Can a rusty chain be saved? I picked a girl's mountain bike out of a dumpster . It looks very excellent except for a chain that is so rusted that each link needs to worked free.

Name is Techno Lite , 26" wheels, 15 speed Shimano, center pull brakes Lee Chi.

I know it is not the caliber of bike that most posters here have, but I have a 11 year old granddaughter that could ride it ; a "starter" bicycle to see if it is something she would be interested in. My guess is some one rode on a salt water beach then put it in a garage for years without rinsing it; the chain was essentially solid.

Question: Should I oil the chain and work it free or buy a new chain ?

If the chain isn't worn (which it probably is not, kids bikes don't get high mileage) it might be worth trying to save, but you may end up spending more compared to getting a new one.

Penetrating oil, a wire brush and a lot of effort may free it up enough and get it reasonably clean.

Removing the rust chemically is problematic. Something strong enough to work with the chain in place may damage paint or plastics. There are safe products such as Vapo-Rust but the chain would need to be removed and soaked for an extended period of time. Also, new chains for 10 or 15 speed bikes are inexpensive. Instead of buying chemicals, just buy a chain.

If there's loose rust, of course you should remove it; a wire brush is all that
needs.   The real problem is inside the pin joints, and usually a penetrating oil
(or WD-40, or kerosene) can rinse that out.   After the joints are free, blot dry and put on
a real lube (I've liked drip bottle Tri-Flow, White Lightning gets good reports, too).

The little solid microbeads get into the pin area and stay; even after
most of the oil washes off, and despite surface rust, the chain can
work fine for years of commuting.

Oxalic acid (depending on time and concentration) can etch the bearing surfaces,
or remove the black oxide (not much rust protection in black oxide, but it's
better than bare metal); I'd avoid that.   Yes, it dissolves rust, but even
an infrequently lubed chain ought not to need that.


Stopping power of mountain vs road bike I have recently been restoring a Btwin Triban-500 road bike, given to me from a friend who had let it sit around for a few years. I've rebuilt the bike sparing no expense, new inner tubes, cables, levers, chain, cassette and everything else has been thoroughly cleaned (with dish detergent, degreaser and re-greased).

It's been a fun project and I've currently got the brakes and rear derailleur connected. I've taken the bike for a spin around the block and I'm not happy with the braking power. I've got the brake cables tight and the pads are adjusted (i've done the same on my V-brake cheapo mountain bike and that stops quickly!). When I slam the brakes on the wheels lock up(front and back) but I take longer to stop than I'm perhaps used to. I mentioned my cheap mountain bike and those brakes are sharp (despite being cheap V-brakes). I've previously owned a hybrid with hydraulic discs and even half the lever was enough to violently throw me over the bars, I strive for brakes that powerful!

In comparison to my mountain bike, I'd say I take an extra half second to stop (I did a very scientific test past a street lamp). It worries me because the mountain bike is one of the cheapest rubbishest bikes from Halfords, surely the road should stop before it?

The mountain has 1.95 wide tyres and the road has 23mm tyres, will the reduced rubber be making a big impact (less friction) stopping the bike? or should I be able to get the rim brakes to perform just as well as the cantilevers?

Thanks

You have already answered your own question really.

  When I slam the brakes on the wheels lock up(front and back) but i take longer to stop than i'm perhaps used to.

If the brakes are strong enough to lock up the wheels they have plenty of power, but you have overcome the ability of the tyre to grip the road.

TL;DR : your brakes are fine, a mountain bike is better at braking than a road bike.

A mountain bike have all the good reason in the world to be better at braking than a road bike : A road bike compromise everything to speed, weight, efficiency. a moutain bike is kind of the opposite, it focus on handling (braking is part of it).

The important things to consider in vehicle dynamic when braking :

the tire itself (compound, pressure, contact patch surface)
load transfer (the force applied to the tire)

Fore the tire itself, and considering it's just a bike and not a formula1 car,it's easy : the more vertical load and and the more surface you have on the road, the better. Unless you exceed the tire grip capacity.

When you brake, a lot of load transfer to the front wheel, thanks to inertia.
In case of a bike this mass is you, the pilot.
Being violently thrown over the over bar is not a good measure of braking power.

on a mountain bike :

you have a different position than on a road bike
you have suspensions !
you have a greater surface patch in contact with the road (more grip)

The suspension change how the load is transferred from back to front.

a little word about suspension :

The more mass you have on a tire, the better it "stick" to the road and the more braking force you can apply. (just draw force vector on a paper, it make sense)
So it could be just fine to have 100% of the mass to transfer to the front wheel and brake only with the front wheel, right ? wrong !
Because with 2 tire you have twice the surface patch on the road ! ha !
But you can't help mass transferring to the front wheel (inertia). Well... kind of. In fact, you can, and it's the main role of suspension. The front suspension (it super weird and not intuitive) transfer the mass back to the rear wheel. And with a better distribution of mass on all wheel you can make the best of all the surface contact patch you have between the vehicle and the road.

I'll stop here with the explanation because you can spend a lifetime (and many thesis) on this subject.

Do not lock up, your brake are fine, your front/rear braking power distribution is different on MTB/Road, do not throw yourself over the bars on purpose, MTB are better at braking than road bike.

edit : it's early in the morning, not enough coffee. i'll probably re-edit this post to make it more readable (if needed).


Is a recumbent trike faster than a non-recumbent bicycle? I am seriously considering getting a recumbent trike, probably one in a tadpole configuration, and was weighting up how much time I would save during my commute when compared to my normal bike.

Currently, I ride Giant Cypress and my speed averages about 22kmh on my commute. My commute is about 16kms, one way, and is over a mixture of forest trails and asphalt bike paths.

I am also thinking about using the recumbent bike over the winter months as well.

All other things being equal (which admittedly, they never are), a recumbent trike will be slower. It has more frontal area, more rolling resistance, and more weight.

I don't have a recumbent bike, but I do have a conventional racing bike and a recumbent trike (a very low-slung tadpole, not a delta). On a frequently-ridden 37-mile loop, my average speed on my racing bike is about 15.5 mph, average on the trike is 14.3 mph. So at the speeds and distances you're riding, the net time difference won't be that great.

All that said, the trike is a lot of fun.

If recumbent trikes are considered much faster downhill than road bikes, which is the case, with 40-50 mph (65-80 km/h) commonly stated with ease, then it blows away the argument they are less aero.

They are disadvantaged by weight, although some, like the catrike 700 are comparable with mountain bikes at least, at 33lb (15 kg) which isn't bad considering they have an extra wheel.

Much of the argument that road bikes are faster uphill seems to depend on the rider standing, which could be considered a bit wimpy. Standing is surely cheating if one is comparing bents and uprights fairly.  Sadly, cyclists never seem to state whether their speed advantage uphill is because of standing.  A recumbent rider used to riding uphill in the normal sitting position should not notice too much difference and might even be quicker, because they can push against the seat. Most enthusiast road bike riders do stand on hills though, which might account for the meme that they are faster on a road bike. As to recumbent bikes, the advantage is massive. The raptobike lowracer for example is faster than even a TT bike.


5 arm cranksets versus 4. Which is better and why? I'm looking to buy a Sora triple crankset. Shimano make two types, one eith 5 arms, and the other with 4 arms1. Which should I get and why would that be a better choice? I'm a slow-ish rider. I'm 50 and speed is not a priority. But I'm planning a long ride in Asia and Africa next year. Which of the two chain-ring types would be a better choice for spare parts and any other considerations? Note: the 5 arm crank has a P.C.D. of 130 compared to 110 for the four arm crank.
Editor's note:
The 4-arm R3030 crankset, below, is described as having a 110/74mm BCD.

The 5-arm R3030-CG, below, is described as having a 130/74mm BCD.

With a triple crank it matters more what the inner most PCD is. 110 and 130 both refer to the larger rings only and the length of the crank arms themselves may not suit you and it may not be compatible with your bike immediately either.
I have played with bikes for over 40 years and ridden most Shimano PCD types and arm lengths and 4 of the bottom bracket standards too. You may need new bottom bracket bearings installed at the same time, the different standards don't interchange at all. The newer the better from every angle if you need it and the price is right for you.
Sometimes the bike is better to be replaced if you know enough to understand what you need and more than a few things need to be replaced at once on a mediocre older bike.
Your described style of riding tells me you need the model that comes with the smallest number of teeth on the smallest ring of the crankset. This selection will provide the easiest effort to you regardless of most other things. The other gears are almost always properly spaced to provide 3 separate ranges of gears you can use for riding comfortably uphill, downhill and more level ground. Practice using all you gears to learn when you may wish for just that particular effect on your comfort and your efforts.
Just like your brakes it is important that your gears work just as you need them to when you need then to.
I have used middle and inner ring minimums on 48/34/20T with 94/58PCD and 54/39/24T with 130/74PCD and others in between. Your tyre size, terrain you ride and what you will carry on it really sets your gearing needs the most. If you learn to enjoy using more effort and sweating when you ride your gear needs may also evolve.
I've not seen or heard of less than 20T on a crankset. If both cranksets have the same lower number, then, the wider of the other 2 gears would be my recommendation. You can usually change just the inner ring very cheaply if you need a change but it can only go so small with each PCD.
Bike parts are usually so reliable as metallurgy has improved greatly in our lifetimes, thinking about ongoing costs is not very relevant apart from maintenance of the chain. Keep it clean and dry lubed following the directions is the biggest money saver you can make. It is possible to have a chain last many 1,000s of kilometres with regular care.
Edit: Only now that I've returned have I actually seen these 2 crank set images you referred to. I'd select the 5 arm Shimano with a new BB, the 2 piece design was introduced 20years ago and lots of spares and a 24T is possible in place of the 26T if needed. Bending any axle or crank arm is likely with enough force regardless of the system.

I'm looking to buy a Sora triple crankset. Shimano make two types one has 5 arms and the other only has 4 arms. Which should I get and why would that be a better choice?

The one where you can reasonably rotate the chainrings in the best possible manner.
Normally, that would mean 4 arm. However, the Sora 4 arm crankset has an asymmetric bolt circle. It means you cannot rotate the chainrings to get maximum life out of them. Not only that, but sourcing these asymmetric chainrings is a major burden.
So the 5 arm is better in your case. The rotation to even out wear life is not perfect (a 4 arm crankset allows you to rotate the chainring exactly 90 degrees, the maximum possible rotation, whereas with 5 arms you get 72 degree rotation).
However, the 130 BCD doesn't allow a compact gearing. I looked at the cranksets and today it lists 110 BCD double and 130 BCD triple for the 5-arm designs. The 110 BCD double is the best bet for slow riders as you won't want a triple due to its unoptimal chainline on the big ring.


How big are pull ratios in Shimano 9-speed front derailleurs in MTB and road bikes? I am asking about 3x9-speed front derailleurs.

The background this time is longer than the question -- I have a Sora based gravel bike and now I try to marry road shifter with MTB front derailleur with almost a success:

front , rear

small + big = works
small + small = works
middle + big = works
middle + small = works
big + big = works
big + small = does NOT work

It means I cannot push cage outwards enough. It is all about some shy 1.5 mm, I cannot believe I am so close to success and yet I see failure. It is not high limit screw on the derailleur, I am simply out of cable pull to shift the cage just a hair further.

So I wonder, what are those cable ratios, are they so minuscule different then they manifest in ~1.5mm of shortage pull? Or could it be that I have to use the same group for the derailleur and crankset (currently I have Alivio and Acera accordingly; for tests I tried not to spend too much money) because such behaviour is not caused by cable pull ratio difference?

I've had something like this on two road bikes - the big-front and small-rear combo means the chain is running as far to the right as possible as it hits the front derailleur.

One was fixed by using proper-sized 9 speed chain, not the mystery chain that was already installed.

Since the limit screw is not the problem, you may need to shim the derailleur so the whole thing stands to the right a tiny bit more.  If its a braze-on mount this won't help.

Do test if you can move the cage far enough with your fingers (be careful!)

Another possible fix might be to distort the front mech's cage, but that may cause problems with other gears.

Pull ratios are the same for all shifters (for the same number of speeds and brand). It is very common for  shifting to not work well with at the extreme range, big chain ring to smallest cog. The chain is at highest deflection from being parallel to the bike axis. This is known as crossed chain. Newer mountain bikes tend towards double or even single chain rings  which reduces the problems.

The maximum gear ratio (say about 48 x 12) is very high, I find only useful if you are going above 40 km/h.


Why is a derailleur guard present only on more affordable bicycles? Looking at http://decathlon.co.uk, I see a derailleur guard only on more affordable bicycles, e.g. this one.

This one does not have it, and there seems to be no obvious way to install one.

Are derailleur guards important? Why does the more expensive bicycle (with higher component replacement costs if something breaks) not have one? Is it correct that one cannot be installed on the one shown in the picture? If it can be installed, is it recommended?

One might always fall, or a parked bicycle may get knocked over.

Derailleur guards are rarely found on more expensive bikes for several reasons:

Protection: These guards only protect from minor contacts. Forces that would bend a typical derailleur would also bend these guards. Also, more expensive bikes usually have exchangeable derailleur hangers that are supposed to be the first thing damaged in a crash (and, thus, prevent the more expensive derailleur from more damage).
Weight: if the bike is handled properly (as owners of more expensive bikes tend do), the little added protection against minor touches is generally seen as not necessary.
Style: These things are ugly!


Can I break a single speed chain with kmc universal link It maybe necessary for me to remove the chain for a deep clean. I dont think it's ever been cleared by it's previous owner.

So just to be sure I can use one of these to rejoin the chain:
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/kmc-universal-chain-joining-link/

wanted to make sure just in case I screw up a perfectly working chain.

It is a kmc chain I believe.

It depends on the width of the chain. Single speed chains come in 1/8" and 3/32" widths, so you need to know whats on the bike to use an appropriate master link.

You should also check the chain, chainring and cog for wear. If the chain is old and poorly maintained it may be time for a new one (and possibly replacement of other drivetrain parts).

I have a single-speed with a KMC chain and that master link. I have removed it and reinstalled it without incident.


Cup and cone bearings: better a little tight or a little loose? A bike is commonly full of cup and cone bearings: pedals, hubs, bottom bracket, headset etc... The component change but the logic still the same the bearing is in between an axle, a pair of cones and a locknut. Sometimes, when you overhaul some bearings it's almost impossible to achieve the perfect tightness of the cones and locknut, if you retry you'll get a bit loose, sometimes a litte tight, never the in between perfection. It has happened to me only ones/twice that I was really satisfied about the tightness, so I was asking to myself: better to leave a bit loose or a bit tight?

As loose as possible without play. Bearings are supposed to have some amount of preload, which is a fancy name for being a bit tight as opposed to being loose. There should never be play once adjusted and on the bike.
For QR hubs, a good target amount of play off the bike is such that the play can be felt on the bike with the QR 50% closed but not 100%. Some people use tools either commercially available (the Stein axle vise) or improvised to adjust the hub while under QR compression. That is technically better but slower.
Without preload, the distribution of load is uneven across the bearing race surfaces, and they become worn prematurely.
Some people talk themselves into the idea that a bias towards loose is okay in some circumstances, but it is not. One of these scenarios is when prior damage (pitting, brinelling) or a bent axle is creating a situation where you have a rough spot unless you make the whole thing loose. The correct answer is still as loose as possible without play. Neither is perfect in this situation, but if you give it play, the overall condition will get worse faster.

you retry you'll get a bit loose, sometimes a little tight, never the in between perfection.

For some bikes perfection is not possible.
Like when working on a brand new or used box store bicycle or when working on a beat up bike and you don't have the parts you need right now....
If my only choice is between too tight and too loose it's best to be a little loose.
Too tight chews up bearings, bearing surfaces and often delivers a poor riding experience.
Too loose is can also be hard on bearings and bearing surfaces but in a different way. And, at least it will be a better ride for a little while.
It's best to exhaust all possibilities before giving up on perfection.


Should the laws be amended to allow cyclists to run red lights? Ignoring the question of whether or not cyclists should or should not break the law by running red lights, should the law be changed such that cyclists are somehow exempt from stopping and waiting? For example, the Idaho Stop Law provides that cyclists may effectively treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs.

Has this question been discussed before?  Has there been evidence presented that suggests that this is a good or bad idea?

Is this sort of legal change in cyclists' favor? Is it something we should fight for, or will it cause more harm than good? What are the arguments in favor and against such a change?

Maybe (or not), at some stop signs: but not at stop lights

This sounds like an opinion question so I'll answer it that way.

I think it would be okay to allow bicycles to roll through stop signs on residential side streets.  After all, a slowly rolling cyclist is likely more aware of their surroundings than a fully stopped motorist.

Busy multi-way stop intersections?  Probably not a good idea.  Here in Ohio at least, motorists have no idea how 4-way stops work.  We cyclists would be killed within a week.

Stop lights, no way.  Stop lights are usually reserved for higher volume roads and treating them as a stop sign would be dangerous.

That's all from a safety standpoint.  From a public image standpoint, I think cyclists should obey all traffic regulations to the letter.  I have seen far too many kamikaze cyclists cutting in front of cars, riding on sidewalks and not signalling turns.  That kind of behavior just fuels anti-cycling sentiment.

Cyclists should share the road, not expect special treatment that could promote motorist backlash.

In Britain all vehicles are required by Law to be MOT'd (an annual safety check cost £35-£50) Taxed (a variable amount dependant emissions average car £130) and Insured (after maximum discounts for no claims £300 or more) and to drive a car a full licence is required which is much harder to pass than when Itook it over 30 years ago.
 Cyclist pay none of this and are being provided in major towns with bike lanes or the right to use bus-lanes. In London (not an easy place to drive) there is a presumption that a driver is to blame for any accident involving a cyclist. With heavy congestion any cyclist can easily average a higher speed than a car and yet they DO NOT obey the rules of the road and are very unlikely to be stopped by the Police even when they ride through red lights.
 Needless to say the average car and van driver tend to consider cyclists as vermin.(Exageration)..
The problem cyclists really started when supermarkets started selling bikes and they started to be viewed as toys.This was when BMX and Mountain Bikes became popular and car ownership increased.
 In my opinion Cyclists need to be seen as responsible citizens The easiest way being to act in a considerate and law abiding way..Then car drivers will start to realise that every cyclist is one less idiot car driver in the way and welcome changes to the road layout that encorage more cyclists.


Does Shimano XTR RD-M9000 SGS 11-Speed Shadow+ MTB Rear Derailleur Long Cage work with 10speed XT shifter? I just bought a used bike with a broken 10 speed XT rear derailleur. Would a NEW Shimano XTR RD-M9000 SGS 11-Speed Shadow+ MTB Rear Derailleur Long Cage
( 182006158222 ) be compatible with 10 speed XT shifter & 10 speed Shimano XTR 11-36t Titanium Cassette that I have?

I can say from experience this does not work well at all.

Although as mentioned above the chain does run through the shifting is dreadful. I tried it with a 10 speed shifter but gears would always have a spot where they would jump.

Just get a 10 speed rear derailleur.  You will be glad you did.

Will it work?  Probably.  The range of movement of the mech wont be an issue and the chain will run through it, so I cant see why it wouldnt work.  This article is quite helpful:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-10-11-speed-drivetrain-component-compatibility_362722

Shimano will tell you 11spd components wont work with 10spd though.  If I were you I'd just get a 10spd rear mech.


Is the KMC X8 a better quality option for an 8 speeds chain? I sell a lot of SRAM PC830 chains that I buy in bulk.
The KMC X8 has, I think, nickel plated outer links.
Other than that, it claims to have mushroomed rivets and the X-Bridge outer plate.
Does that make it a better quality or more durable chain?
I'm looking for a better or more durable 8 speeds option for my customers, but even the KMC websites won't confirm if the outer links are nickel plated or not.
Thank you.

The KMC X8 has, I think, nickel plated outer links.

Doesn't matter except for looks. The plating of outer links is not what wears in chains.

Other than that, it claims to have mushroomed rivets

Every chain today has "mushroomed" rivets. These rivets prevent joining the chain again with its own rivets, a clear drawback. However, they make shifting possible under load. You don't need to shift under load on bikes powered by human power only, but for e-bikes the mid-drive doesn't turn off the torque quickly enough when you stop pedaling, so shifting under load is something that is unavoidable. So you want "mushroomed" rivets on e-bikes. On non-e-bikes, you probably won't want "mushroomed" rivets so you can re-join the chain again using its own rivets, but oops, "mushroomed" rivets are only type of rivets you can find.
Fortunately, Shimano has solved the rivet issue with reinforced rivets that are single use only. They allow you to break and re-connect the chain over 100 times (assuming the chain is over 100 links long). It costs some amount of money to buy enough of these reinforced rivets for your emergency toolkit, but they weigh next to nothing.
With other makes than Shimano, you can only use "quick" links, a misnomer since they should be called "slow" links instead. The reason is that although a joining link of this type is quick to be installed, and quick to be removed from a chain that is clean, if you go out and actually ride your bike the chain becomes dirty and the dirt makes joining link removal so difficult that it's almost impossible without special pliers.
Because Shimano allows you to use reinforced rivets, whereas other makes demand you to use these "slow" links, I recommend Shimano chains. A mini chain tool is smaller and lighter weight than joining link pliers. Besides, a chain tool is something you in every case need because you need to shorten the chain to its proper length prior to installation, so you can't omit owning a chain tool. But you can omit owning joining link pliers.

and the X-Bridge outer plate.

Nothing in the outer plate affects the property of interest, how fast the chain wears. Only the half-bushings that are integral to the inner plates, and the chain rivet, affect chain durability. So you are definitely interested in the quality of steel used in inner plates and rivets, but the quality of steel used in outer plates doesn't matter.

Does that make it a better quality or more durable chain?

No, not any more durable.
Focus on the quality of steel on rivets and inner plates. The steel should be chrome hardened. That makes the chain much more wear resistant.


Do mudguards/fenders help? If so, what are the best for a fixie commuter? I ride an SE Lager fixed. I'm riding on sealed paths and roads pretty much all of my commute.

On wet days my bike picks up a lot of water and also a lot of sandy/silty residue. It coats the frame and also clogs up the chain a lot. I imagine that my chain life will be suffering because of this.

Has anyone tried running mudguards and seen what kind of a difference it makes? My fixie doesn't have a huge amount of frame clearance around the wheels so I'll need something fairly minimal. I've seen these Crud Roadracers and they look like they have good coverage.

PS: I know that putting mudguards on a fixie is sacrilege (to some people... I'm not in that camp). But I'm running it for endurance and reduced maintenance, not exactly for style.

Update: Thanks for a bunch of awesome comments. However the thing I'm really wanting to focus on is whether I'll get a significantly longer lifespan for my running gear. I have waterproofs and don't mind the mess so much, I'm just trying to reduce my maintenance load and expense. The major areas I see that might be improved is chain (and therefore cogs) and maybe the bottom bracket, if I can reduce the amount of water hitting the seat pole and running down into the bracket.

Update 2: I bought a pair of the Crud Roadracers and, wow, they make such a difference. I rode on quite a wet day, but my running gear and clothes all stayed completely dry. I'm concerned they might not be durable for a commuter, but I'm certainly sold on mudguards/fenders for now.

I have a pair of SKS Race Blades (e.g. from Wiggle). They clip on and off really easily, for washing, security or just for the long days of summer when rain is decidedly unlikely. They are reasonably small and should fit all but the tightest of clearances.

For all the reasons you mention, I use them - cleanliness of my legs, back, bag and chain - but also because I like to at least play at being a good citizen. On my commute there are lots of other cyclists. Would you prefer to ride in the wet behind someone with or without guards? So the fact I'm being nice to my fellow cyclists is a really cool side benefit.

And if you think mudguards are sacrilege then, to be honest, you're probably not going to be reading this; style-over-substance hipsters are only dimly aware of the real reasons for cycling, only doing it because they think it's cool. And while it is cool, only not for the reasons they think ...

Simply, mudguards are useful keeping the mud (or similar) off the bike, and the biker. So keep them if you don't like muds and dirt attached to you and your bike. @Mathew, said youngster don't like mudguards. And he is right, I don't like them at all. They are unnecessary obstruction. I am not concerned about the style though. For me they are the most fragile part in my bike. They just break way too easy. So for the concern about cleanliness, I clean my bike regularly, so I don't need an extra peripheral to keep my bike clean.

Besides, whenever I get chance, I try jumping with my bike, pull of some tricks too and by chance if I fall off, I might break the mudguard in pieces. There goes your 20 bucks.

Not to mention on rough terrains, when you drop your bike from a place , the fork suspension come up and hits the frame and breaks the mudguards, also the rear mud guards hits the tire so hard due to the momentum and breaks again. I have gone through this cycle for many times, now I wear a thin wind & water proof jacket on me, ride the bike without mudguards and just give a small wash to my bike after I am done.

I would like to see some tough rubber mud guards... I would the first one to install them on my bike.


Pedal weight and performance What's the performance difference between getting speedplay zero stainless and titanium, 206g vs 164g.
Only focus on weight and not quality of bearings etc.

I suspect the difference won't be noticeable, but I would like to see the math :-)

Lets say I pedal at 80 rpm, crank length 175mm, how many watt will I save getting the titanium edition? Feel free to define any other conditions, that I have left out.

Edit
A lot of comments and answers, thanks :-) But they don't really address my question. As I wrote, I would like to see the calculations. Sure the whole thing is theoretical, but thats ok I guess?

I was answering the Physics.se version of this question but it got closed (probably rightly so), so I'm posting it here.

The lighter pedals will have very little effect on the performance of your bike, other than through the overall weight, and particularly if you're pedalling at a steady cadence instead of accelerating and decelerating repeatedly.

Making any part of the bike lighter means that accelerating will be easier as you have less inertia, and that you will spend less power at any given constant speed, through a decrease in rolling resistance (i.e. you spend less work flexing your tires). However, you could achieve a similar effect by simply using a lighter frame or handlebars or haircut. To optimize this, if you really are in a trim-all-the-weight-possible mood, you should be comparing this to all comparable weight savings across your bike.

The only real property of the pedals that is affected is their moment of inertia. This means that heavier pedals have more energy stored in their rotational motion than lighter ones. The thing, though, is that at a steady cadence this energy stays constant and you do not need to worry about it. It only comes into play when you are accelerating, and frankly I would be more worried about your translational energy than the rotational energy in the tires and pedals.

In a similar spirit to the above, if you want to minimize this effect, you should compare this with the moment of inertia savings on your pedals, wheels and tires. Since the rims have a larger rotation radius, and rotate at a much faster angular velocity, they hold far more rotational energy than the pedals, and any savings in this area are likely to be easier by using lighter rims.

You asked for math, but I'm afraid it's a bit pointless to do it. The reason is that one can in principle calculate how much energy you save in a given situation, but that will give you a number that doesn't mean much. The only way to give it meaning is to compare it with similar weight losses in your frame and in your rims, at the very least, where 'similar' must be understood, in fairness, to mean a similar increase in price. But then you're in a completely different ball game, far broader than what is in your question.

Spend the price difference on lighter tyres, tubes and rims, where the large radius has a significant contribution to inertia.


Why does my front derailleur not work when it is cold? When it is warm outside my front derailleur works just fine. But when it gets colder (40F) the lever on the handle bar does not catch and I can move it without any resistance the whole way without the derailleur shifting.

Update: The wire is not moving and the shifter is a Shimano Deore.

Any idea what can cause that and how to fix it?

I had bike with RX100 components where the grease in the brifters dried up and they would not catch as you have described. Its possible the grease in yous is soft enough at warmer temperatures for them to work, but once it cools down, it thickens.  There is an earlier post here on how to address it.

I've had this problem before (recently), and it was solved with a thorough cleaning and then re-oiling of the derailleur.


Lowering the stem on a Canyon Endurace I have a Canyon Endurace XL frame with a 110mm stem which I currently have slammed. I've started racing this year and am very comfortable in the drops for the entire race, which makes me think that I might have room to go a little lower.
Would I be better getting a stem of the same length but with a -17deg angle which would effectively buy me another 21mm to play with? Or should I go for a longer reach? Or both?

It really depends on your body proportions. Canyons have very high head tubes, so -17 degree stem is nothing out of ordinary. Longer stem is a good idea if you feel that the cockpit is too short.

For reach, in my opinion a classic bend bar is better than "ergo" because it has longer reach on the drops, which increases the difference between hoods and drops.

Depending on your body proportions you should go for a longer stem. 1cm longer is a huge difference already and will make you much more aero.


How do I help the less experienced cyclist cope with a hill climb? I enjoy going up hills by bike and only the steepest Alps make me think 'what am I doing!!!'

However, some of my friends have a tendency to say things like We're not going all the way up there, are we!?!' Just the sight of tarmac looming upwards can make them want to instantly dismount or take a longer, flatter route, or go back home, or phone mummy, or find a pub or something else defeatist.

There also seems to be a common fixation on the top, which I don't understand. To me the top is not really of consequence (unless it is a famous mountain pass that I have not been to before).

What is the best way to encourage others to get to the top?

Edit: We are talking hills here, nothing particularly steep, nothing in extreme weather, perfectly averagely paved surface with light traffic.

For the most part, the same kind of advice you give to any cyclist will suffice here. Encourage them to take it easy at first, to give them the opportunity to experience cycling--and specifically climbing--in a supportive, non-threatening environment.

Pick a good route

What hills and roads you pick will have an effect on how the newbie cyclist perceives the ride. Lots of traffic, or many wall-like steep hills, or narrow shoulders--these will all discourage the new riders. Find a route that builds up to steeper hills gradually, with wide, well-maintained shoulders. Perhaps even take it off-road at first. You want to avoid roads like this:

...rather, look for roads with wide shoulders or even bike lanes (they tend to calm cyclists, perhaps with a false sense of safety, but they'll let your friends concentrate more on the cycling and less on the traffic.)

(This was at the top of a long hill, if that's not apparent.)

(This hill was tough, but the lanes were wide enough for passing.)

How to use your gears

There's a strange perception that you have to "tough it out" to get to the top of a hill, that spinning up a hill in a very low gear is somehow demeaning. Make it clear that it's not only okay to go to the lowest gear available, it's what many cyclists do. Explain that a little bit of planning ahead when they see the hill approaching will put them in the right gear before they need it. Building up speed on the previous downhill (if there is one) will also help.

Wait it out

Another thing that will help is patience. If they have to walk a few hills, be supportive. Wait for them at the top, or perhaps at the next turnoff on the route. Over time, this will change. Consider walking up the hills with them. (Walking a bike up a steep hill is good exercise, particularly a heavier bike!)

In conclusion

Whatever your friends achieved that day, let them know it! This may go without saying, but tell them what they did well, and how they could have more fun next time. If, in the end, they decide hills aren't for them, then avoid them on your next ride.

All hills look steeper when viewed from a distance. You might suggest that they keep telling themselves that!

If the road is wide, really empty, safe, with excellent visibility, and maybe even one-way going up, then you might suggest weaving back and forth to make their own "switchbacks".

Obviously, this does not apply to riding a shoulder or on busy streets, etc., and so is not widely applicable.


How good or bad would chainsaw bar lubricant be as a bicycle chain lube? A former coworker asked me this today, and I don't have a good answer.  He has access to plentiful quantities of chainsaw bar lubricant, the stuff that helps a chainsaw's chain move around the metal support poking out the front of a chainsaw.

Bar lube is primarily intended to decrease friction between a non-moving metal surface and the backside of a cutting chain.  Secondary effects are lubing the chain and helping to transfer heat away from the chain to the bar.

Its got to be better than CRC or WD40, but would bar lube be just simply worse than proper chain lubricants, or a lot worse?

Personally I'd just use proper bike chain lube. The question is specifically about chainsaw bar lube.

On a chainsaw is it called bar lube (not chain lube).
It is designed to lube the bar.

This is chainsaw chain:

Not the same beast as bicycle chain.
I don't even think there are rollers.
Bar lube is more viscous than bicycle chain lube.
Bar lube does not need a long life - it is going to get thrown off.
There is an excess of bar lube and big gaps compared to a bicycle chain.
The chain itself only needs to last longer than the cutting teeth.

Yes they are both chains but that is about all they have in common.
It is a bar lube.

I would chose 3 in 1, motor oil, or transmission fluid over bar lube.
Yes I would use bar lube on my bicycle chain if I had nothing else in the shop but I would not use it just because it was free. I would even use WD 40 for a single ride and get chain lube the next day. Not a great lubricant but WD 40 would not gunk up the chain.

You pay $20+ for a decent chain. Why would you skimp using a product not designed to protect the chain? A good chain lube is not very expensive and goes a long way.

Bar oil is like $5/litre or $15/gallon.  If you're nice to your chain and oil it everytime it gets soaked, lube can really add up.  Even if you only do it once every week or two like a reasonable commuter, there's a big price difference.  Also, if you ride through winter, you're not caring that bar oil will attract more dirt because your chain will be inundated regardless.  Bar oil is better simply because you will be overly generous using it and almost never run out.  Thank you.


Fogged window on Shimano revoshift Shimano revoshift is fogged so gear number is not readable.  I’ve washed the outside with isopropal to no effect.  How to remove lens and or replace it ?

It might be possible to remove, clean and replace the cover. As Carel says, know you can replace the part before disassembly.

The Dealer's Manual for the REVOSHIFT Shifter seems to indicate the method for removing the cover.
Page 14 tells how to remove the cover.

Page 15 tells how to put it back on).

I left step 3 out for brevity. It tells how to remove and replace the cable.

I'd be tempted to leave it alone and shift by feel.

You've not mentioned how long it's been like that. If the moisture appeared after a very wet ride then it might dry out reasonably quickly and not come back until another equally wet ride. Stating the obvious is allowed on stack exchange isn't it?


Which Type of Bike Would You Select If You Needed To Commute, Ride Fire Roads, and Regular Roads With 1 Bike? In the market for a bike
Novice/Beginner skillset
Looking to spend a decent chunk of money on one bike that can be used for commuting, fire roads, and standard road riding
Riding location would be Marin County/Mount Tam/Fairfax if that provides more clarity on the terrain type
Won't be in any competitions with this bike. Mostly after comfort and rideability verse speed based on my skill level.
I'm open to spending additional funds for running multiple wheelsets/tires but would prefer to run a single wheelset/tire
That being said, I'd prefer a kit verse a custom build out due to supply chain delays
40 Miles of Road/Week Commuting + 25 to 50 Miles of Gravel/Fire Roads/Road + Dirt Routes

I've looked at Cyclocross (Canyon Inflite), Gravel (Evil Chamois), and Endurance Bikes (Canyon Endurance).

Cyclocross looks the most appealing but I'd have to pick my fire roads a little more wisely. Riding a ton of miles also might catch up to my body due to the geometry
Gravel looks to be the best all-around fit but might be a little slower than I'd like on the road/would need to get a road wheelset which isn't time friendly
Endurance most likely wouldn't be able to take the fire roads / heavy gravel I'd be riding

Thank you in advance.

"a decent chunk of money on one bike"   this is a very slippery slope.
If this is your first bike, look for a used hardtail MTB for relatively low cost, and simply store any leftover money.  You'll want to buy accessories over time like helmet, tools and lights and so on.
Ideally the fork would have a working "lockout" lever, to disable the bounce while on-road.
Something with unfashionable 26" wheels might be perfect, when combined with a new pair of slick 26" road tyres.

Once you get 6-12 months of riding in, (and the associated fitness improvements!) then you'll have a better idea of what you want.  At that point you can spend the remaining money on a more targetted bike, whether that be for road, or a full-squish MTB for whatever you find most appealing.
Upshot, you're a beginner, and could go either way.  Don't commit all your money to something you might not like.

Trek Checkpoint ALR period. Is very very capable machine. I ride it to the grocery stores, commute to work and take it on my overnight rides to the woods.


How can I carry a tripod on my bike? I have a tripod for my SLR camera that I want to carry on my bike. It's just a generic tripod like this one, but if I strap it to my top tube it rubs against my legs while riding (and it's slightly too long for that).

I do have a pannier rack, but I haven't been able to attach it in a way I'm happy with yet. Do I have any other options?

Your best bet is to find a good way of attaching it to the rear rack.  Anything attached to the main triangle much larger than a bottle is likely to cause interference with your legs.

One way you could attach it to the rear rack would be to buy some pannier hardware and make your own pannier for it.  Or possibly attach the hardware (zip ties?) to one of the tripod's legs, making it into its own pannier?

The other option is to strap it down to the rack deck.  A nice sturdy rack like the Surly ones (archive) should give you plenty of stability, using a couple bungees to tie it down.  I've hauled 3 foot long loads on my rack this way without any trouble.

Attach it to the rear rack with bungee cords and make sure it is orthogonal to the bike. This way, cars will be more careful.


What causes a wheel to seize? My rear fixed-gear wheel seized up yesterday on my commute home.  I suspect it's the result of my bone-headed adjustment after replacing a broken locknut on the axle (I may not have put the new locknut on tight enough).  The wheel now refuses to turn - the axle is bound.

I'm curious though: what has actually happened inside?  I noticed it happen over one or two revolutions, as if something was wrapping around the wheel.  Could it be that a bearing cage came loose and wrapped around the axle somehow?  I've tried to take it apart and see, but though I got the locknuts off, I've nearly rounded off the cones themselves (and ruined a cone wrench) trying to get them unscrewed.

Thanks!

It is rare for a bike bearing to suddenly seize.  Even a bearing "run dry" or exposed to saltwater or whatever will generally just get rough and squeaky.

In order to seize you generally have one of two things:

(Rare) A fragment of something -- sand, a sliver of metal, etc -- gets in between the balls in the bearing, causing them to lock.
(Common) The failure to properly fasten a lock nut or other fastener results in one of the bearing cones being "screwed" more and more tightly into the bearing, eventually making the bearing too tight to turn.

The good news is that the above second case rarely results in "fatal" damage (though it may have the effect of adding a few thousand miles to bearing wear).  So long as the situation is corrected and the bearing not "forced" to ride a considerable distance the damage is usually minor.

If you over tighten the  nut it will squash the  bearing cage and damage the  axel if your not careful ie new wheel


How to approach zone practice if heart rate zones are completely inaccurate I recently started training with a heart rate belt. However, my heart rate zones seem completely different from the information I could gather online.
First, I'm in my mid-thirties but have a maximum heart rate of 197, which is much higher than it should be. However, it seems for many people this can be the case.
Second, more importantly, my heart rate zones differ a lot from standard percentages. Cyclingweekly stated that 82-89% should be for efforts lasting a few minutes but it is ok for me to hold the mid-80s for several hours. 89% and above only works for a few minutes. I don't seem to have any heart rate zone to target for a 20 minute effort.
Third, the indicator about speaking seems completely inaccurate. At 87%, speaking one sentence at a time (usually zone 2) is possible.
My question is how should I approach cycling practice based on zones if I fall out of the regular categories? I would also like to know possible reasons why the zones can be off, especially in case this relates to health issues or lack of training in some respect.

Max HR isn't a particularly useful metric.
Not only is it particularly difficult to measure/estimate, but it can't be used to accurately define training zones, as there are large variations between individuals with regards to % of MHR they can sustain for various durations. It can even change for an individual based on their current state of training.
Basing zones on Lactate Threshold Heart Rate (LTHR) is a much more useful metric for determining appropriate training zones. The most common way to determine LTHR is by performing a 30 minute solo time trial as if it were a race, and taking the average HR for the last 20 minutes of the effort. https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/

In regards to your heart rate. Maximum heart rate is different for many people because there is a combination of factors, and those most important factors are the age of individual and size of the heart.
As we age, every year your avg/max HR goes down by about 1beat per min. With the size of heart, smaller heart achieves higher max HR and opposite. HR also changes based on fatigue, dehydration etc. note that having higher max HR then other people is no indication of better fitness.
There are many heart rate zones standards because many people have different approaches and methods to training. Choosing heart zone standards will depend on what training program or workouts you follow. You can check these training zones that have been working for 100% of my athletes.
However if you don't follow any structured training, what you need to focus on instead is your heart rate threshold (or power threshold, if you have power meter). This is the most important metric when determining the training zones and your training. You can determine it by doing 30min full effort and last 20min take avg HR. If you have power, you can estimate your FTP here and check your cycling level.
Once you know the threshold HR, then all training should be based on that. Each training day you should focus on a different aspect of your fitness, so, for example, Tuesday focus on zones that are below your threshold, wed you can focus on at threshold HR and slightly over, and Thursday can be super intense above your threshold 120%.
Lastly, your threshold heart rate can change with your fitness, so make sure you monitor this at least every 2 months.


Is it possible to fit a 36 hole rim to a 32 hole hub? I recently had my rear wheel replaced because the old one was bent. Everything about the new wheel was correct except that the shopkeeper ordered a 36 hole rim instead of 32 one. Due to this he told me he had to fit a new hub as well. The problem is my bicycle came with high quality hubs and the one he replaced it with cost ~$3. My rear wheel is wobbling now and I suspect it's the generic hub. Buying a new hub will cost me twice the price of the wheel. Can I just reuse the old one with the new wheel

Theoretically? Yes. Practically? No.

the shopkeeper ordered a 36 hole rim instead of 32 one.

In most of the world this is his problem. You ordered new rim that will it your hub from him, so that's what you should get. Go to him, tell him you want what you ordered, that is a rim on your hub, or you want your money back and go to another repair shop  to make your wheel. If he opposes, then it is a question for sister site, Law Stack Exchange. But if you are in the European Union shopkeeper is on a losing position. I believe that's the case for most of the western world.

The problem is my bicycle came with high quality hubs and the one he replaced it with cost ~$3.

Ouch!
Been there, done that. I have purchased several new bicycles, and almost invariably the manufacturer has decided to save money by using non-Brand hubs. Usually those are some $3 Taiwanese ones. A hub is the second most difficult component to change in a bicycle, the frame being the most difficult component to change. It does not make sense to save money on hubs.

Buying a new hub will cost me twice the price of the wheel.

I don't understand how this can be the case. I just built a 36-spoke wheel and the hub (a brand named one) cost 67.73 EUR. The only reason it cost so much is that this is a thru-axle hub and those are usually more expensive than quick release ones. The rim cost 59.89 EUR, the spokes cost 17.70 EUR and the nipples cost 3.56 EUR. The rim tape cost 2.35 EUR, the tire cost 39.90 EUR, the brake disc cost 23.90 EUR, the tube cost 6.24 EUR and the cassette cost 26 EUR.
So the wheel cost is 118.88 EUR without rim tape, tire, brake disc, tube and cassette. With these, it cost 217.27 EUR. I built it myself so I didn't calculate price for my labor. I built it in little over 5 hours -- a professional wheelbuilder could surely do a sufficient job in one hour.
Of these figures, the hub is a very small amount.
Of course, it could be the case that there is some non-brand manufacturer of hubs selling poor products at exuberant costs. You need not buy such products. Stick with Brand hubs.

Can I just reuse the old one with the new wheel

The hole counts must match. You need to order a 32-hole rim or a 36-hole hub. I recommend the latter. 36-spoke wheels are noticeably stronger than 32-hole ones. Actually, originally nearly all quality bicycles had 36-hole wheels (source), with the exception of some special purpose racing bicycles that need not last more than one race. Then some clever marketeer decided to sell 32-spoke wheels in regular bicycles, selling these low spoke count wheels as "upgrade!" and cutting costs at the same time (less spokes = less wheelbuilding time). Those 32-spoke wheels are not as durable as 36-spoke wheels. Clever idea -- sell a cheaper product at greater price for the customer. You need not buy such wheels, obviously. Select a durable 36-spoke wheel instead.


Skate shoes vs mtb shoes? It's an old argue on forums, still cant get it. What is the (real, that worth the money and time for ordering from abroad, in my case) difference, let's say between Five Ten FreeRider shoes and some kind of old school skate shoes (the fat ones, like these Etnies)?

P.S as far as I know most dirt BMXers are quite happy with regular skate shoes.

I used to ride with skate shoes for a year and it was not good. I didn't know it.

Generally skate shoes:

bend more than MTB shoes so they'll not transfer all of your energy on the pedals
do not have sticky soles so riding on rough trails may be harder and more dangerous due to the feet constantly changing position on the pedals

Regarding non racing BMXers they don't usually care about pedaling efficiency nor grip on their feet.

I really think it depends on the pedal. Riding road, BMX and XC MTB. I feel in my opinion is it really is a personal choice. I have BMX pedals on my mountain bike and ride with globe skate shoes. I have two road bikes one with clip-less pedals, the other with BMX pedals. yes after a few hours you can really feel the difference.
BMX don't care.
Depends on how committed you are.


Does the plastic cap on a Presta valve serve any purpose once fitted to a rim? I can see the use of the valve cap on a Presta valve when the tube is still packaged (it obviously stops the valve puncturing the tube), but does it do anything except look pretty (or not) once you've fitted the tube to a rim?

I've kept them on out of habit, because I've had problems with sticking Schrader valves in the past when I've lost the caps and dirt/grime has got in there - but the design of Presta valves suggests to me that they wouldn't suffer this fate.

Given that I really need to inflate tyres on a road bike every day, is replacing this cap something I can leave out of my daily chores?

The cap keeps dirt and rocks away from the valve, particularly the fragile release mechanism. It's not the end of the world if the caps are missing, but I suggest leaving them on. They don't take that long to remove and replace.

One problem that is rather rare is that the caps can add to the weight of the valve and contribute to wheel wobble when going at very high speeds (> 80km/hr)


Chain going "slack" on the 7th gear under load on a new mountain bike? I recently bought a new Mountain Bike which works pretty well, aside from the fact that I have a problem with it which creates a pretty damn large safety hazard, not to mention creates a massive headache for me.

I'll be in the 7th gear, and when I start to stand up/put a lot of pressure on the pedals - I'm not really sure how to explain this - it feels like my chain slacks for a moment, and my pedals kind of jerk and then everything goes back to normal for a moment, before going back to slacking again.

This ONLY happens in the 7th gear. It used to happen sometimes in the 6th gear, but I messed around with my H/L screws and barrel adjuster and now it only happens in the 7th gear. I'm not sure what is causing the problem.

Does anyone have some advice for me? I've tried adjusting my barrel adjuster over and over again and I can't seem to narrow it down to being that.

Could it be a problem with the H/L screws?

I REALLY need to figure it out, because right now I pretty much can't use my 7th gear because I'm afraid one of these bad "jerks" will cause me to crash, as I've come close to doing it before.

Does the bike have multiple chainrings? Make sure you aren't cross-shifting- that is, shifting into a gear that is too high/low for the chainring that the chain is sitting on. This can cause a problem like you've described- chain rubbing on front derailleur and constantly attempting to shift to put the chain into a more linear position.

If you have multiple chainrings, try it in the largest chainring, smallest cog combination.  I am assuming the 7th gear is your smallest cog since you didn't mention otherwise.  In the tallest (highest) gear, the rear wheel torque is minimal but possibly of the longest duration and the load is highest.  One thing you could test to see if it is the freewheel/freehub slipping is use a lower geared chainring/cog combination so that the chain is straight (such as middle chainring in a triple and 4th cog in a set of 7), stand on the pedals and use as much force as you would in 7th gear but use the brakes to maintain a load so you don't build much roadspeed.  If it still slips then it is likely not a crosschaining issue but rather slippage.  I dont really see how the freewheel/freehub can slip unless it is defective.  I am not a bike mechanic.


Helmet law in Spain? I was told that there is a fine of €300 for cycling on a "carretera" in Spain without a helmet.  But it's possible the guy just wanted to sell me a helmet.  I'm not completely sure what exactly distinguishes a carretera from any other road, but on this trip, I don't have that helmet with me and several police have seen me riding.

A web search gets more advertisements than information.  Anyone know what the law is there?  Extra credit if you have a link to the official text.  (I can read Spanish.)

http://www.bikeramble.com/do-you-need-a-helmet-spain/  says

Well, the short answer is: it depends.

There is a mandatory helmet law for cyclists in Spain, but it is seldom enforced.

Are you required by law to wear a helmet in Spain?  Yes. But there are four notable exceptions:

You don’t need to wear a helmet in Spain if you are in an urban area.
Since 2004, it has been mandatory to wear a helmet for all cyclists outside urban areas. It is not required in urban areas. In 2013, it was made mandatory for all cyclists, everywhere, to wear a helmet, even in urban areas. This was met by opposition from council bodies and the new law was quickly overturned. However, it is still necessary for under 16’s to wear a helmet at all times. The definition of “urban area” is quite loose and everything bigger than a couple of houses should qualify.
UPDATE - This exemption was deleted in 2015 and NO LONGER APPLIES. You didn’t need to wear a helmet in Spain if it was too hot.
What classifies as too hot? Probably anywhere in the south of Spain from May-September, or all of Spain from June-August. The exception applies because wearing a helmet in extreme heat is pretty uncomfortable, and would completely deter some from cycling at all.
You don’t need to wear a helmet in Spain if you are going up a hill.
Convenient as I usually find that if I’m not in an urban area, and it’s not that hot, I’m going up a hill.
You don’t need to wear a helmet in Spain if you are a professional.
Get paid for cycling a bicycle? Great, then you are probably already subject to hundreds of rules, one of which is that you must wear a helmet at all times!

There's a pretty good summary of the whole situation here: https://www.bikeramble.com/do-you-need-a-helmet-spain/


What is the easiest way to fix a loose chain? Are there adjustments that can be made instead of replacing it?

It depends on what you mean by 'loose'... Chains stretch naturally over many hundreds of miles, and the stretching of the links is actually a good indicator of wear.

If, instead, it seems like there is a lot of slack or 'extra' chain, this is an indicator of one of two issues:

The chain is simply too long. All new chains (not already on bicycles) come longer than they need to be. If you recently replaced your chain, and didn't remove the extra links, this would cause the chain to be loose.
The dérailleur is not creating chain tension. If you find that the chain seems to sag at both the top and the bottom, this may mean that your dérailleur has lost some of it's 'springiness' and is not effectively creating chain tension. It's hard to determine without further details, but if this is the case, the dérailleur may need to be replaced.

There’s a screw behind the derailed spring (not the hi and low adjustment screws) that will tighten or loosen tension a bit.  Of thi


Best type of tire for bikepacking I am going to build a bikepacking bike and was thinking about what type of tires to use, tubulars, clinchers, or tubeless.

I own a road bike with clinchers and a cross bike with tubulars, but have no experience with tubeless.

In the context of bikepacking and riding long  distances in the great outdoors, often far away from any type of help, I'm wondering which tire choice is best suited for reliability and ease of service?

I'm kind of assuming gluing on new tubulars and carrying them, is a bad option, although I love the comfort and grip that come with low inflation pressure.

Clinchers are great but I might want to run low pressure without worrying about pinch flats.

I don't know much about how tubeless tires ride or how easy they are too service.

Is there a preferred setup for bikepacking?

Tubulars would be a bad idea, because you need to glue new ones on and most shops don't handle tubulars so getting spare parts when necessary is hard.

Most people will run a standard clincher for touring on roads, since there isn't much benefit for running a tubeless system for riding on the road and most wheels for road bikes are not tubeless ready (especially for high spoke strong wheels you'd fit on a touring bike). Everyone knows how to handle tubes and the tubes+tires are available almost everywhere if you choose an appropriate wheel size (you'll be able to find 26" wheels almost everywhere, 700c many places, 650b less so in the US, for example).

If you want to run tubeless, you can (which would be a preferable starting point for off road touring) since you can always throw a tube in a tire or put a tube+new tire on if necessary (if you find a shop, note that it might not be equipped for tubeless). Note that you are carrying some extra kit with tubeless such as an extra valve, sealant, less tubes than you would carry with a tube system, plugs, and what not versus say a patch kit, some boots, some tubes.

I did the Camino de santiago (all camino portugues stages) two years ago by bike and it was a great experience. Brought my cervelo s3 with me, and any issues there was always local bike shops along the way.


How to get more tire clearance with caliper brakes? I've discovered the brakes on my Bike Friday Tikit don't allow for enough clearance to run Schwalbe Marathon tires. The bike - a folding bike with 16" rims - ships with Kojak treadless tires. It looks like, as long as I have the existing caliper brakes - Tektro R530 brakes - I won't be able to run anything more robust than the Kojaks.

Brake removed from the bike:

Brake on the bike, showing the tire:

There isn't any way to mount these brakes differently, and the frame only has braze-ons for these brakes. A smaller tire or a smaller brake are really my only options, short of mounting the rims farther out - a bit of a kludgey solution, I think.

While I'm open to simply finding a smaller tire, I would much prefer to run Marathon tires as I'd like to use this bike for some light touring.

My question is: Are there caliper brakes with more tire clearance I could mount on this bike? What should I look for in these brakes? Will new brakes require me to change my brake levers? (I'm using Tektro RX 4.1 reverse levers.)

This is an interesting question, well suited to this site! The problem is a common one for touring cyclists wanting a 25-32mm tyre and mudguard, where the solution is to 'get a bike with cantilever bosses'. You have a compound problem of short reach, a measurement you could do with measuring.

The dual-pivot brake doesn't offer a lot of tyre clearance, but do you need dual pivot anyway? Campagnolo groupsets have the dual pivot on the front but single pivot on the back, here is the affodable-style Veloce option:

A high-end Campagnolo brake may just about work for you and be a classy addition to the bike, giving vastly improved stopping power over the Tektro efforts, but you still might struggle to get a big tyre on there.

You can mitigate against that by using a slightly thinner 16 * 1.35" Marathon Plus tyre - this will give you more puncture protection than the 16 * 1.75 Marathon and would be my preferred option. Note that the 16 * 1.35 Marathon will have a lower profile than the 16 * 1.35 Marathon Plus, so more room can be gained at the expense of puncture protection.

Also worth investigating are late 1980's era Weinmann and Dia-Compe side-pulls of the short-reach flavour. These will not have the stopping power of today's side-pulls, however, how much stopping power do you need to lock up the rear wheel? A bit of flex won't be the end of the world on the back brake, and these early brakes can be had for a good price. The shape of the arms on these brakes did allow for a reasonably fat tyre, the only real problem is getting the recessed allen key rather than bolt attachment. That said, the main bolt on the Weinmann brakes can be interchanged as they were available to suit recessed, Allen key fitting. Here are some Weinmann 500's, from centuries ago,but with compelling tyre clearance:

These were available in black. Another beauty is the 605. This one does not have the hex-bolt exposed to aid centering, but I don't think you can beat the combination of short reach and tyre clearance:

Ebay is going to be your friend here, another option you might want to investigate is center-pull. Sticking with Weinmann, here is the 999, seemingly available in short reach flavour:

You could run it U-brake style with some cable stop for the outer bolted onto the underside of the b/b, or investigate if that sort of thing is possible...

The universal solution to this problem is to add an additional quick-release (QR) somewhere in the brake cable route. The idea is to multiply QRs to release enough cable to the point where there is no cable tension at all. Once this is achieved a larger tire will fit. After the wheel is installed as you normally would, engage the two or three QRs to bring the pads back close to the rims for proper operation.
I have completed this operation myself for brazed-on center pull Dia-Comp 610g calipers on my 1976 Centurion Pro-Tour. Also, I've used this method on my 2017 Trek Domane' SLR with Bontrager Speed Stop direct mount brakes using Shimano SM-CB90 in-line brake cable quick release.


Is it safe to use aluminium seatpost adapter (27.2mm to 31.6mm) for a carbon frame? I have Cane Creek Thudbuster Seastpost (aluminium) 27.2mm x 400mm which i want to use for a bike with a carbon frame (31.6mm seat-tube).

I'm thinking about getting a seatpost adapter/shim from 27.2mm to 31.6mm, but I'm not sure if that's not going to damage the carbon frame. Shim itself is ~80mm in length.

Is it safe to use?

80 mm length should be long enough to provide stable and good grip. Do make sure to use carbon mounting paste, of course, wiping any traces of grease (if they exist) off the adapter and the seatpost. If the seatpost stick long above the frame and if it's an off road bike, I might consider it a tad bit risky move. Otherwise, you should be fine.

And, like the previous poster said, to occasionally check for traces of galvanic corrosion. You don't want the seatpost stuck to the frame.

Carbon fiber can cause galvanic corrosion on aluminum.

But the reaction is slow, and the carbon fiber would cause the aluminum to corrode, and not vice versa. So it should be safe to ride and not damage your frame.

This question covers it a little more in depth -- Metal seat post with carbon fiber frame?


Is there a reason why one's calfs would ache on a Turbo or Spinner, but not when riding on the road? I'm not on my own on this one as at least two other people in my Spinning class suffer the same:  when Spinning or on the Turbo Trainer, I can feel pressure on my calf muscles after a bit of time (usually less than 45 minutes).  But I can ride on the road for up to 3 hours without feeling any pressure.

I think it's something to do with leg angles:  on the road, the bike changes angle slightly to best match the angle of the leg, but on a spinner or Turbo, it's fixed and so can't move.

Are there any proven reasons why calfs would ache on a static bike but not on the road?

There are likely a few different reasons, but my primary suspicion would be fit. Presumably your road bike is set up to fit your body geometry and angles, where the spin bike is not. Small differences in how a bike is set up can have a big impact on how your body feels while riding.

My n=1 example, when doing higher intensity efforts on the road, I would get high calf cramps after about an hour. When I had a Retul fit done for my time trial bike, the fitter told me that because my feet were somewhat duckfooted, I needed to move to speedplay pedals with longer spindles to allow my heels to drift inward more than my old pedals. Solved my calf cramp problems.

It could be the way how you set up your spinner.


Mechanical-hydraulic hybrid brakes I've heard about Mechanical-hydraulic hybrid brakes but didn't find any examples.

Are they exist? If yes, are they comparable with hydraulic?

Looks like the TRP Parabox Hydraulic Disc Brake is what you're referring to.  Basically it allows you to use your existing mechanical brake levers to control the hydraulic pistons.  So you can use your old brifters, and still have hydraulic braking.  Here's a review that explains how they work, as well as provide and idea of the performance characteristics.

Avid makes a series of mechanically-actuated calipers.  These are paired with a Disc to provide a brake.

Their performance is comparable.  Many people prefer Hydraulic though, as the fluid tends not to compress, which yields a more precise "feel" than a cable-actuated mechanism.  One up side of the mechanical calipers is their reduced maintenance requirements.


Professional bike mechanics & maintenance training courses Recently I have been doing some small fixes in own bikes, I have enjoyed it a lot, then comes to my mind the idea that would be nice to help others as well, but in a more professional way.
What is the most professional training one could take to become a bicycle technician?

Since you’ve stated in a comment that you live in Austria, I think the only specialised education for bicycle mechanics in Austria is an apprenticeship: https://www.berufslexikon.at/berufe/2898-FahrradmechanikerIn/ (Austrian job encyclopaedia)
In practice I think what matters most is experience (and of course taking your time, checking things, following proper procedures etc.). An education in mechanics, engineering or even physics helps a bit for basic understanding, but in the end there is no way around experience. You could get that by either owning and maintaining a lot of bicycles, working at a bicycle shop or volunteering at free bike repair events (here in Linz there is one in a week).
A bicycle is a very simple machine but there are tons of different components and compatibility is always a problem. Having all the right tools can also be difficult.

What is the most professional training one could take to become a bicycle technician?

Why won't you ask the place where you plan to be employed? They most likely have some criteria for employment, and asking them directly instead of guessing incorrectly is a good plan. Bicycles are one of the simplest mechanical devices, and thus, they are repairable even without a formal education.
However, you should know that there is not a lot of money moving in the bicycle repair business. You said you live in Austria. I think it classifies as a high-income country. Most people living there probably buy mainly new bicycles, assembled in a low-income country, and throw them away when they break. Even wheels these days are very often machine-built. Thus, even being skilled in the art of wheelbuilding doesn't necessarily guarantee you a high and stable income.


Looking to get new pedals for my bike? I'm looking to purchase some quality flat pedals for my bike. I've been riding cheap plastic ones and they keep breaking! I am currently looking at the Race Face Aeffect since they are aluminum. Any and all recommendations are appreciated!

You'll have some things to measure, and some decisions to make.

First, you need to know what the threads on your cranks are.  There's a 99% chance they are 9/16" with a tiny chance of 1/2" thread.  You need to match whatever interface your cranks have.

You're committed to flat pedals, which does limit things a lot.  Don't rule out clipless pedals, or even combo pedals which offer a flat side and a cleat side.

Even in the flat world, there's also a choice between flat and dished (ie your foot has a little shallow bowl to sit in)  And you can choose the surface too, from plastic to rubber, to metal.  Most forms have a flat and a pinnned or studded interface too, which can be good or bad depending on your needs.

I suggest you pick a budget amount, and go into your LBS and look at what's on offer.

What are you after? Strength or lightweight?

I have these and they're both.  I weigh 105 kg (232 pounds) and have not bent them at all. Probably recommend the titanium axles if you can stretch.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32897043189.html


Where are my barrel adjusters for my shifting cables? I have a Devinci Caribou I and I was trying to adjust the front derailleur. I got the top and bottom stops adjusted right, but it seems that it doesn't downshift correctly from the biggest cog to the intermediate cog.  From reading on the internet, I've seen recommendations to adjust the barrel adjustment to fine tune the derailer. Only problem is I can't find the barrel adjustment.  The shifter cables come right out the side of the brifters, and there's no adjustment there. They go through the frame, and come out near the bottom bracket.  On the cable housing there's something that can be turned that seems like it could be a barrel adjuster, but turning it creates no changes in derailleur position.  This turnable part of the cable housing is present on both shifter cable. There is functioning barrel adjuster for my rear brakes, but this is quite different then the possible barrel adjustment for the shifter cables (and it actually works).  Can anybody help me out finding my barrel adjuster?  Here is a picture of the model that I have, although it's hard to see any of the cabling in this picture.

Looks like there's an adjuster in-line, right before the cable enters the down tube.

You shouldn't need too much adjustment in your FD via barrel adjustments. If your cable is stretched or your not getting clean shifting just readjust your FD, it doesn't take that long and there are a lot of tutorials out there:

http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/front-derailleur-adjustments


What are the benefits of external bottom brackets? Pretty soon, I plan to replace the bottom bracket on my early 90's Sakae Litage road bike.  It takes a standard, English-threaded bottom bracket.  Right now I think it contains loose bearings--I was planning to replace it with a decent-quality cartidge.

I see a lot of external bottom brackets when I am looking at my LBS's website.  I have replaced many sets of loose BB bearings and several cartridge BB's.  I know nothing about these external things.  Why do there seem to be more of them for sale than cartridge bottom brackets?  Do they have larger, longer-lasting bearings?  Would it benefit me to consider one as opposed to the cartidge BB's that I have been using recently?

I ride pretty seriously for fun, commuting, and errands... I built this bike specifically for doing really hilly weekend rides.  But I'm not a racer.

Curious.  Many thanks.

External bottom brackets allow you to have both large bearings and a large, hollow bottom bracket spindle.  A large hollow spindle can be designed to be as stiff as a small solid spindle for less weight.  Smaller bearings reduce the longevity of a bottom bracket, so the typical bottom bracket design allows a narrow range of suitable spindle sizes and bearing sizes - to get the weight savings from a larger spindle you need to sacrifice durability.  Moving the bearings to the outside effectively removes this tradeoff.

There is an additional performance factor in situations where high stiffness is required in that the distance between the cranks and the bearings is reduced, lessening the torque on the axle.

For commuting, errands, recreational riding and other "normal" purposes a cartridge bottom bracket is almost always going to be more than sufficient.  If you are particularly concerned about durability, the SKF bottom brackets are engineered for 10 years / 100,000km of riding, but for the price a $25 Shimano cartridge will usually last what feels like forever.

If you have a Fuji, and its got a double chainring, you have what is called a loose ball bottom bracket that is square taper.

Yes the ball bearings are caged in a little cage, but it is loose ball. All Japanese bicycles from the 80s have these horrible bottom brackets except the very top of the line, because most of them used the funky external nut tightened, poor quality, bottom bracket.

The best thing is to get rid of that junk.

Third, your bicycle is too low of a model to dump money in. There is no need to change to a hollow type bottom bracket or a super new bottom bracket and cranks because you run into chain issues (width) and gear spacing and crank spacing. The strength of the new cranks is great, but square taper is more than adequate for any person who has ever used these forums and its been used by the best just fine (Le Mond) or (Merckx) etc.

What you do need is the right spacing. Generally you can go quite a bit more narrow than the giant size you picked. I recommend a 110 for double and 113-114 for triple.

The all in one units like Phil Wood are all about the same really for your purposes. You can get a great bottom bracket for $25 these days in a sealed unit square taper.

The average bicycle poster seems to have large amounts of money I find and considering your bicycles other parts, its not worth dumping anything modern or excessive into, except the great 700 x 28c wire bead (non tour guard) Pasela tires and a nice solid 7 speed chain. with a traditional bicycles you are not missing much like the geeks would have you think. The old bicycles were wonderfully tough and rode well with little investment. They also didn't have racing dimensions for bicycles that get used by people who want to just roll around and enjoy a nice ride.

Ok details...

The new cartridge units are a narrow stance on the bearings and that Does make a difference and loads are not only horizontal or vertical on bicycles you must remember. This flex is not enough to out weigh the ease of installation and good quality seal they all have.

Tighten your cranks tight, then come back after your first ride and tighten again. Also go a tad bit tighter on your bottom bracket than the recommendation and you will not have to go back later and adj. again.
Oh and also...re bearings...smaller bearings are better.. The closer the inner ID and the OD of the races, the less sliding the bearing has to do. Bearings always slide some when surfaces are different diameter. Think about it. There is so much false information out there. Look at roller bearings ... they are tiny bearings ... Good luck. $25 is all you need.


Home-made sealed freewheel? Is there any way to do a home-made sealing on my freewheel?

Is there any material recommended to do it?

Anyone can find some previous try documented?

Will I fail miserably if I try to source a sealed component with the same diameter and reuse the seal? What exactly is the seal?

Just a little of background: After fixing my freewheel, it does not spin with grease. So I used chain lube. It works, but for a little more than 2 weeks only.

UPDATE 1: more info.

  The focus of the question is: wheel hubs and other parts with MUCH
  more stress are sealed alright. Why freewheels can't?

It's a 5 speed Shimano freewheel. I was considering replacing it with a 6 speed since my shifter and RD works fine with it. but looking at the options, i refuse to give money to freewheel manufacturers! It's all crappy. even the high end models. Also, the gears are like new yet. bearings has no imperfections. it's just a matter of lubing.

So, I did open and serviced that freewheel (didn't take pics as I did it overnight alone and was aiming for speed so i could get some sleep).

At first I greased the hell out of it and closed. It spinned as bad as when it was dry and dirty (it has 12yr)

Then I reopened, cleaned it all again with 90% oil. Applied just enough grease to barely hold the bearings in place for assembly (an invisible film) and right after closing it up again dropped a bunch of 20w-50 engine oil and a bunch of chain-L oil (the snake oil of bike chain lube.)

It's spinning like new. but after 2-3 weeks, i often get one or another small chain drag when backspinning the pedal very slowly. No issue at all, but a sign that it's not perfectly lubed again. and will only get worse.

Tip

If the gears are not worn but the freewheel does not spin:

remove wheel
let if lay down with the freewheel cogs on top
use a spanner tool to remove the cap on the freewheel
drop oil in there
close it

As you can see, it's pretty easy to oil the freewheel. and all bike shops I ask about sealed freewheel and freewheel maintenance say that, 1. there's no sealed model. 2. you HAVE to do this oiling twice a year. 3. There are no consensus to which kind of oil.

As far as the increase in drag after a few weeks, I reckon the Chain-L oil is to blame for that. As far as oils go, it's not all that heavy, and over a few weeks can migrate out from where it needs to be inside the freewheel.

One of my favorite things to do with an old free wheel is to soak it in degreaser/solvent/parts washer overnight. Then, use rags and compressed air (or opening it up, if you like tiny bearings in abundance) and clean out the degreaser. Once the freewheel is bone dry, slowly dribble in some Phil's Tenacious Oil while spinning it. Ill often set the freewheel onto a freewheel tool in a vice and spin it with one hand while holding the Phil's bottle in the other.

The dry freewheel will ratchet very loudly, but you'll hear it quiet down as the very thick oil begins to penetrate. Once you start to see some oil come out the other side you know you're done.

As far as sealing a freewheel, I've always used a rubber "o" ring fitted to the outter recess of the freewheel. It keeps dirt from collecting in the groove.


How do you evaluate a wheelset? I'd like to upgrade my wheels but beyond the price, I'm not sure how to compare different options or even to tell if a given wheel is an upgrade or a downgrade from my current wheelset. I'm looking for an improvement in performance in aerodynamics, weight and reduced rolling resistance.

There's a huge array of wheels available. Ranging in price from $100 to many thousands. What do you look for in a quality set of wheels? I assume total weight is one of the most important factors, but I also imagine that low resistance in the hubs would be at least as important.

I have many questions:

What's the most important part of the wheel? Hub or rim? Or both?
How do you evaluate or compare different hubs?
How do you evaluate or compare different rims/spoke combinations?
Are there other factors I've missed?

EDIT: What I want to establish is that if I'm comparing two wheels in a showroom or looking at their technical specs, how do I tell which is better and whether they're good value for money or not.

I'm looking for an improvement in performance in aerodynamics, weight and reduced rolling resistance.

If this is what you want then you can pay for light hubs with high quality bearings that give you low rolling resistance.  The rest of rolling resistance is due to your choice of tire and tire pressure.  Be aware that the claims that weight on a wheel is more important than weight on the frame is based on an evaluation of weight at the perimeter of the wheel, not at the center so the weight savings of the hub may not be as critical as weight savings elsewhere in the wheel.

Aerodynamics-wise, low spoke count wheels are better.

  Fewer spokes means decreased stiffness and spoke life, while additional spoke
  counts can lead to higher power requirements, or overly stiff wheels which are punishing on rough roads.

Low spoke count wheels are not necessarily lighter though -- I believe most low spoke count wheels use heavier gauge spokes and nipples to compensate for the higher tension -- the bigger nipple spreads the force over a larger area of the rim to prevent light rims from buckling.

(Leaving the rest here so this answer is useful to other readers)

It depends what you're going to use the wheel for, but I'm answering assuming you want a reasonably light durable wheel that you can fix yourself if you have a breakdown, and that you don't have a van pacing you with spare wheels.

  What's the most important part of the wheel? Hub or rim? Or both?

Spokes.  A low spoke count wheel on a high quality rim and hubs is still a crap wheel.  Low spoke count wheels require each spoke to be that much more highly tensioned.  Low spoke count wheels are made by machines that push on the whole perimeter of the wheel as they tension the spokes.  No human can do that on the side of the road, so this means that if one spoke breaks, you have no real chance to retrue the wheel by tightening or loosening other spokes to compensate.

High spoke count wheels (36 spokes for example) may have slightly higher drag, but there's so many spokes, that you can actually use that little spoke wrench that comes with your multi-tool to do road-side repairs.

  How do you evaluate or compare different hubs?

Look at reviews.  You basically have to relace the wheel every time you go through a hub, so I prefer long-life over lighter-weight, buy YMMV.

Phil wood is my personal favorite, but again, probably not ideal for racing.

  How do you evaluate or compare different rims/spoke combinations?

Jobst Brandt's book "The Bicycle Wheel" explains spoke lacing patterns.

Major rim choices include

offset vs centered spoke holes.  You can get less dish (see below) sometimes by using offset spoke holes
depth of rims
thickness of material.  Thinner is lighter, but if you're going to do a lot of wet weather riding and you have rim-brakes, then grit gets into the brake pad which will wear down thinner rims more quickly than thicker rims.
material.  Some people actually sell Carbon Fiber rims but if you're using rim brakes then you want the rim to be made of a heat-conductive material so it sheds heat well.  Carbon fiber does not.
type of tire.  Clinchers vs tubular.  If you don't know what this means, then you're using clincher tires which have a metal (or kevlar) bead, a stiff wire that runs around the inner perimeter of the tire and presses it against the rim.

  Are there other factors I've missed?

Dish.  If you have a derailleur on one side of the wheel, you can't quite center the wheel over the hub so you have to use longer spokes on one side.  This means you can't get both sets of spokes up to the same tension you could if you didn't dish the wheel resulting in a slightly weaker wheel.

What's the most important part of the wheel? Hub or rim? Or both?

The most important part is clearly the skill of the wheelbuilder. No wheel with good hub and good rim but poor wheelbuilding is going to be durable.
To evaluate the rim, consider these:

Are the diameter and width fine? Consider what tires you're planning to fit.

What material? Good rims are aluminum.

Cross section? Best rims are double walled.

Spoke hole count, 36 = good, anything less = bad.

What finish? Best rims are polished aluminum, preventing initiation of cracks and allowing you to easily see cracks on inspection. However, these days people don't buy rims if they are not black, so manufacturers have come up with ways to make black rims. One of the ways is anodizing. Don't buy these. Another of the ways is powder coating. You may buy these but prefer polished aluminum if such rims are available.

Are there eyelets to allow nipples to turn freely?

Are there sockets ("double eyeletes") to distribute spoke tension to both walls of a double walled rim?

Can you use the rim with rim brakes?

How do you evaluate or compare different hubs?

Does the hub have the features you require? They could be:

Support for disc brake rotors should you need them
Front dynamo should you use one
Compatibility with the desired cassette type on the rear

Spoke hole count. 36 is good, anything less should not be bought in the first place.

Weight. Less is usually better, but if you remove too much weight, there is no long-term durability left.

Material. Prefer aluminum for the hub body.

Finish. Prefer polished silver aluminum. With polished aluminum, cracks are easier to see and less likely to appear when compared to e.g. anodized aluminum.

Bearings. Some hub manufacturers are selling cartridge bearing hubs at a great cost, because they don't have the manufacturing capacity to build cup and cone bearings. This is not for the user's benefit; it's for the manufacturer's benefit. Don't buy these cartridge bearing hubs. Buy only cup and cone bearing hubs that are adjustable and serviceable. At least Shimano has the manufacturing capacity for cup and cone bearings.

Freewheel for rear hub. Prefer ones from name brand like Shimano.

How do you evaluate or compare different rims/spoke combinations?

The spokes should pull from the hub flange tangentially, not radially. Don't buy any radial front wheels if you have rim brakes (radial disc front wheels and radial rear wheel don't work so they are not sold anyway). Radial wheels are inherently fragile because if the spokes are tight, they are pulling radially not tangentially from the hub flange at great forces, causing hub flange failure.
There should be 36 spokes. Some manufacturers sell low spoke count wheels, claiming it's an "improvement". It may be an improvement for the manufacturer (less machine time for wheelbuilding machine), but it ain't an improvement for the user. Lower spoke counts are more fragile and less rideable with broken spoke.
The spokes should be triple butted. Cheap spokes are not butted. They make a wheel fail easily, because they are not flexible and thus don't distribute the load over an area of many spokes. Better spokes are double butted with thinned middle section and thicker head and threads. However, the threads being rolled and not cut have a larger cross section than the head. So, the hub flange must have holes large enough to accommodate the threads, thus having a too large hole for double butted spokes. Best spokes (like DT Swiss Alpine) are triple butted to have a head that barely fits to the hub flange.
The nipples should be brass and the nipple threads and nipple heads should be lubricated with machine oil.
If you have no wheelbuilding skills, prefer wheels that are hand built by a professional wheelbuilder. Machine built wheels often have low spoke tension. However, there is no reason to avoid machine built wheels if you have wheelbuilding skills -- you can tighten the spokes left loose by the wheelbuilding machine yourself.


What should one eat while cycling? What should a bicyclist make sure to eat before and after riding a bike?

Bananas

and as I need at least 15 characters, don't forget to eat bananas during your ride as well.

If you're going less than 3-4 hours you don't really need anything. Ditto that on the 15 minute window for replacement. Unless you're training really hard, you can skip that as well. We all have enough stored to last a whole ride. However, the marketing around sports nutrition would make you think otherwise. Eat solid when you're off the bike, bring water when you're on the bike. You'll be fine.


Reverse Gear in Bicycles For an ordinary bicycle (neither fixed gear nor capable of changing any gears).

Is it possible to modify it to have a reverse gear on it?

(i.e. reverse pedaling causes the bicycle to go backward)

(By modifying or attaching components to the rear wheel)

Thank you in advance

Such a hub exists for trike and quads . Pedal forward with 3 or 5 gears then having a coaster brake to stop . At full stop with the brake engaged continued backward pedal pressure will cause the cycle will move in reverse in a reduced gear . Sturmey-Archer has made these hubs for the niche market (velomobiles ) for some years now . The hubs have a sprocket bolted to the right spoke flange to drive the rear axle , some clever types have removed this and laced it into a wheel for a single rear wheel trike . Maybe this could work for a bike , still a question of balance in reverse ?!

  model QS-RC5 with reverse+coaster brake
  model TS-RC5 only coaster brake and no reverse

SA Specification Sheet PDF

5 Speed internal gear hub with coaster brake
Special use hub, includes a reverse gear on QS-RC5 model

There's also a 3 speed version with reverse, model QS-RC3.

Specs

Hub Shell Material - 6061 Aluminium
Axle Diameter - 13/32” Slotted
Axle Length - 185mm
Over Locknut Dimension - 139mm
Right Axle Protrusion Length - 24mm
Left Axle Protrusion Length - 22mm
Flange Width - 65mm
Flange Sprocket Teeth - 22T
Flange Sprocket C.L. - 39.4mm
Sprocket Teeth - 21T through 22T
Sprocket Chain Line: 53.9mm
Indicator Chain - HSA585 Mark Yellow
Weight - 2010g

Gear Ratio

  • Overall Range - 256%
  • Gear 1 - 62.5% (-)37.5%
  • Gear 2 - 75% (-)25% (Gear 1 + 20%)
  • Gear 3 - 100% Direct Drive (Gear 2 + 33%)
  • Gear 4 - 133.3% (+)33.3% (Gear 3 + 33%)
  • Gear 5 - 160% (+)60% (Gear 4 + 20%)

Chain sprockets mounting: 3 notch mounting
Colour:   silver
Flange distance (right):  39 mm
Flange PCD (right):   67 mm
Flange distance (left):   32 mm
Flange PCD (left):    67 mm
Over Locknut Distance (O.L.D.):   139 [EN] mm

There's an operation manual available at https://hfchristiansen.zendesk.com/hc/da/article_attachments/115010677845/Manual_-_QS-RC5.pdf

To operate reverse, you stop the bike, then start pedalling backwards.

Yes.  Some type of freewheel or freehub manual lockup should do the trick.  It would also be cool if you could pedal backwards to apply power forwards, thus using muscles in a different way.


Cheap alternatives to avoid tire punctures If you head to Walmart and see the slime bike liners for in the tire to stop goatheads and small nailes from actually running the tire.
Is there anything around the house or shed that can be used also?
Also the slime ones only seem to not cover the side of the tire wall. I do rock and outdoor bike riding and once hit a soft dirt patch that sunk my tire and a small nail got in from the side.

Any suggestions?

Puncture resistant tires and liners are hard to DIY since they are made from kevlar and other specialty materials which are not easy to come by on the consumer market.

Flat protection opions:
Puncture resistant tires $35 to $80 a tire - most expensive, best protection, only good for the life of the tire. My favorite lightweight ones are panaracer t-serve, most protection panaracer ribmo.
Tire Liners - $15-$25 a set- cheaper, reusable when you get new tires, adds a bit to rotating weight.  Mr Tuffy and Slime brands are available. I haven't used these personally.
Tubes with sealant - $10-$15 per tire - will seal small punctures with a liquid sealant. This is pretty much the same liquid in tubeless tire setups. This can have mixed results. Slime can get messy and clog valves. I don't think these are worth it.

Really, none of these will prevent pinch flats either. Your best bet is to use one of the first two options and keep tires inflated to the proper PSI regularly. Always carry a patch kit and tools to fix a flat and a spare tube is nice to have as well, it pays to be prepared.

My I recommend you look at purchasing tubeless tyres, they can be expensive but no more so than ones purchased and they are pretty smart , if you look about online you will find them to the dedicated sizes.


Disk Brake shudder felt through fork and frame I have a muddy fox storm and when I use the front brake, it starts to shudder starting from the wheel and working up. It isn't that bad if I do it gently. Also, this is only a fist bike so I guess it doesn't matter if these things happen?
Thanks

First thing, assess your headset. A loose headset allows feeble vibrations to make the bike shudder. This  tutorial over at Art's Cyclery will guide you through the process of taking care of it: all you'll need is a medium sized Allen Key.

If the headset looks just fine, it's time you get to your break calliper and rotor. I recommend that you sand your rotor and break pads a bit (until they look nice and smooth) with a medium grit sandpaper, wipe them down with some 90% v/v isopropyl alcohol nicely, reconfigure and bed them in. Also make sure that the calliper is aligned just right, if the calliper isn't approximately parallel to the rotor, it can make the thing happen. I would recommend using the business card method to align the calliper. Doing this will almost certainly cure the bike of the issue.
I hope this helps. :)

--

Edit: Also make sure that your pads have enough braking material on them before reconfiguring them.

Probably a bit of dirt/contamination on either the Pads or rotor.
Might even be time to replace pads