apply much greater braking force, without the risk of skidding associated with the rear brake. The most critical things is to ensure you keep your weight behind the front wheel and not over the top when applying the front-brake. To do this, ensure your weight is toward the back of the bike and that your arms are braced against the handlebars to absorb the force and keep you on the bike.

Actually you can always use front brake but you should never lock your front wheel if handlebar is not in straight position. You definitely do not want front wheel skidding because you cannot control it. Plus this applies a twisting force to handlebar and can pull out of your hands.

FYI: despite the other answers said, inertia pushes you from the saddle toward the handlebar when you decelerate whichever brake you use, front, rear or both. One could fly over the handlebar because decelerating too hard, regardless of brake used.

Also, adult have more mass than kid, and therefore have more chance to fly over due high centre of mass of bicycle-cyclist.


How to cut a brake/derailleur cable? I need to cut a cable, cleanly enough that it can be inserted in its housing.

What kind of cutting tool do I need for this?

I probably won't be using it more than once every few years, so cheaper options are preferred.

Also, tips to make sure the cable does not get disorganized when cutting would be appreciated.

Note: This question is not about cutting the housing.

You need a cable cutter. All of the companies that make tools for bikes make them. Here are a few options:

http://www.parktool.com/product/professional-cable-and-housing-cutter-cn-10
http://pedros.com/products/tools/brakes-and-shifting/cable-cutter/
http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1030380_-1___400625

As some of the other answers/comments have pointed out, it's a good idea to stick an awl (I use a fine-point nail set for finishing nails) in to the cut end of the housing after the fact to clean it up.

For the inner cable, the cable cutters will cut it cleanly with no prep or clean-up needed.  If you're going to use a pair of regular wire cutters, then you'll want to use the solder trick mentioned in other answers.

That being said, you really should replace the housing when you replace the inner cable.  It's rare for the cable to be worn to the point of needing replacement without the housing also needing to be replaced.

Alternately, you can use a Dremel tool with the cut-off wheel. Some people swear by this approach:

Personally, I don't cut the cables, ever. Most cables are soldered at the end to keep them from fraying and even if they aren't, a drop of super glue can perform the same function. After threading the cable through the housing, just coil up the remaining bit, looping the cable around the coil at the same time to keep its shape, similar to the picture below, but in a much smaller diameter circle, and much tidier.

Why do it this way? No tools required, of course. But it also has the added benefits of always having full cables as backup in case one breaks. For example, if your rear derailleur cable snaps during a long ride, it would be better to replace it with the front derailleur cable (it's full length, remember) and adjust the stops on the front so that the chain stays on the chain ring you prefer. Then you'll at least have a range of gears rather than just a few chain rings to get you back.


Can I replace the front front derailleur with chain guide? My front derailleur (Shimano LX T670 / 34.9mm) has been stuck on the highest gear for a couple of weeks now which has got me thinking about how little I use it. To save weight could I replace my front derailleur with  some sort of static chain guard/stay to keep my chain on the same chain ring? Does such a thing exist for three speed chainsets (Shimano T780 48Ax36x26 with chainguard)?

I am not ready to completely convert my bike to a single speed just yet as I imagine I could install the front derailleur back on if I decide to go on a more adventurous journey compared to the daily commute where its not needed.

Update

While the FD is only 155 grams I do enjoy finding ways to save weight here and there, before you know it it's half a KG lighter. The problem with leaving it on is that the spring has rusted into place almost at mid shift, this causes the chain to rub the side of the chain guide which produces an annoying sound and causes it to occasionally jump to the middle chainset.

For now I have simply removed it but in the past on a different bike I suffered from chain jumping which is what I am trying to avoid by using a chain guide.

Thanks

The simple test is just to remove the derailleur. Some of them have a screw holding the bottom of the cage together, in which case it's easy - just undo the clamp holding the derailleur to the seat tube, the cable clamp, then once it's loose undo that screw and wiggle it off the chain.

Without that cage screw you'll have to break the chain which requires either a quick link that can be undo by hand, or a special tool. Putting it back on afterwards is slightly more complex but quite doable for most people. If that works, you can then remove the cable and outer, and possibly the shifter (these days likely to be built into the brake lever so not removable).

But as Batman pointed out, the front derailleur is not the heavy part of a multi-speed setup. Most of the weight loss from a single-speed conversion is in losing the extra chain, cassette and rear derailleur, and the maintenance benefits also come mostly from not having to adjust the rear derailleur. So the total benefit is likely to be low. You might also lose a little weight by removing one of both of the extra chainrings, but again not every much.

Jump is when the chain stays on the gear but does not come off the gear - it skips.  Off is when the chain comes off.

Chain tension is more to keep the chain from coming off. Yes chain tension would help jump but if you have badly worn gears / chain the tension is not going to save jump.

A chain jumps when the chain and or chainring are worn.

A keeper is not going to do much to stop jump.  A keeper may help to prevent the chain from coming off.

If your gears, chain, and rear derailleur are in good shape your chain should not come off even without a font derailleur.  When you look at you derailleur you may think it is there to keep the chain on but it is really just there to move the chain.

Chain rings are ramped to help them move up.   You can get them that are not not ramped.  Un-ramped chain ring should help a bit.   Un-ramped leaves a little more metal on the chain ring so it should last longer.  I went un-ramped when I converted my mountain bike to a single speed.
Chainrings for single chain ring set up.
RaceSingle
SurlySingle
From Surly:
If you are using a single front ring with multiple cogs out back, a chain guide is recommended to prevent the chain from jumping off the chainring.

The XC in this video is set up with single chainring (Race) and no guide.
XCversusTrail


How can I safely go downhill on an antique penny-farthing bike? I recently picked up a vintage penny-farthing (high wheeler) at the flea market and, after restoration, adopted it as my normal mode of transportation.

It works well for the most part, but going downhill terrifies me as I don't want to lose control and fall from more than a meter up.

Certainly this problem has solved before. How can I safely go downhill? Are there reliable braking systems?

Forget trying to use the brake to slow you down.  At best, the brake may shed a little speed if you're not travelling too fast, on the flat, but backward pressure on the pedals is the more effective way to lose speed (again, only really possible on the flat).  The brake will be 100% ineffective once you gather momentum and head downhill.  There is one hard and fast rule to follow:  If you can not see the bottom of the hill, or there are obstructions further down, which will require you to slow down or stop, then don't even attempt to ride down.  Dismount and push the bike downhill.

If the view forward shows the route to be clear, and you can see the bottom of the hill then it is acceptable (though not easy for a beginner) to raise your legs over the handlebars and rest them on top.  This keeps your feet out of the way of the madly spinning pedals.  You will not be able to spin your legs fast enough to keep up with the pedals, so don't try to - it will end with injury of some sort.

Ignore the advice about applying the brake gently to avoid going head-first over the handlebars.  You will never achieve this by using the brake alone.  The original spoon brakes are just not powerful enough, and certainly will not stop the wheel quickly enough to send you over the top.  "Headers" as they are known, are caused by other problems, such as the front wheel suddenly stopping because it has hit an obstacle, or become lodged in soft ground.

I read on another forum that the traditional way of doing this is to tie a rock or a stick to your bike, and let it drag behind you, so that when you're going downhill the object prevents you from going too fast. With that being said, there also exist bikes with freewheel hubs like the ones here.


What is the "preload" setting on the front fork suspension? I've made a photo of the actual "thing" as I find it very difficult to explain otherwise:

I'm wondering what this "thing" sets and how it actually works. So, what is "preload" and what happens when I turn it clockwise (plus) and anticlockwise (minus). I tried rotating it both ways to its maximum limit and I didn't notice any change in anything.

The bike the photo has been taken from is Merida Matts 40-D.

This fork setting exists so that the fork can be customized to your weight (major reason) and riding style (minor reason). It's simply the initial compression of the internal spring in the fork. The more it's compressed, the stiffer the fork will feel.

Bigger preload compresses the spring more, and so it's best for heavier riders and/or people who need/prefer the stiffer ride (racers etc.)  Lighter riders should use less(-) preload. Less(-) preload will also give you plusher ride, but the bike will e.g. dive more during braking.

Source: http://bicyclethailand.com/setting-the-sag-on-mtb-suspension-forks/

The way many of these work is by controlling the movement of the oil by adjusting the orafice size that the oil flows through.Small holes restrict the oil making the shock feel firmer.Larger holes allows more oil to flow through faster making the shock feel softer.That is how turning the knob such a small amount can make such a big difference.


What pressure should I run my Road Bike tyres at? There's a question for mountain bike tyres but I can't seem to find anything on here for road bikes. At the moment I'm running at around 90psi. Is that too much? too little?  Also, am I more likely to get punctures running at higher pressure?  I seem to be getting a lot lately.

Apparently, the subject of tire pressure is much like that of chain maintenance (ask 10 people & you'll likely get 10 different answers). I like the Michelin chart as posted by svinto. I must admit, my personal method for determining the best pressure is quite subjective. I like the pressure to be on the low side of the min/max range. I also like to run about 10psi lower on the front than rear. Unfortunately, I don't believe anyone can tell another rider what their tire pressure should be. Study what has been posted here, inflate the tires to something that seems to make sense. Use that pressure for awhile, then, experiment with slightly lower/higher psi.  Some riders are very exacting in the psi used while others simply inflate to something in the ballpark. Most riders still enjoy the ride.


Is storing bikes in an enclosed trailer a good idea? I too am running out of space in my house to store my bikes.  I have three bikes inside my house and my 5 kids bikes are outside in a shed (which is also over crowded).  My idea is to buy a 6X12 enclosed trailer to store our bikes and modify it to also be like a bike shop.  We take our bikes everywhere.  My concern though is keeping the bikes in an environment that is not controlled.  Although they will be completely sealed off from rain, etc., they will still be exposed to varying temperatures and humidity.  Does anyone think storing these bikes in a trailer is a good idea?

So long as the trailer is reasonably weather-tight it shouldn't be a problem.  Since there's nothing in the trailer generating humidity, no significant condensation will occur, and, within reason, temperatures won't hurt bikes.  (The only caveat would be that you maybe should have some vents that can be opened if temps rise above 90F or so, so that temps don't get over about 150F inside.)

use a incandescent lightbulb 60-100watt underneath the bikes and a moisture absorber called damp rid works, I got 2 Harley's in my 6 by12 trailer


Tightening a loose bottom bracket I bought a new bike a couple of months ago. Recently I noticed that the bottom bracket is getting loose. It is regularly unscrewing itself, and while I can screw it back in partially manually, I cannot generate enough torque to get in back in there all the way in. What tool should I use to do this? I have found some 8-notch bottom bracket tools, but they would require removing the cranks, and I'm not sure that they're the correct thing anyway.

It looks like what you have is a cartridge bottom bracket with a left hand cup with both Octalink style 8 notches (even though the axle is clearly square taper) and the more common 20 splines

Park tool BBT-18 (Octalink), BBT-22/32 (splines) with work, as will the dual purpose Lezyne tool you linked to.

Yes, you will have to remove the crank to properly tighten the cup. You probably want to do the drive side as well. To get the cranks off you need a crank puller (such as Park CWP-7). To tighten the bottom bracket and re-install the cranks you need a fairly hefty torque wrench as it's critical the cups and crank bolts are tightened to the correct torque.

For infrequent jobs where special tools are needed it's often easier to have a good local bike repair shop do the work.

If the cup is metal (or even plastic, though greater care must be used to prevent damage), you could try using a pair of plumber's pliers --aka Channel locks--which are tongue and groove, slip joint pliers.  You can move the jaws apart to accommodate a wide range of diameters and apply a great deal of torque as well as grip on what you're attempting to turn.  These types of pliers are a fairly common household tool. Care must be used to prevent marring the cup with tool marks from the pliers' jaws.  An old leather belt or piece of rubber from an old tire or tube, even layers of cloth rag between the jaws and BB will prevent most marks.  Selecting the appropriate jaw width that allows the handles to be close together so your hand grip is nearly closed and near max gripping power is key.  You don't want the pliers to slip on the BB which will increase the chances of marring the BB's surface.  This may seem overly complex or tricky, but it's not.  If the channel locks' handle is 10-12 inches long (as even a small pliers of this type can open their jaws wide enough to accommodate the 1 1/4" (32 mm)  or so outside diameter of a BB cup), more than enough torque can be applied. The main, cartridge bearing right side takes around 50 N-m of torque, the left cup is to be "snugged" tight after the right is torqued.  The torque required at the left is much less.  The system will be bound--the cranks won't move--if the left cup is tightened too much.  This is my reasoning for using this unconventional technique with a commonly found household tool.


Chain skipping with new chain and freewheel I've recently (last 6 months) begun riding again after many years away and have begun updating components on my bike (a mid 80s era Fuji).  After replacing the rear wheel and freewheel I developed a problem with the chain slipping.  On a 7 speed freewheel, the 2 highest gears run fine, the 3rd gear slips somewhere between the 10th and 15th turn under load (but not when hand cranked with no load), the 4th gear slips so badly under load that it won't engage (again, I can't repeat this by hand cranking with no load), and gears 5 - 7 work fine.  Thinking that it could be caused by the old chain I replaced it but the same conditions still occur.

Additional information:

All cables have been recently replaced.
The rear derailleur was replaced about 1 month ago.

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

You don't say what derailleur and shifter you have, but if they are an indexed Campagnolo system the spacing they're designed for is different in the middle of the cassette to the ends. I had exactly these symptoms with a 10-speed Campagnolo cassette on a SRAM bike.

You will have an array of problems if the mech and shifter's idea of cable pull do not match, particularly with an indexed system.

You will have exactly this problem trying to use any non-7-speed shifter/mech with a 7-speed system.

You can also get these symptoms if the B screw of the derailleur doesn't leave enough clearance between the top jockey wheel and the sprocket on the cassette, but it is more usual for this to affect the easy gears.

This sounds like a worn cassette. For most people, the middle gears are most used and thus have the most wear. I'm not in the camp that you replace the cassette every time you replace the chain, but it sounds like you are ready for a new one.


Is 17 miles (27km) each way a lot for a newbie cyclist? I go to the gym on a regular basis and do a fair bit of running. I feel like I'm fit enough to do this. It would be a one-off ride from Wembley to Slough and back so it would be a fair bit of road which could be a problem.

As a one-off, that should be completely doable. Your fitness from running and the gym should be plenty enough, especially as the route is pretty flat. Bear in mind that it will be tiring, since cycling uses different muscles to running, and the saddle may get a bit uncomfortable if you're not used to it.  Make sure you have plenty of water and something like a cereal bar or a banana to eat half-way would be good, too. (You want something that will release energy over time, rather than a big sugar hit.)

Riding in traffic can be mentally tiring when you're not used to it so definitely consider a route using quieter roads and cycle paths, even if that adds a few miles. The thing you want to avoid most is narrow roads with lots of traffic: if cars can overtake you easily, everybody's much happier.

And there's lots of public transport available so, if you get to Slough and can't bear the thought of cycling home again, you can always get on a train, though don't try to do that at rush-hour.

17 kms is not a lot i think. Drink a lot of water if you are hydrated, and make comfortable. I ride 70 kms (up, down) twice a month, and i domt find it hard. It depend upon your cadence and speed.


Is it safe to ride a racing road bike in very wet weather? I'm used to riding on a MTB, but since I've got a new road bike, I'm quite paranoid about the slick tyres. How good are they in wet weather? I'm scared of braking too hard, or even just turning!!

They're fine. I live outside of Vancouver so I'm already riding in wet a few days a week some weeks. Just this morning I was coming down the backside of a climb at 70km and they were totally secure.

Since the tires are so narrow they don't suffer from hydroplaning. The biggest thing to worry about is painted lines and manhole covers (or other metal covers on the road). Both are very slick when wet. I've always been careful but I know a number of other riders that have gone down cornering hard on both types of surfaces.

You're right to leave yourself extra room to brake. Also don't forget to account for reduced visibility for both you and cars.

Slick Road tires are NOT safe in the wet. Bicycles do not go fast to enough to even consider the hydroplaning argument. As the road get wet the imperfections in the asphalt, that actually provide grip, fill up with water, oil, road gunk making the road and the tire very slick. If the tire now cannot channel any water away you are glass on glass. If you add cooler temperatures to this you now have harder rubber and severely reduced traction. Watch a motorcycle road race on tv. Their rain race tires have very aggressive tread patterns and soft rubber. Slick are only used in the dry and that is the only time you should trust them.


Which waterproof overshoes would you recommend for use with clipless pedal shoes? Last Winter I bought some waterproof overshoes on the internet to keep my feet dry on the daily commute. Unfortunately these overshoes fastened with a velcro strap which fastened underneath the shoe obscuring the cleats in both my road shoes (SPD-SL) and mountain bike shoes (SPD). I managed to get by tucking the velcro straps inside the overshoes and wearing them loose, but they have never really stayed secure that way.

Can anyone recommend some waterproof overshoes that:

Keep your feet dry
Fit snugly and don't come undone on a ride or catch on the bike
Have fittings which don't obscure cleats and work well with clipless pedals
Are reasonably priced

For serious winter riding (I rode for 12 years all year round in Toronto, Canada, and while we had reasonable weather, it did get wet, cold, and icky a lot) I gave up on clipless, and just used platforms with a pair of hunting boots!  Canadian Tire sold -40C and -70C versions.  (I rode in -35C in the -70C pair, and I gotta say, my toes were quite comfy!)

Tuck a pair of ski pants or waterproof pants over the tops, and that was the driest I ever attained in bad weather.

They bend surprisingly well so pedaling is not the issue, and you have good stability in bad weather.  You know, if you are sliding, and put down both feet with those big boots, you might still slide a distance, but you can control it better.

I never tried anything like you suggest, as based on other waterproof clothes, once it gets wet enough, nothing is water proof.  Everything has holes, seals, zippers, seams, etc...  They help, no argument, but not all the way.

Gotex socks. Yes, they sound gimmicky and uncomfortable. However, I used to hike 20 to 30 miles a day in boggy terrain, and my feet stayed toasty warm and dry! You should wear thin merino wool socks inside for best effect. That said, REI sells waterproof biking socks for cheaper made for the job.


My derailleur completely "opened" up. It is now almost a straight line. What have i done to my derailleur? I had a flat on the side of the road.  So I took my wheel off to replace the tire with a temp to get me home.  When I reinstalled the wheel, the derailleur "opened up" completely...what have I done/forgot to do? Can I fix it or is it done?

Figure 1. The way Shimano imagined it.
It looks like you have the first link of the mechanism mounted 90° clockwise. Try again.

Remove the chain.
When you put it back bring the chain above the gear.
Put the chain under the second gear then put the chain back together.
It should fix it, or the spring is broken, or the spring popped loose.


Is there an improvement braking from the hoods from Shimano Sora 3500 to Sora R3000? I'm struggling to brake from the hoods on my first drop handlebar second hand bike although braking from the drops is fine. I read on this site somewhere that older Shimano Sora ergonomics were particularly difficult to brake from the hoods due to the pivot position. I don't have anything to compare my bike to (my local bike shops are not keen on people popping in and handling their bikes right now) but the levers do feel very badly designed as far as braking from the hoods is concerned. I will probably upgrade the brake callipers (from Tektro Mira) anyway but was wondering if upgrading the levers would also be worth it.
So my question is does anyone know if there is a significant improvement braking from the hoods between the Sora 3500 levers and the Sora R3000?
Thanks.

The R3000 levers have the shifting cables routed under the bar tape as opposed to coming out the sides on the older 3500 levers. If you care for the esthetics then that might be another reason to upgrade.  I'm not sure if the  braking performance actually changed as I don't have older Sora to compare to, but the R3000 levers in my experience seem to offer good braking performance from the hoods. The design of the R3000 levers is similar to the other higher tier models (tiagra, 105, etc) so I assume that the braking performance would be the same as those, assuming the brakes at the other end of the cables were also of the same quality.

So my question is does anyone know if there is a significant improvement braking from the hoods between the Sora 3500 levers and the Sora R3000?

What would you consider an "improvement"?
The mechanical advantage of dual pivot brakes is a compromise.
Dual pivot brakes, with their forced centering, cannot track a truly wobbly wheel. If a spoke breaks e.g. on a 36-spoke wheel, the ability to track the minor wobble is dependent on the mechanical advantage. High mechanical advantage (which means you get lots of braking power with little finger force) would mean the wheel jams once per rotation. Low mechanical advantage could track a wheel with even a major wobble, but then again you need lots of finger force to brake.
If the mechanical advantage is high, brakes lose their "bite" with worn brake pads really quickly and you have to be continuously adjusting the barrel adjuster. Low mechanical advantage would allow you to never touch the barrel adjuster, but then again low mechanical advantage would require unacceptably high finger force.
So as you can see, either low and high mechanical advantage has their problems. Thus, there is an optimum between low and high mechanical advantage. With this optimum, finger force required is acceptable, the frequency of needing to turn barrel adjuster is acceptable, the ability of the brakes to track a wobbly wheel with broken spoke is acceptable.
If you go lower than the optimal mechanical advantage, it is worse than the optimum due to unacceptable finger force. If you go higher than the optimal mechanical advantage, it is worse than the optimum due to unacceptable frequency of needing to turn the barrel adjuster and inability to operate on a wheel with a broken spoke.
The optimum has been discovered decades ago. The optimum is time invariant. What was optimal 10 years ago is still optimal because there has been no "breakthrough invention" in ye olde rim brakes (whereas disc brakes have improved all the time).
About the last invention in rim brake technology was the move away from the faulty single pivot sidepull centering spring that couldn't center brakes reliably. In mountain bikes, the move away was via cantilever brakes to V brakes with their reliable centering springs. In road bikes, the move away was to dual-pivot sidepulls with their forced centering mechanism.
Most likely Sora 3500 and Sora R3000 systems both use the optimal mechanical advantage. Thus, no change. If you are interested in some example mechanical advantages, here is a resource I have written here.


Should my foot be able to step flat on the ground, when I sit on a bike seat? I was wondering, for a correctly sized mountain bike, or hybrid, should I be able to place my foot flat on the ground, when I sit on the bike seat?

For a standard bike in normal use you should not, from the seat, be able to touch the ground (without leaning, or except, perhaps, on extreme tip-toe).

A standard diamond frame (with horizontal top bar), for road use, should be sized so that you can stand flat-footed over the top bar with a "comfortable" margin (but no more) between the bar and the stuff above the bar.  (A bike used off-road will generally be a bit more compact, and, of course, the top bar is often not horizontal.)

The seat should be positioned so that your leg is almost fully extended at the bottom of the stroke (the knee should not go perfectly straight).

One way to fit the seat height is to have someone hold the bike while you pedal backwards with your heels on the pedals.  With your heels on the pedals the knees should go perfectly straight at the bottom of the stroke, but with no need to rock side-to-side to maintain contact with the pedals.  (Once you switch to using your toes on the pedals in a normal fashion the proper almost-straight leg extension is obtained.)

Off-road, and for stunt riding, generally the seat will be a bit lower, and some may find it convenient to lower the seat a bit for city riding.  But be aware that a too-low seat puts significant strain on the knees and can lead to knee injury (especially when combined with riding in a too-difficult gear).

When you are sitting on the saddle the ball of your foot should be touching the ground and not flat.


Wear and tear and warranty I have a trek 7.1 that I bought last March (2014) and have been told that the pads, front wheel, chain and cassette need replacing. Is this normal for 4 to 5 days a week usage for commuting (5 to six miles total) then the odd longer cycle? The wheel was my fault as I damaged it by not replacing the pads.

Should this stuff be covered by warranty considering it's less then a year? I have been told it's wear and tear which isn't covered but I don't think it's reasonable I should have to make these repairs so early on (minus the wheel obviously). Just wondered if I should try and get this done under warranty or if it's a lost cause.

Many things on bicycles are consumable and anything that moves or rubs is going to have to be replaced, it's just a matter of when.
It's unusual for a cassette to wear out completely within a year although if it's been ridden on a stretched chain or without regular cleaning and lubing it'll wear out much faster.
In my experience chains are normally the first things to wear out, presumably because they almost constantly in motion and rubbing against the cogs while you ride plus picking up all kinds of stuff that flies off of the wheels. I normally replace my chains every year regardless of the state that they are in simply because of the low cost of a replacement chain and the relatively high amount of damage that running a worn chain can cause.
You can tell if the cassette (or the  chainrings) need replacing by checking the teeth. If the teeth looked ramped you should switch out the part. See Image:

If the teeth don't look worn but are black with dirt you can clean them with a de-greaser you may find it easier to clean the cassette if you remove it although this requires a cassette removal tool otherwise you can leave it on and clean it with a brush and ordinary dish soap, just rinse afterwards, dry it and remember to lube the inside of the chain again after cleaning it being careful not to overdo it as that will just cause muck and grit to stick to it while riding. Do not use WD-40!
To check the wear on your brake pads look at them from the side and check for grooves. New brake pads come with groves which allow water to escape from under them much like the tread on a tyre. If your brake pad has no visible groves on the face that touches the rim, they should be replaced.

No warranty for these items:

pads wear. If you use them in wet and sandy conditions they wear faster.
front wheel damage is your fault
chain grows and wears, especially if you don't shift properly
cassette wears, especially if you don't shift properly

Having said that, I don't think that you need to change your chain and cassette. Unless you do racing you can get away with the same chain and cassette for 2-3 years.


Can I run rim brakes on a disc rim? I'm trying to buy a front wheel which will work with both disc and rim brakes so that I can use it on my cross bike (with rim brakes) and my mountain bike (with disc brakes) with a dynamo hub to power lights for night riding.

Can I use a disc rim with rim brakes (cantilever or caliper) or will I need to buy a wheel that does not have a disc specific rim?

Some disc-brake specific wheels use rims that are not designed for rim brakes. To accomplish what you want you need a wheel with a a disc-brake hub and a rim-brake rim.

With that setup, assuming the fork widths are the same, you should be able to switch wheels between bikes without problems. The only drawback is the slight increase in rotating mass from having extra material in both the hub and the rim.

An example would be this wheel from Mavic available at Nasbar, but your LBS should be able to easily build up wheels for you if they don't have something specific in stock.

To use your dynamo I think you are forced to have custom built wheels, but it should still work fine.

I have done this but the wheel does not sit central in the forks therefore the brake block shimms need to be adjusted to suit


Snapped powerlink, new powerlink or new chain? If your chain snaps at the powerlink, do you need to replace just the powerlink? Or is the entire chain comprised?

Depends what is damaged.

Clearly the powerlink needs replacing if it broke or snapped.  They tend not to just "come apart" under load but theres a small chance it never closed right.

Look at the end links in the chain, that would connect to the power link.  If there is excess play in those end pins then it may be time to replace the chain.

If the chain is worn and you can feel play in all the links, then just replace it.  Chains are consumables.

But if the chain seems okay then just replace the powerlink with a new one, and buy a second new spare one for your toolkit.

Powerlinks are a liability, best thing to do to do without it (get a regular link and replace on your chain) and then invest in a small and light chain tool (under 10 bucks but it's a tool you have it for all your life).

With a little practice you can open and close your chain as quickly as with your powerlink but you don't have to worry about that kind of problem.


What is the best commuter bike tire? My fiancee expressed interest in going on rides together, so I borrowed my mom's old purple Univega Via De Oro that's running 21sp Shimano STX-RC.  I replaced the cables and overhauled the shifters, and rides had been going well.  Yesterday I pulled the bike off the wall to find that the front tire was flat.  The tires are TopGear Stratos 700x35c on Mavic 622x17 rims, and they're feeling kinda brittle.

Edit:
Which compounds make up a tire or what should I look for in a tire to meet the following qualifications:
Thorn resistance
Comfortable ride
Enough width to reduce getting trapped in ruts
I don't care too much about rolling resistance.  We're going on fun rides.  I just don't want to worry about changing the tube frequently.
Thanks in advance!

Whenever you are not aiming for riding in a race, go for serious puncture proof tires. Especially if you are a casual rider who can't just fix a flat within 10min on the road side. I certainly can't, even though I've patched enough tires for a lifetime. You are not going to get significant enjoyment out of being able to ride 0.1km/h faster, but you are going to get significant enjoyment out of not having to stop and patch every 100km, or so.

There are two logical approaches to selecting road bicycle tires for pavement. (I won't consider offroad and winter/ice/snow riding here.)
The first approach is to realize that fixing a flat takes 5-10min, and that any puncture protection in the tire increases rolling resistance so much that every minute of flat-fixing time saved results in hour of additional trip time. This approach suggests that the best possible tire is one with minimal puncture protection and thus minimal rolling resistance. Unfortunately, you can't find tires without puncture protection today, but fortunately, you can find tires with minimal puncture protection. I believe that of the current offerings, Continental Grand Prix 5000 is the best tire. Pick either 28mm or 32mm size. The 23mm and 25mm require so high pressures that you may have difficulty obtaining those pressures with an easy-to-carry mini pump, so don't select those. Also, the 23mm and 25mm will have higher rolling resistance on anything but completely smooth pavement, and the high pressures will be very uncomfortable.
The second approach is for those who can't fix flats or for some reason hate fixing flats. For those, the best vehicle may very well be a car instead of a bike, but let's assume that you hate fixing flats but love riding bike. This approach is to maximize the puncture protection, and thus, equivalently, maximize the rolling resistance. I believe that Schwalbe Marathon Plus is one of the best tires for this approach. Pick the widest tire that fits your frame with enough clearance. The wider the tire, the more room there is for rubber, and the better the puncture protection will be.
Don't select any tire between these two extremes! In particular, GatorSkins were suggested in a comment. Do not select GatorSkin as your tire! I have used Continental GatorSkins, and found that they have too much rolling resistance and still aren't protected from punctures well enough -- I have had numerous flats with GatorSkins. If puncture protection is what you're looking for, go for a true puncture-protected tire such as Schwalbe Marathon Plus. If low rolling resistance is what you're looking for, select a tire optimized for that such as GP 5000.


What's different in women's specific chamois cream? What's the difference between regular chamois cream and women specific chamois cream?  If my partner also rides, are there disadvantages to both male and female users sharing the women specific type?

In many cases, the difference is just related to the scent.

However, some standard chamois cream has menthol or some other "icy hot" chemical, which some women find a bit "strong" for their sensitive bits.  Many women's creams use something milder, like peppermint oil.

Mad Alchemy lists some of the major ingredients in their chamois creams:
http://www.madalchemy.com/

There shouldn't be any difference but I believe that the slight difference is nothing more than an antiseptic.


What to upgrade to achieve a higher top speed? I enjoy going fast and my current bicycle tops too early, what kind of upgrades would I need to make to achieve a taller final gear?

Bigger tires, bigger chainrings and a smaller cassette all lead to a higher gearing (the crank arm lengths among other things also come into this, but that encapsulates into bike fit).

Bigger tires are subject to frame clearance and feeling squirmy possibly.

Bigger chain rings require front derailleur compatibility.

Smaller cassette also requires appropriate derailleur capacities.

Other ways of getting more speed include improving your aerodynamics (part of your bike fit - if you have drops for example, you may not be using them effectively) and increasing your cadence (most of the time when people ask this, their cadence is too low and they should be riding in a lower gear or pedaling faster). Losing weight (bike and yourself) does help as well, to some extent. If you're spinning out on say a steep downhill incline, that's normal (chances are you shouldn't be going faster than that anyway).

You may find that the type of bike you're riding is not a good fit for your riding style, i.e. you're using a mountain bike for road riding. Switching the type of bike (which does include corresponding gear and position changes) can help as well.

Easy     max out tire pressure, get 1.75 thick wheels with no tread, speed up at downhills


Is a bigger wheel likely to get fewer flats? Someone suggested recently that rather than using a fatter tyre in my search for fewer flats, I could use bigger wheels. Specifically, that switching from 700c to 27" (622 to 630) would make a detectable difference. Since I currently use 406 wheels on most of my bikes, switching to even 622 wheels would obviously make a huge difference... if this is correct.

What's the mechanism for the larger wheel getting fewer flats?

To clarify: I can't think of a mechanism, and I doubt that this theory is correct. So answers that talk about other causes are off topic, and if you want to show that this is wrong you need to demonstrate that using research or logic. I already think this theory is wrong, what I want are facts. And FWIW, changing from ISO 406 wheels to 622 or 630 means a complete change of bike.

One possible mechanism that occurs to me is that the larger tyre may hit fewer small pieces of glass because it rides higher over corrugations on the road.

Using my well-renowned skills with paint.net I give you the following conceptual diagram:

The black is the road surface, magnified and exaggerated to show the normal corrugations. Not to scale (or in proportion) are two different sized bike wheels. Note that the green one hits the red shard of glass while the larger one doesn't.

The puncture mechanism being affected is that contact with the glass adheres it to the tyre either through moisture on a wet road or just a tiny point entry to the rubber as shown below. Once adhered every further contact with the road might push it further into the tyre, eventually resulting in a puncture. But the larger wheel rides higher over small bumps, so comes in contact with fewer small shards since they tend to sit at the bottom of the corrugations.

But the size difference is small. Assuming 23mm tyres on both the ISO 622 and 630 wheels the outside diameters will be approximately
668mm   and 676mm (via BikeCalc), so at best the larger wheel will be 668/676 = 98.8% as likely to get a puncture by this mechanism. But compared to a 406 wheel at 497mm OD (with a 23mm tyre, unlikely though that is) the ratio is 73.5% (less than 3/4 as many punctures... of the ones that happen by this mechanism).

I doubt that a 1% reduction in frequency of one particular mechanism would be detectable, even if that was the dominant mechanism for getting punctures. I ride about 1.5 hours a day, 5 days a week, and get 2-5 punctures a year. Dropping that by 1% would mean I'd get one fewer puncture every 20 years (at best) making it 39-99 punctures instead of 40-100. The effect is so far down in the noise that it would be undetectable.

Further minimising the effect, most of my punctures are via bigger objects. Recently they've been the shaft of a pop rivet (622x28 non-puncture resistant tyre) and a carpet tack (406 marathon plus), with the last glass shard puncture being late last year (406 marathon). So in real life it's might only be a 1% reduction in 1/3 of the punctures.

I now get that I answered the wrong (opposite question)

The two most common types of flats are
1) pinch
2) puncture

Can also have the spoke puncture the tube from the inside but nothing a wheel diameter can do about that.

Not sure about puncture but I can think of a situation of pinch flat.

I know wheels don't come in a radius of 30 cm and  50 cm  but for simplicity lets assume they do.

Assume you are going 10 mph and hit 10 cm curb

The tire / wheel must absorb the sine of the angle
The 30 cm tire will have a larger angle

Take it to extremes

If the wheel is infinitely large the
sine of 0 is 0
If the tire has only a 9 cm radius it will hit the curb straight on
and must absorb all the force.
sine of 90 degrees is 1

If you rode a 30 cm and 50 cm over same curb at increasing faster speeds the 30 cm would bottom out at a lower speed.
Since sine is not linear the difference would not be 3/5 but somewhere around that.

Mountain bikers moved to larger tires as they roll over rocks and roots with less effort.
Less effort equates to less force.

Another answer noted more revolutions so more wear.

There is also a sharper angle on the contact patch.
This puts more stress on the rubber and casing (and more rolling resistance.)


Quick Release on Fixed Gear Bike I recently purchased a fixed gear bike, Kilo TT. I had some fenders lying around, SKS raceblade. I tried to install them on my bikebut noticed that the fenders attached to the skewers. My fixed gear bike has bolts in the front and back and the fenders only fit quick release skewers.

What are some options? Can I put QR skewers on a fixed gear bike? Is there a reason they come with bolts?

They come with bolts because QR's typcially don't clamp with enough force to keep the wheel from slipping forward.

It looks like you have rear facing dropouts, so you should easily be able to use QR's if you get yourself a Surly Tuggnut.

That little circle on the side of it is a QR adapter. You just pop it in and then slide your skewer all the way through.

It's not a bad idea to have a chain tensioner anyway. One on the drive side will help you get the chain tensioned correctly when mounting the wheel. I personally like to use chain tensioners on both sides so that the wheel doesn't get knocked crooked if I hit a bump. I've had it happen. It sucks.

I've used a bunch of chain tensioners and can say from experience that the Tuggnut is by far the easiest to use on the market, partially because it's the only one I've ever found that requires no tools. It's also the only one I've ever found that has a QR adapter. The built-in bottle opener is handy too.

After that little rant, I feel I should mention that I am in no way affiliated with Surly. The tuggnut is just a really good product.

With all respect to Sheldon, I frequently use his notes and references, I disagree on the skewer but I also see that often on forums people confuse what he really says.

He says that if you have the OLD ALL STEEL skewers and don't want to replace the axle with a solid one, but want to have a simple quick and cheap conversion of geared bike to single speed, you can still use them.  If I remember he says that the newer aluminum-nutted/levers are not adequate.

Now, a 10mm solid steel axle and its steel nuts can handle enormous tightening force.  The larger the tightening force the larger the amount of static friction caused by the nuts/drop-outs to the axle spacer/nuts.  A 3-4-5mm skewer even made of titanium can't handle that much.  All steel skewers may be borderline adequate, but you can't find those of the old cro-mol-steel any more and even the skewer shaft itself is not really made of good enough steel as they used to.

I have seen many modern skewers snap from excessive force, from bearings going bad and shafts being bent.  On a single speed bike you need all the strength you can get and hollow axles with high powered loads, sprint, starting up hill standing up, can't handle it.  Racing velodrome for decades people would know better and use hollow stuff for weight savings.  They don't!  Some of those riders can take a top of the line 22s race bike, shift in highest gear and really reduce the frame and drivetrain into scrap plastic and alloy bits.  It is like putting a train engine power on a 3d economy 4 passenger car.

The damage you will get on the wheel, drivetrain, frame, and yourself when all this fails under maximum load is not worth the chance of being cheap and lazy.  Switching to a solid shaft and HD nuts in the rear is priceless security, cheap and quick if you have repacked bearings in the past.  Then yank on that breaker bar to 40-50lbxft ?50-60Nm?

Solid axle, gnurly nuts that bite into steel, and a breaker bar, then get a real chain 1/4-5/32 and show that bike who is boss.

PS  [Edit]  I know the question is old but answers are here for everyone not to personally answer to the one person asking.  This is a reference for all those that face a similar problem and it is pretty common.

PS2  How did I forget the most obvious of what I wanted to mention.  Modern skewers have nice chrome plated springs inside the skewers to center them while they are released.  Most often those springs are wider than a 9-10mm axle and foul up the nut's surface that is meant to hold the wheel together.  When the axle slips with those on it is because the nut's surface is making contact with the squished spring against the drop out surface and makes it more likely to slip.  Older skewers if they had springs they were tiny, these days because in 95% of applications it is a vertical drop out it is not important and those conical springs are 12-13mm in diameter.  Take them off and the skewer will be able to provide more friction.  They just tangle up a bit while installing or removing the wheel.


What solutions are there for a tyre that won't stay seated? I've got a Schwalbe snow and ice 700x38 (also marked 40-622) on a Mavic A319 (19 mm internal width).  This, according to Sheldon should be an ideal combination (and if it wasn't, the failure modes don't match).  Other tyres seat well on the rim but this one has always been problematic: when I first fitted it last winter, and the first time this winter, the bead wanted to ping out of the hook groove.  Last night I topped it up (to somewhere in between the min and max recommended pressures), got about 10 km and it came off the rim.  After that I just couldn't get it to seat - pumping it up hard it came straight off the rim, pumping it up soft it came off within the first 10 metres.  After several attempts (over an hour in -4°C) I had to give up and call for a lift.

Other tyres on the same rim are fine (marathon plus 32, marathon mondial 35).  This tyre seemed OK on the front rim for the same bike (a 17mm Alex) but doesn't fit under the mudguard (I've got a 35mm studded tyre on there).

I'd really like to refit this tyre tonight given the weather forecast, and studded tyres are only available mail order so there's no chance of getting a replacement quickly.

Is there some way to persuade it to seat and stay seated?  Does the tube width make a difference - my spare was only recommended up to 35mm but it orginally failed with one recommended up to 40mm - perhaps by exerting lateral pressure into the seat immediately rather than radial first it was persuaded to seat but only just.

Update: I've tried it on the front wheel of my 29er hardtail.  It won't seat there either, and in a few attempts it popped off in a different place each time.  The bead feels OK, less pronounced than some of my other tyres (which are mostly Schwalbe as well) but not enough that you'd notice unless you were trying to find something.

I have had this problem with two different Schwalbe tires now. On both of these tires one of the bead cables/wires seem to have become undone. Not sure how to describe it. If each of the two beads is made up of several wires wound around each other, then on both tires one of these individual wires was poking out of the bead. It was very easy to spot because on both tires it was sticking out several inches just on the inside of the bead. No apparent length wise gash. Rather, it seemed to me as if one of wires had become unwound and migrated over time, I assume, as either a wire individually, or the whole set of wires, resulting in one wire being located parallel to the other wires but outside the tire proper.  Both wires were on the inside of the tire. Sent a picture to Schwalbe and received replacement.

You could add one or two extra layers of cloth rim tape (e.g. velox). This increases the diameter of the rim and makes it harder for the tyre to come off.


Brake fluid replacement Whilst replacing my pads I made the mistake of pulling the brake lever,  which pushed the piston too far, and thus lost loads of fluid.

I've searched online for the type and quantity of fluid to replace it with, but I cannot find anything specific to my Specialized Hardrock.

What kind of fluid do I need?
How much will I need for one brake system?
I've included picture of top and bottom of system for conformation of fluid in and out? Fluid in, I think;
fluid out.
could someone point me in direction of a video on replacing the fluid on this specific bike?

You have Tektro HDC 300 hydraulic brakes.

Follow the bleed procedure as described in the proper Tektro manual; https://www.tektro.com/upload/Product/F_20180828170966wPjDlH.PDF

The bleed process also adds additional fluid to the system so that will replace what you lost.

For your Tektros you would need "Mineral Oil" fluid. It's NOT THE SAME a DOT Fluids, don't mix them. Urban legend says that would make them go kaboom.

To replace the fluid:

Hang your brake, in a way that the caliper is at the bottom and the lever is leveled at the top. Work while is on the bike stading up.
Put a tube at the the caliper, remove the rubber cap that you can see in the picture you uploaded.
Put the other end into a bottle with a little bit of mineral oil. This way it would suck up mineral oil instead of air.
Put something beteween the pistons, like a rotor, or a pad separator. This is important because you will need to pump the lever a few times and you don't want your pistons moving around.
Open the top and have you oil ready to pour.
Hold the brake lever, softly, it need to bit you separator.
Open a little the caliper end, where you attached the tube. You'll see and feel the oil flowing.
Top up the oil in the reservoir and do it again a few times. You will see a change in color of the fluid going out, and you should not see any bubble.
Repeat till you are happy with it.
On your last pump, close the caliper end while the lever is pressed. This way it won't suck any air, or old oil, from the tube or bottle.
Top up the fluid and close the reservoir.

This's was the way I did it on brakes like this, always worked. If you still have bubble in your system. With everything closed, hang it fully upside down and vibrate it a little. So the bubbles will go to the caliper. Then put a tube a the caliper end, press a little the lever, open up the caliper, don't depress the lever and close the caliper again. Air in the system should be trapped in the tube mixed with a little bit of oil. Now you should be almost without bubbles.

cheers.

PS: Brake fluids are nasty, use gloves and cover everything where you are working.


Locking a vehicle bicycle rack We are planning a trip with a bike rack attached to our trailer hitch. What is the best way to lock the bikes while the vehicle is unattended? I see some racks have locks on the knobs but they don't seem very strong.

What do you suggest?

Don't rely on the racks locks alone to keep you bikes safe. They willat very best, slow the thief down (shows the point).  A hitch rack provides a good lever that can be effectively used to snap the rack (or the hitch) off to take the bikes, and if the bikes are damaged in the process, the thief just walks away leaving a mess.

Strong cable lock though a closed loop on the car (the cars tie down loop / eye)  around the bikes, threaded to limit the range of twisting and lever motions, meaning the racks locking mechanisms cannot be push further than they can cope with.

For any length of time, take the bikes off the rack and store safely inside, or out of site locked to a secure rack. Cheap bikes also help.

I would start by considering avoiding the use of a trailer hitch for any other purpose than that for which it has been designed: hitching a trailer. Hitches are constructed to support lateral, longitudinal and vertical forces applied at low heights, the latter up to about 50kg - think a maximum of two bikes and the rack itself. However, they are not built to withstand torque applied either side-to-side or front-to-back. The other vehicle attachment points will have to stand that - but these points are usually on the tailgate which is also not built for that particular purpose.

The safest way I know of transporting bikes on a (perhaps long) trip is inside a rather non-descript van, with no windows potential thiefs can see through and doors that lock. Perhaps you could consider renting such a vehicle? I am sure you can get quite good prices by shopping around and choosing a time frame in which businesses typically do not need to rent many vehicles, e.g. in summer.

HTH.


Drivetrain 2x conversion to 1x I wish to know more about converting a 2x to a 1x, especially the Force AXS eTap group set.
I currently have a double chainring, but want to ditch the Front Derailleur and go to a single chainring. I have read about narrow-wide chainrings being necessary for single drivetrains, because it keeps the chain more secure on the ring.
However, I have found this single chainring ( Force AXS specific ) WITHOUT the narrow wide.
I have also found this Force AXS one, but WITH narrow-wide one.. (incl crankset)
So there must be a difference or advantage or disadvantage for the two options. What is my best pick here?
Don’t worry about the range.. I never rode my small ring in the last 2000 miles.

While I don't speak Dutch, the link you provided seems to be for a 46t outer ring from a 2x system. If you look closely enough at the photo you linked, you can also see "46/33T" etched on the ring: that's the smallest chainring option that standard Force AXS offers (Force AXS wide goes down to 43/30). You can see that more clearly in the photo below taken from this retailer. In addition, you can see the shift pins (two pairs of two silver pins, each pair separated by 180 degrees), and a black chain drop pin. All that gives the first ring away as a 2x chainring.

The narrow-wide teeth of 1x chainrings do really help keep the chain on. If you use the 2x chainring, you lose that protection. Back when I used to race cyclocross in the early or mid 2000s, I recall that many people would use 1x systems there without the benefit of narrow-wide chainrings - but we would either run chainguards on each side of a single ring, or else run an outer chainguard plus some sort of chain catcher on the inside. Cyclocross-style chainguards were just plates you mounted in place of the chainrings with some spacers. An ad hoc solution was to take a worn chainring and dremel the teeth off.
It does seem like on mountain bikes, chain guards might be accepted as either an alternative or a supplement to narrow-wide chainrings. It's an alternative if you're converting an old bike. Some MTB riders may add a chainguard to an existing 1x setup for extra security; this practice may originate on the gravity side of the discipline, and it may be tricking down to some enduro and XC cyclists. This style of chain guard is something like a front derailleur minus any shifting capability. You'd clamp it on like a regular front derailleur.
If you are determined, for whatever reason, to use the 46t 2x chainring, I would see a chain guard as mandatory. While I don't have personal experience, I'd imagine that even on a road bike, I would not trust a clutch RD alone to retain the chain. The clutch merely stops the RD cage from moving forward as the bike travels over rough terrain. That reduces the amount of chain bounce you get over rough terrain.

I have read about narrow-wide chainrings being necessary for single drivetrains, because it keeps the chain more secure on the ring.

A narrow/wide chainring is not the only necessary component. You also need a rear derailleur with a clutch to be able to avoid chain dropping from the chainring.
Not only that, but 1x chainrings need a crank with optimal chainline for the only chainring. A 1x setup is intended to be built such that you can use any sprocket in the rear with reasonable chainline. A 2x setup is built such that the large ring is used with N-1 smallest sprockets and never with the largest sprocket, and the small ring is used with N-1 largest sprocket and never with the smallest sprocket. If you install a 1x narrow/wide chainring on a 2x crank, it won't have an optimal chainline.
So, checklist:

Remove front derailleur, cables and shifter. You might recoup some of the costs by selling the front derailleur and shifter as second-hand parts.
Remove rear derailleur to be replaced with a unit with clutch. You might recoup some of the costs by selling the rear derailleur as second-hand part.
Remove 2x crankset, put 1x crankset with narrow/wide chainring in. You might recoup some of the costs by selling the old crankset as a second-hand part.

My opinion is that this probably won't make much sense. Selling used parts is tricky as if you won't find anyone nearby to buy these, you have to pay postage, and the price for worn items you get is quite low anyway.
Also, note that if installing a new chainring or crankset, you may need to replace the chain as well because a new chainring might not work with a well-worn chain. If replacing the chain, you may need to replace the rear sprockets too.
Even if starting from the scratch, i.e. you are building a bike and selecting components, a 1x setup won't save any measurable amount of money. You need a cassette with larger range (more expensive), a rear derailleur with a clutch (more expensive) and one narrow/wide chainring (which costs far more than two ordinary chainrings because narrow/wide chainrings are built by CNC machining and machining the narrow/wide features requires more tooling time than simply creating an ordinary chainring). You save front derailleur cost which is a cheap item anyway, and you won't need the front shifter. About the only type of shifter that is expensive is an STI unit, and if using STI lever for the rear shifter, you probably want another identically sized lever, i.e. you will have an STI lever for the front too. In comparison to STI shifters, mountain bike shifters are ridiculously cheap unlike for example narrow/wide chainrings that cost a lot of money.


Is the 'shark wheel' a good idea for a bicycle? I recently found a product that is a redesign of the common wheel.  It's branded as the 'shark wheel'.  It's basically a wheel where the rim is circular but bends like a sine wave.  Simple idea but very interesting.

Currently, the company only has skateboard wheels in production.  However, I recently saw the owners give a presentation where they demoed larger wheels for strollers, wagons, etc.  I can't help but wonder how long until someone rigs something like this onto a bicycle hub and rides it.

The stated benefits are that the wheel has, or can have, a thin tire with low rolling resistance but it grips like a fatter tire because of the way in which it travels over the ground, constantly changing velocity.

Below is a picture of one of the wheels.  My question is can this design be applied to a bicycle wheel, and, if so, would it be more performant is certain cases, e.g. off road?

On a skate board type application it is effective

On a bicycle it is not effective and impractical to implement

On a skate board you want a wide contact patch. On a skate board you absolutely don't want the wheel to tilt.  The idea is to keep the width but reduce contact area.  The reduced contact patch has lower rolling resistance. Within the virtual flat contact surface are circular surfaces that will shed debris (small rocks).  They can also can go with softer material so you give back on rolling resistance but get softer ride and more grip.  They are not taking over the skate board market but they have a niche and it may grow to dominate.  It is more than just a fad with no real value.  And some people  will buy it because it looks cool.

Basically none of that scales to bicycle.

A bicycle leans and as soon as you lean a shark wheel it is no
longer round.
That is a show stopper.
Even if it stayed round on a lean the extra width on a bicycle with comes
at large expense.
A spoke type design would not work.  Would need a solid wheel.
Would have to be a solid tire.  Pneumatic would push the tire off a curved rim and put stress on the rim.

It would definitely depend on what you would be doing. It might be nice for a casual road bike because it supposedly absorbs most of the bumps in the road. But on dirt with mountain bikes I feel that it would slide all over the place.


How can I reach upto Olympic level competitions? I am 20 years old. My height is 1.7 meters (5 foot 7 inches).  I live in India.  I have cycled since I was a kid just for enjoyment.  I have no idea how I will reach  to world level competition like Olympics. It is my dream. or is it too late?
Is there something which will tell me early on whether i am capable of doing it or not, like a first test whether I am gifted with cycling skills?

There's no way we can answer this question for you. The people who reach elite-level competition in cycling have extraordinary natural gifts, dedicate enormous time and effort to training (20+ hours per week), and are incredibly motivated (to train intensively for 20+ hours per week, etc).
If there's a local cycling club you can ride with, do that. If there are any races in your area, enter some races. See how you like racing, and see how you do. Start reading up on training methods and learn what you can. Usually the people who have those exceptional gifts rise to the top pretty quickly, but even if you don't, don't let that discourage you from having fun with racing at a local level.

Of course that you can reach Olympic level competitions. Just find a way to get into the national team of a small/obscure/sports lacking country. Find and become the equivalent of the Jamaican Bobsled team at the 1988 Winter Olympics.
See you at the Olympics.


Why would my rear brake pads wear faster than front? It has already been established that most of braking power comes from front brake. Now, several times that I have been replacing brake pads on my commuter cyclocross bike I have noticed that rear pads are worn out but front still have some rubber in them. Does this happen to anyone else, and why would this happen?
The brakes are Shimano cantilevers, previously I had no-brand min-V's that did the same.

There are a couple of factors that might come into play.

The first is that you may be braking more than you think at the back. Which brake is controlled by your stronger hand? Are they adjusted the same?

The second factor is dirt. The front wheel throws up dust and muddy water, some of which can reach the back wheel even with mudguards. This can abrade both the pads and the rims. This will be much reduced on disk brakes.

If you use the brakes a lot downhill you may find yourself using the back lightly to stop yourself accelerating. This seems to cause quite a lot of wear, perhaps because the brakes don't remove the dirt like they would in a hard stop and perhaps because it's a lot of wheel revs with the brake touching the rims.

I used to notice this on stock pads and the cheap dual compounds I first replaced them with. The KoolStop pads I now use wear much less and I don't notice a difference. This is on ordinary shimano V brakes. This was despite only taking up the slack in the back brake when coming to a hard stop, but I had a couple of steep downhills.

Because there is more weight on the rear because that's where you are.


How to prepare oneself for riding in the snow? I live in western Germany and have started to ride to work almost everyday. It is great at the moment as it is summer (not as dry as I hoped for, but that is another story). So the only thing I have to really deal with is rain and, sometimes, cooler weather.

In the winter, it sometimes snow, and will definitely have ice on the roads and trails that I ride. What can I do to prepare my bike and my clothing for riding in the winter time? I am even considering getting a new bike as my current bike is quite worn and needs to be updated.

I know that this is quite broad, but I hope to create a list of things (or community wiki) to do for preparing for the winter time.

Studded tires are a must on ice. They are expensive, but well worth it! A couple of points to consider that have not been mentioned:

Footwear: Winter specific riding shoes or boots. For mountain biking and cross, I ride with Lake boots. On the road, I use an older pair of road shoes that have been stretched to accommodate thick wool socks and neoprene shoe covers.

Head-wear: I typically ride with a helmet cover all winter. I also bring along a couple different varieties of skull caps on ride ranging in thickness, ear/face coverage etc... yes to balaclavas!!!

Depth of snow: whether you are running studs or not, my experience is that if the snow is deeper than 4-5 inches, it is not ride-able. In this case, it is best to wait until either the cross country skiers, hikers or plows(in the case of roads) have cleared or packed down the snow.

Body Temperature: Many cyclists new to riding in colder weather tend to over dress. The trick that works for me is twofold, first absolutely dress in layers and second I want to be cold, not freezing, but cold as I go outside and get my bike ready or at the very start of the ride. If I am warm at that point, I will be sweat soaked in the matter of minutes and wetness is something you want avoid!

Fender: Clearly, if the snow is dry, it is not necessary, but my experience is it is better to have one as a precaution than go without!

Heat Packs: At extreme temperatures, I have successfully used heat packs in the tips of my shoes and palms of my gloves. I am not a huge fan of use in the palms, I very rarely and if i do it is usually just a temporary fix.

Use of Car Heater: If I am driving to the ride, I preheat my shoes and as much clothing as possible using my car heater on the way to the ride.

If you get yourself set up with studs, I would highly recommend finding a frozen lake or pond to ride on! The experience is phenomenal! If you can time the lake ride with 1-2 inches of fresh snow it will be that much better!

I ride road, mountain and cross year round outside. Hope this helps!

Disconnect your front brake. Seriously. There's no point running one in the snow and ice, and if you reach for it instinctively you'll go down!


Do expedition bikes offer advantages over standard touring bikes? I have seen a few bikes marketed as "Expedition Bikes". They seem to be designed for the purpose of touring off-the-beaten-track. Typically they have 26 inch wheels and either butterfly or flat bars, though I have seen a couple with drops. Some even have internal hub gears. The one defining characteristic seems to be the 26 inch wheels though.

What is the advantage, specifically, of the 26 inch wheels over 700c when on an 'Expedition' type tour? And more in general, are there other advantages to buying (or building) an Expedition Bike rather than just modifying an existing road tourer?

You should find that on those bikes everything is a bit stronger and heavier than a standard touring bike. Not only are they expected to carry more weight, they're designed to be ridden into places where failures are more difficult to recover from. As well, because they're designed to be ridden off road they'll usually have a lower top tube for better stand-over height, and there are fewer compromises in building a frame like that with smaller wheels.

Smaller wheels are stronger than larger ones, mostly laterally but also weight-for-weight vertically (shorter circumference means more material per unit length). This is most obvious with the 306 and 406 wheels used on trikes, but applies also to larger wheels except that the differences are smaller. Larger wheels mean the axle is higher, but also the top of the fork crown and so on, so you're adding the change in diameter to the frame height, not the change in radius.

Decent 26" tyres are more available in small towns. With a 700c or 27" wheel you may find that you have a choice of flimsy, skinny tyres and nothing else. (thanks Batman). In a pinch you can tour on cheap MTB tyres more easily than cheap 700c tyres, because a cheap, skinny tyre is going to puncture more easily and not deal with touring loads as well. I've seen a lot of bike shops in small towns in the first world that have BMX tyres, 26" off-road and city tyres, and 700c "race" tyres, all cheap unbranded tyres. It's not a choice between an expensive good brand and a cheap one, it's a choice between two widths or styles of the cheap one. If you have a choice. Or wait a week or more for mail order, because your order goes by air to a major city, then road to a minor city, then bus freight to where you are. Ideally you'd always carry a spare tyre, but in practice that just means you're waiting to replace the spare rather than the currently wrecked tyre.

Another factor is ease of building a frame that will accept fat tyres with the wheel size. Once you add a 2.5" tyre to your 700c wheel the frame gets quite large (29er MTB frames), which makes designing for low stand-over height harder and all the stresses on the frame get larger because the tubes are longer making for longer levers. The differences are small, but they add up - a slightly longer lever needs a slightly stronger tube, so now you have a longer tube that's also heavier per unit length, and overall the 10% extra length means a 25% heavier tube.

You are also more likely to find disk brakes on expedition bikes, because again they're more robust. Not necessarily the caliper and rotor, but the wheel as a whole. If you get a buckled wheel, with disk brakes the critical question is "does the buckle clear the frame" (ie, does the wheel go round), but with rim brakes it's "can I adjust the brakes to clear the rim" (that ignores "do the brakes still work like that").

The reason you see Rohloff hub gears on expedition bikes is the same. Sure, they add cost, but they are reliable. Not only do you lose the low-hanging, fragile rear derailleur, the straight chain line and high chain-ground clearance means chains last longer. The hubs go 5000km between oil changes and 150,000km or more before needing replacement. As a bonus you get a stronger wheel from wider spaced, symmetrical flanges (that are also taller). Again, it might be 1kg heavier, but when you're loading 50kg or more of stuff on the bike, do you really care?

.

The motivation for a lot of this is that it's all very well saying "I'll just get a lift to the next town", but if you're riding the Birdsville Track in the off season (recommended to avoid getting run over by tourists) you might wait several days for the next car to arrive. And they might not be able to carry your bike as well as you. So not only do you need enough food for 500km, you need water for at least a week (2-3 days between water supplies, plus a reserve). Then you have to get a lift back to your bike with parts, fix it, and ride on. Much better to pay a bit extra and get a bike that doesn't break in the first place...

I've put up an extensive article on the subject here - http://www.bretonbikes.com/generalarticles/700cvs26inch.html

It's typically opinionated and I don't expect everyone to agree, but it is written from huge (unique?) experience and I hope will encourage people to at least think about the subject


Is going without a helmet more aerodynamic? Is having a bare head more aerodynamic than an aero road helmet?

I did not do exhaustive literature review, but the first hit, Aerodynamics of ribbed bicycle racing helmets has wind resistance measurements for several different aero helmets with vented helmet and bare head as controls. Bare head had similar air resistance to aero helmets at low yaw angles and the lowest resistance at large angles. The paper's conclusion is that for helmets (or bare head) that do not have huge number of vents, cross sectional area has more effect than the shape of the head or helmet.
This is of course purely academic, since competition outside sanctioned events doesn't count and in official competitions (excluding special cases such as hill climb time trials) you are required to wear a helmet anyway.

Is having a bare head more aerodynamic than an aero road helmet?

Try a simple test.
Put a helmet on your head on a very windy day and ride on a road where the wind is at 90 degree angle compared to your direction of motion.
Hear the wind noise in your ears?
Remove the helmet.
Hear the lack of wind noise in your ears?
I don't know if a helmet is more or less aerodynamic when riding in the direction of wind or 180 degrees to the direction of wind.
I do know that a helmet is very, very inaerodynamic if the direction of the wind is not towards or opposite to your direction of motion.
That's what counts. The wind can have any angle, not just in your direction of motion or opposite to your direction of motion.
I bet that in a real circuit where the direction of motion varies, the helmet will on average do more harm than good.


Where is my Record Luxus Racer bicycle from? I just bought a bicycle on a classified ads platform in France. I don't know anything about the brand and I couldn't find much information yet.

It is a Record Luxus Racer, as shown on the pictures below.

I have seen other people selling bikes of the same model, in various colors and in both men's and women's versions.
Most of the pictures were found on classified ad sites from: Germany, Poland, Romania and Hungary.

However, the ads were outdated and had been removed so I couldn't get information there. Some ads were still up, but the sellers mention they don't have information about the bike's history.

The person I bought my bike from didn't know anything about it either.

My questions are:

Which country is this bicycle from?
Does this brand still exist?
Where could I find more information about my Record Luxus Racer?

Please let me know if more pictures or information could be useful.

** the pictures aren't of my bike, but of a similar one from the Internet

EDIT:

Full picture of my bike.

Record branding on the steerer tube

Marathon Schwalbe Spezial tires (Germany)

EDIT 2:
More information following some comments

Valves: currently Schrader

Front wheel rim:

SCHURMANN - Made in W. Germany - Typ 112 steel - DIN ETRTO - 27 x 11 - 630 x 18 - 088

Back wheel rim:

VAN SCHOTHORST - 18 x 630 (27 x 1 174) - ?5 91 - Made in Holland

Dynamo:
DANSI TYP:FG8 - K10861 - 6W 3V

Stand:
OLONA

Pedals:
UNION K10490 - W. GERMANY

Rear derailleur
1 x 5 - SHIMANO Tourney

I don't think this will help you much, but I own a record bicycle, a mountain bicycle, and this brand was sold a looong time ago in my country (Mexico), I hope that the fact that it was sold in my country help you find which brand produced that bicycle :)

I believe your bicycle was made buy record bicycle which is a manufacturer based in Quebec.

Unfortunately I do not know about the model "Lexus Racer"
But if you send them an email with regard to this model I am sure you will get some information regarding your bicycle, I live in France and speak french fluently so if you need any help with translation I can.
google translate doesn't always do the job .

The website For the manufacturer is: http://bicyclesrecord.com

Good luck finding any information regarding your bicycle.

Max


How can I increase my speed on my hybrid bike? I have a Specialized hybrid bike, and when I'm out biking with friends who are on road bikes, I'm always lagging behind.  Besides just plain getting better at biking, which of the following would make the biggest difference in increasing my speed?

Switch to clipless pedals.  Right now I'm just on platform pedals with sneakers.
Switch to thinner tires.  Right now I have 700x28c.
Switch to a dropbar...  I think this is more of a comfort thing though.
Switch to a road bike! Obviously I'm wondering how close I can come without switching out the bike frame :-)

Thanks!

It really depends on how you're lagging.  If it's because of feeling tired keeping up with them then reducing friction might be an option.  I'd suggest that the most likely reason for lagging behind is that there is a fundamental speed difference though.  See whether you're having to pedal faster than them to keep up.

Your top speed is governed by your cogs.  Take a look the number of teeth on the front and back.  If you have a 13 tooth smallest cog on the back you could get that cassette replaced with one that starts at 11 teeth.  Up front you're probably running a 46 tooth chainset whereas your road bike friends are probably running 50 teeth.  Again, you can replace that if you fancy it.  Just be careful if you do make it faster that you don't lose the low end you want for getting up hills.  You should be able to get quite a decent range with the right set of cogs.

Reduced drag from narrower tires may reduce the friction allowing you to accelerate more easily and maintain speed better but won't affect your top speed appreciably.

Clipless pedals may allow you to improve your efficiency with pedalling.  I would only look at these when I was happy with a bike though, rather than as a solution to a problem like that.

Update:  Based on zenbike's comment I'd say the switching to a road bike warrants more consideration.  Assuming it is the gears he's right that a hybrid may well be difficult to alter to run the gear ratio you want to keep up with your friends.  When thinking of getting a new bike take a look at how similar it is to the ones your friends ride.  Simply getting a cheap heavy one if they have light racers may well leave you with a similar problem.

If 2 bikes have the same gear ratio but one is heavier it will be able to go as fast, but it'll be more effort to get it up to speed, and a little more effort to cruise at the same speed.  It's less of a problem than not having the right ratio, but you'll probably find your self lagging a little at first.

Use the highest gear on the bigger gear and then after use the lower gear on the smaller one you'll be guaranteed to go faster than them. It may take more effort but it really helps.

My brother has a road bike and we raced, and I was faster.  Roadies are lighter but they have not that much control so if you're riding to work and school then it's easy if you're more adapted to it.

Try adjusting both your gears.