Cycling UK Forum

Plus one for the Spa chainsets. I have two triples both with Tiagra (4700) front derailleurs and 24/34/46 rings - works as well as the original 30/39/50 chainset. Also you can select a bottom bracket length to match your current alignment. Spa put recommendations on their web site and you can call them to ask. People on this forum can assist with this as well - a lot of us have these chainsets.

A new TD-2 super compact chainset with custom rings and bottom bracket will set you back about £100. You may need to compromise a little on pedal separation (stance width / Q factor) but only a few mm.

PeterH

May not be what you want, but I am very happy with my Lezyne Micro Floor Drive. It uses a bracket which attaches to the water bottle mount points and sits next to the bottle holder on the down tube. There is a high volume version - I use it for gravel and touring tyres when away from home or on longer rides. It is also small enough to fit into a larger bag.

PeterH

AndyK wrote: ↑31 Dec 2023, 1:44pm

Jim77 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2023, 1:27pm Yes the pedal axle is stiff - how could this be causing the problem?

As you pedal the bike, the left crank rotates anti-clockwise on its axle, but the left pedal rotates clockwise on its axle. (Viewed from the left-hand side of the bike, that is.) In normal circumstances, with a smoothly-rotating pedal axle, that's fine and in fact means it's tightening itself into the crank thanks to the famous 'rotating load effect'. Hence the left-hand thread.

Now, imagine an extreme case where the pedal axle has seized up completely. As you pedal, the pedal turns clockwise and its axle is forced to turn clockwise with it, unscrewing the axle from the crank. The pedal will quickly undo itself from the crank.

In between the two extremes, when the pedal axle still works but has has become stiff due to damage or contamination or lack of lubrication, the unscrewing process will be slower but it can still happen. Similarly if the pedal bearings/cups/cones have become worn so that the pedal mostly rotates smoothly but 'catches' on every rotation, it can gradually drag the axle clockwise bit by bit.

Yes, I did learn this the hard way.

[updated: PeterH said much the same thing more succinctly while I was writing this!]

That’s a better explanation than mine! Thanks.

Peterh

AndyK wrote: ↑31 Dec 2023, 1:49pm

Jim77 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2023, 1:29pm

peterh11 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2023, 1:24pm May seem obvious but just one other thing to check: how smoothly does the pedal turn on its spindle? I had a pedal unscrew itself from one of my bikes recently and I then realised that the pedal/spindle interface was really stiff, which meant that as I pedalled, the torque forces were unscrewing it! Replaced the pedal, no more issues.

The effect by which pedals tend to (often) get tighter as you ride (discussed at length I am sure in other threads) only works as long as the pedal turns smoothly on its spindle.

PeterH

Thanks Peter - I never knew this - would a threadlocker be enough to counteract this effect?

For a while, maybe, but it's not worth the risk. (See my note about having learnt the hard way. A close encounter with tarmac was involved.) If the pedal is maintainable, see if you can get it working smoothly again. If the pedals are cheap, throw them away and fit new ones.

Agreed. If the pedal can be serviced, then great. Otherwise new pedals are in order. I was lucky in that I sensed something was wrong and was just coasting to a stop when my pedal fell out!

PeterH

May seem obvious but just one other thing to check: how smoothly does the pedal turn on its spindle? I had a pedal unscrew itself from one of my bikes recently and I then realised that the pedal/spindle interface was really stiff, which meant that as I pedalled, the torque forces were unscrewing it! Replaced the pedal, no more issues.

The effect by which pedals tend to (often) get tighter as you ride (discussed at length I am sure in other threads) only works as long as the pedal turns smoothly on its spindle.

PeterH

Brucey wrote: ↑16 Oct 2023, 3:09pm

peterh11 wrote: ↑16 Oct 2023, 2:54pm ......... I’d like to understand what the mechanic may have done. I suppose they tightened something up too much?
PeterH

it is quite possible hat the hub bearings are now set too tightly. It is also possible that water has entered the hub.

Thanks - good point about the water. They did clean the bike thoroughly - so could be.

PeterH

I took my wife’s Nexus-8 hub gear equipped bike for a service recently. One item I asked them to do was service the hub, since this shop supposedly has the expertise to do this. (I won’t name them.)

When it came back from the shop, we noticed that the pedals turn when you wheel it, and you have to apply some backward force to stop that. It did not do that before the service. I only asked them to service it as a preventative measure since it is a few years since it was done, and I had them do a load of other things at the same time.

I compared with one of my bikes which also has a Nexus-8 (mine has hub brakes, hers has rim brakes). Mine freewheels fine when pushing it, and the wheel runs for twice as long as hers before stopping if I turn it upside down and spin the wheel up to high speed. If I hold the pedals/cranks still, hers stops even more quickly.

Anyone able to comment on likely causes for this? It’s going back for them to sort out in a few days, but I’d like to understand what the mechanic may have done. I suppose they tightened something up too much? The shifting is fine and it runs fine when I’m pedalling. I read that too much tension in the chain can cause this - I checked that and there is a little bit of play so that’s not it.

PeterH

You might want to look through the recent posts on this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=157646&start=15

I found this discussion very helpful when sorting out a poorly performing rear TRP Spyre recently. A rusty cable inner was part of the problem … it’s performing well now.

PeterH

Picking this thread up from a year ago …

Has anyone further experience of using the TPU type inner tubes? I see that there are a number of brands available now - as well as Revoloop there are Pirelli, Eclipse, Tubolito, RideNow and a few more. I’m thinking about getting a pair of “gravel” tubes to try out, on a variety of tyres from 32-622 to 40-622 on my light touring bike. Not too worried by the higher price as I would expect them to last a good few years barring catastrophic punctures. I quite like the look of the Eclipse ones as they have a removable valve core so that could be replaced if needed (and the valve stem is not orange - that puts me right off one brand!)

Do you notice a difference in performance (rolling resistance) or ride quality? There are online reviews where the reviewer thinks they do (such as on road.cc)

I see that each manufacturer produces their own repair kits. The Revoloop one is 3 self-adhesive patches for 8 EUR, which does seem quite expensive. Tubolito’s is available for around a fiver for 10 patches (5 large, 5 small) and a tube of special glue. Anyone tried using a repair kit from a different manufacturer on one of these tubes? (You’d hope it would be fine but I wonder).

PeterH

maximus meridius wrote: ↑8 Sep 2023, 11:06am I've got a pair of these:

https://www.bike-components.de/en/Shima ... ls-p50756/

Which I use with a pair of these:

https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m6b79s154p3 ... 5-SPD-Shoe

I really like the pedals. I like the clipping action (they're the first SPDs I've had). The flat side is great when I need to use it. The built in, protected, reflectors are great. And so on.

But I might need to use pedal extenders. And the pedals don't have 15mm flats, so I can only install them using the hex bolt from the back. Which limits the pedal extenders I can use. There are some with a hole and some sort of insert to allow a 6mm allen key to install them. But to be honest they don't fill me with huge confidence.

Does anybody know of something like the T8000, but with 15mm flats for a spanner.

I found these: https://www.bike-components.de/en/Look/ ... ct-image-3 which may have flats (it's hard to tell), but don't know what they might be like in use.

thanks.

I hope you don’t mind me raising one thought. You posted before on the question of Spa chainsets and we exchanged a bit of back and forth. You mentioned that rubbing paint off the chainstay with your heel. Does this mean that you ride with your toes turned out, and therefore your feet at an angle?

When I moved to SPDs about 10 years ago, I pedalled like that especially on the right side. I was using pedal extenders on a TA chainset to avoid hitting the frame with my heels. I then got a very painful knee, which in the end turned out to be due to imbalance in the muscles around my knee and lack of flexibility around my ankle. I had to abandon SPDs for a while.

Eventually I found a great physio who gave me exercises which dramatically improved things. I pedal with my feet pointing forward now, albeit with a small tilt in the right shoe. And I do a lot of stretching on my legs, as well as regular strength training (including single leg squats and weighted leg raises) to keep the muscles balanced and strong, and a lot more walking than I used to. Knees are fine even on a full day ride using SPD pedals now.

Obviously I haven’t ever seen you ride. But if you ever do have knee problems, a turned out foot may be the cause. And in my experience, with determination it can be changed.

One other thing in case nobody mentioned this: I recommend setting the tension low and lubricating the moving parts on these pedals. For normal riding you don’t need the clips tight and looser gives you more “float” (rotational freedom on your feet).

PeterH

peterh11 wrote: ↑3 Sep 2023, 8:35pm

slowster wrote: ↑3 Sep 2023, 8:10pm

peterh11 wrote: ↑3 Sep 2023, 5:42pm Anyone remember this and able to find the original post?

Brucey commented on the issue a number of times. Maybe you are thinking of one of his posts, e.g. viewtopic.php?p=1430612#p1430612

Thanks for linking. I don’t think that was it, though the discussion of cable breaks where you could empty water and inject lube looks interesting. Let’s see how I get on with new cables and perhaps a better boot.

PeterH

Update: I did a major service on the brakes yesterday. New high quality pads (Copper-free Discobrakes), re-applied thread locker on the pad spacers (which are all the way out by the way), new section of cable housing (replacing the old which had had a rusty inner in it!) along the last run up to the rear brake with an oiler added in, lubricated lots of moving parts, took the rotors off and cleaned with isopropyl alcohol. Finally reinstalled per TRP online manual including alignment of the bodies and fixing the actuator arms to the cables with a bit of tension. After a 90km ride today and plenty of opportunities for controlled downhill braking, they are performing MUCH better, and have already surpassed the cantis on my other tourer. Certainly better modulation (the cantis tend to be off or on and need very careful handling) and more feel.

These brakes definitely have a lot of mechanical interfaces, and all of them need to be working smoothly!

Thanks to all who offered advice.

PeterH

But it occurs to me now to ask why you want to replace the XD-2 with a TD-2?

Two reasons:

1: I managed to snag a NOS UN72 (well, actually an UN72 and a UN73). But in 115mm. And I want to use it. I know, it's silly isn't it?

2. The hidden crank arm on the XD2 is a bit of a pain. Though admittedly only when installing chainrings. Which isn't often.

2 and a half. One of the threaded holes on my current XD2 (for the inner ring) is slightly damaged. It only just holds the bolt. I think the bolt I used may have been too long and bottomed out. Anyway, for peace of mind I wouldn't mind replacing the crank arm.

peterh11 wrote: ↑8 Sep 2023, 6:07pm The XD-2 is designed for 7/8/9 speed and the TD-2 for 10/11 speed (though also advertised as compatible with 7/8/9). I am using the XD-2 with a 9 speed chain and 8-speed cassette, and the TD-2 with all 10-speed drive train. Otherwise they are very similar - I only bought the TD-2 rather than a second XD-2 because it is designed to run 10-speed and the XD-2 isn’t.

PeterH

I'm not sure how a crank can be designed for different speeds. Is it to do with the ring spacing? I have read somewhere that the middle ring on a TD2 needs spacers to bring it out. Er, in. And one of the staff at Spa said something like that about the XD2, when I was changing the type of rings I had on. But when I got there another member of staff didn't know anything about that.

Damage seems a good reason to replace.

I looked again at the Spa web site, being curious. And it looks like their chainrings are not specific to XD-2 or TD-2 so it’s not clear what makes one ok for 10/11 speed and not the other. The only thing I see that is really different in terms of spacing is the BB length recommendation relative to Q-factor. But I haven’t measured the spacing between rings. You could probably re-use your existing chainrings as spares on a TD-2 - Spa can confirm.

I’m not using spacers on either chainset. For me, indexed shifting on the TD-2 fitted with 24/34/46 rings, with Tiagra 10-speed gearing is absolutely fine. It might even be better than with the original chainset. Can’t comment on spacing with XD-2 as I am using a friction lever to move the front derailleur (identical Tiagra triple) on that bike, though it also works well (though I wrapped the cable round the top of the clamp to make it use more cable travel per sideways movement and reduce the pressure required on the lever).

PeterH

maximus meridius wrote: ↑8 Sep 2023, 5:05pm

peterh11 wrote: ↑8 Sep 2023, 4:48pm I have a TD2 triple mounted on a 116mm First Components DX-30 bottom bracket which I bought from Spa. I measured the Q factor (distance between outer surface of the cranks at the pedal hole) at between 161 and 162mm, and the chainline is very good - the middle chainring is at between 44 and 45mm from the bike frame centre line and the indexed shifting on my Tiagra front derailleur works perfectly with a 4703 STI lever.

I originally bought a 113mm bottom bracket but that was too short as this bike has quite wide chainstays to accommodate larger tyres. I can’t remember if I spoke to Spa about that at the time (it was a couple of years ago).

I’m very happy with the Q factor and stance width. It is a few mm more than the original Tiagra triple chainset which I replaced with the TD-2 and the difference is hardly noticeable but if anything an improvement for me. I’m touring, not racing.

I have an XD-2 triple on another bike but can’t remember the BB length on that. I can check if needed but I think that the relationship between chainline and Q-factor is very similar.

Hope this helps.

PeterH

That's great, thanks for doing that. So the BB you've got your TD2 triple on has a RH "stick out" of 23.5mm. The UN72 I've got measures at 23mm, so 0.5mm less than yours. So a TD2 triple on my BB would give a q factor of between 160.5mm and 161.5mm. Which is still a little more than the 159mm that Spa quote. Which makes me suspect that maybe their 159mm is based upon their previously recommended 113mm BB.

Either way it's very close to my current Q factor (assume Spa's figures are correct, I've not measured it). And easily correctible with a couple of pedal washers.

Many thanks.

Yes, I remember that the 159mm was quoted when I bought the TD-2 and at the time their recommended BB length was 113mm, so that is consistent. I just went to the shed and had a look at my XD-2. The measurements are very close to the TD-2 - I’m just putting a ruler across to the mid-line of the seat tube so could be out by a little. The Q-factor is within a couple of mm, and the chain line is maybe 1mm less, which doesn’t quite account for the wider quoted Q-factor. Caveat - my XD-2 is 9 years old so the design might have been changed since. That bike has narrower chain stays and I think the BB is shorter but can’t tell for sure. Certainly as I wrote before, I don’t notice a difference swapping bikes.

I reckon with your 115mm BB you should be fine, and if not you can always put a slightly longer one on or add washers as you wrote.

But it occurs to me now to ask why you want to replace the XD-2 with a TD-2? The XD-2 is designed for 7/8/9 speed and the TD-2 for 10/11 speed (though also advertised as compatible with 7/8/9). I am using the XD-2 with a 9 speed chain and 8-speed cassette, and the TD-2 with all 10-speed drive train. Otherwise they are very similar - I only bought the TD-2 rather than a second XD-2 because it is designed to run 10-speed and the XD-2 isn’t.

PeterH

I have a TD2 triple mounted on a 116mm First Components DX-30 bottom bracket which I bought from Spa. I measured the Q factor (distance between outer surface of the cranks at the pedal hole) at between 161 and 162mm, and the chainline is very good - the middle chainring is at between 44 and 45mm from the bike frame centre line and the indexed shifting on my Tiagra front derailleur works perfectly with a 4703 STI lever.

I originally bought a 113mm bottom bracket but that was too short as this bike has quite wide chainstays to accommodate larger tyres. I can’t remember if I spoke to Spa about that at the time (it was a couple of years ago).

I’m very happy with the Q factor and stance width. It is a few mm more than the original Tiagra triple chainset which I replaced with the TD-2 and the difference is hardly noticeable but if anything an improvement for me. I’m touring, not racing.

I have an XD-2 triple on another bike but can’t remember the BB length on that. I can check if needed but I think that the relationship between chainline and Q-factor is very similar.

Hope this helps.

PeterH

andrew_s wrote: ↑3 Sep 2023, 12:08am I'd recommend the non-T Cyo Premium, which (IMO) hits the price/light quality sweet spot for those lights currently available. (model number 1752+letters)

The non-premium Cyo (aka Cyo 60) is a little less bright, but the main drawback is that the beam is a fair bit narrower (model number 175+letters).

I don't like the daylight running lights (="T") models. The daylight LEDs (the 4 slung under gregoryoftours' light) use as much power as the main beam LED, and I don't want 7 or so watts of dynamo drag all of the time, rather than just when I'm getting some useful light out of it. You can turn the light off, but then the Senso function won't work, and I find that useful enough that my dynamo lights spend all of the time in Senso mode.

The IQ-X and IQ-XS don't have a non-daylight running lights option, and there's the somewhat dodgy soft switch mentioned by PH. I dare say it's OK if you have the light turned on 100% of the time or never leave the bike unused for long enough for the standlight capacitor to discharge, but I have heard tell of people not being able to turn the light on until they are riding, or have ridden far enough to put some charge in the capacitor if the switch isn't reachable from the saddle.

I notice that the Cyo has dropped off the B+M website, so I expect it won't be available for too much longer. So has the Luxos U (with USB output, and a poor reputation for reliability).

Plus one on the non-T Cyo models. We have several different variants on different bikes. The Premium is an excellent light. I have an IQ-X which is very bright but the beam seems narrower than the Cyo type and you can’t have it on senso without daylight running - which I think takes as much power as running the full beam by the way - though that is probably not an issue on an E-bike. I stopped using the IQ-X after the stand light failed and I couldn’t get the unit apart to fix it.