Cycling UK Forum

Yep - I've used mallet and wooden-block type methods, go carefully and check you're hitting it in straight - no problem

I did it on the floor, put some wooden boards under the top of the seat-tube/bottom bracket (depending on which side I was doing!), then rested the head-tube end on a stool. I adjusted the wooden boards to try and make the headtube at 90 degrees to the surface of the stool

Also, I made sure the inside of the head-tube was smooth and that the edge was clean, then put a bit of grease to help - not sure what the official advice is on greasing though!

what did you do then EF??

531colin wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:Interesting. I wonder why they chose not to make it 36 hole, given all the reasons why?

theres a number of bolts in/near one flange. Or maybe it was designed for places you cant get 36h rims?

i suspect the latter; the point being that if your rim fails you'd want to be able to build your rather expensive hub onto a new rim rather than ditch it - wherever in the world you happend to be

32 is the best option for outside of the developed world.

EdinburghFixed wrote:If you did have a 36h rim fail, wouldn't it be possible to wire up a 36h Rohloff or equivalent to a 32 rim somehow, by skipping a hole every so often?

Maybe, but it would surely not be as strong as a 32 rim on a 32 hub.

Once you start down this line it seems that you get into a massive quagmire though, for example imagine you can't get a 700c touring rim because they're not common across the world, so you have to bodge it with 26" and then your brake pads are rubbing on the sidewall instead of rim, relatively few people seem to shy away from 700C tourers though!

That's probably because they're riding on-road AND in a part of the world that 700c is common. Most people going somewhere that 700c tyres and rims are very uncommon would normally pick 26" wheels regardless of whether they'll be going on- or off-road

hubgearfreak wrote:

sandytracker wrote:if their is a range (and we agree that there is) it's obviously be better to have the stronger wheels, unless you're concerned about the £1 cost of the extra spokes, or indeed their mass (minus the four extra holes in the rim and hub)

Disagree. It would depend on the liklihood of a wheel ever being put in a scenario where a 36 would hold out and a 32 would fail. I suggest this would be extremely rare

Your argument about getting 36 because the don't carry a weight or cost penality is all very well if you know you'd be able to get replacement rims/hubs in the event of them failing on tour. But if not, as is the case is much of the wolrd I believe, the standard 32 must surely be the best option

The same argument could be used for a 28 spoke wheel instead of a 32. Or a 24 instead of a 28.

But 4/28ths is larger than 4/36ths, so the difference in strength might be more siginificant. A 4-spoked wheel is stronger than one with none at all.
(I'm not necessaily suggesting that wheel strength increases linearly with spoke count though).

As for 3rd world touring? Tour on a 36 and if you break it beyond repair get a new wheel.

Yes, but if you've got a particularly nice hub in good condition then you might want to replace a damaged or worn rim with a new one rather than get a whole new wheel. Of course that''s assuming you'd be able to find a new wheel with the correct over lock-nut distance and cassette freehub body etc.

Perhaps if you subjected 32 and 36 scientifically to some tests there would be a small range at which the 36 holds out when the 32 fails ...BUT, when you actually ride your bike, the forces the wheel experiences will be well below that threshold, and in the case of taking a big hit then they will likely be well above - in which case both 32 and 36 would be damaged!

I don't think that in practise this is worth worrying about. Get what's more available or cheaper.

I think if I had the choice then I'd take 36 if I knew I would be touring in developed countries where 36 hubs/rims are perhaps easier to find, and 32 if I was going to the 'developing' world

hubgearfreak wrote:

sandytracker wrote:the touring market seems to be driven by demand for stupidly over-engineering machines

CJ wrote:It's about the much greater inconvenience of getting it fixed

agreed, i'd sooner have a bike that's a few hundred grammes overwieght, that one that breaks.

Sensationalist! And a few hundred grams!? That's rich....

To those asking "Why wouldn't you?", the answer is simple: worldwide availability of hubs/rims in case of repair. 36 is actually rather uncommon.
If touring in less developed parts I think 32 would actually be preferable

Get them done with good quality spokes and good rims and I bet they will be fine.
My understanding is that 32 hole rims are internationally more available than 36 anyway, in case you ever need to get a new rim built onto the hub

In view of your other comment, keep in mind that just as one bike market is driven by demand for negligible/unnecessary weight-saving, the touring market seems to be driven by demand for stupidly over-engineering machines, fueled by the misconception that bikes designed for carrying literally hundreds of KGs through artic wastes are a necessity for anyone wanting to transport some panniers along a gravel track

As has been said, you're using a top-swing front mech at the moment; getting a bottom/conventional-swing mech might lower the cage enough to solve it.
(Perhaps you can find someone willing to let you borrow a mech to see if it works? (sorry, I don't have any spare conventional-swings at the mo...))

Picture of conventional/bottom-swing - notice difference in band position to yours:

Freddie wrote:So you buy, what...3 or 4 stems till you get it right?. Why not just purchase one of those Look time-trial stems that move forward/back and up/down, would be as cheap/cheaper than several stems with more utility to boot.

If you're talking about the Look Ergostem then that retails at about £150. Last time I checked a normal stem cost about £15 - and much less 2nd hand.
But thanks for the recommendation

Freddie wrote:So, you start out asking for suggestions, then declare this elbow thingy best...interesting, I suppose if best depends on popular opinion, that may be so. Why not just try out a few flat barred bikes and make the decision that way?.

I'm not sure what your point is, and I'm not really looking to get into a heated debate about anything. You have assumed my reason for posting was that I am setting up my own bike when in fact I am asking out of interest because, until now, I'd never heard of a ball-park method for setting flats. And it's nice to talk to other bike enthusiast too

Thanks again for the replies

georgew wrote:The "plus" 5 cm for straight bars is the one used by Thorn.

But whose elbow-to-fingertip do they use? Robin's?

Or do you mean they stick an extra 5cm onto the length of the bike for drop bars in that size range?

(Though the question does remain...):)

Of course it will also depend on the length of the saddle, the height of the bars, the type of riding, etc., etc.
It can still be the best starting point for most people whilst not being exactly correct for the most of people. That's averages!
We have to start somewhere, especially when setting up a new bike.

I'd never heard of this "plus 5cm" method before but now, measuring my bike, it would seem this is indeed a good place to start. I'm probably running a little shorter than this but I knew I always favoured that 'coz I've got a bit of a humped back, so can't stretch out that far...!
Thanks for the replies

Maybe it's a good starting point?

It makes perfect sense, thanks.

That would probably put the bars at about an-elbow-to-fingertip-plus-5cm-from-the-nose-of-the-saddle...