Cycling UK Forum

CJ: +1

series3safari wrote:Does anyone have any good ideas where I will get a short ahead stem in a silver finish - to fit 25/26mm bars. Looking for something around 60mm or perhaps less. Got a nice 80mm stem last year, a velo orange I think, from a small ebay retailer in Cambridge, but struggling to find a shorter one now.

Is this 25.4mm clamp (normal for flat bars) or is this for old drop bars (26.0mm? 26.4mm?). Getting this wrong could have unfortunate consequences.
DO NOT GET THIS WRONG.

Our 11YO used to have:

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-cnc-al ... prod11799/

on big-wheel bike.

I think I have one used and one unused spare, if anyone is interested.

11YO now has 105mm -40 degree, with swept back bars.

Looking randomly on chainreaction:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=15838

So not sure why there is a problem finding a short stem.

hippyonwheels wrote:Hi, looking to get myself a set of the one of the above tyres but struggling to see what's the difference- obviously the Marathon Pluses are more expensive but why?

My riding is about 60 percent road and 40 percent tow path and fairly hard packed trail.

How many punctures ? If you get punctures, are they from glass, thorns, ... ?
How much mud ?
What tyres do you have now ? What size tyres can you fit ?

Marathon Plus - in all its varieties - has a thick, heavy, stiff carcass that doesn't grip too well - perhaps because of the stiff, heavy carcass. The tread compound seems hard too. But it is about the most puncture resistant tyre available. Not invulnerable, but very hard to puncture. If you have a bad puncture problem, or it's very awkward to fix a rear puncture (some hub gears), you really want M+.

As implied earlier, most punctures are at the back, so unless you get lots of front punctures, a lighter, grippier, more compliant, and possibly cheaper front tyre would be safer and more comfortable than a pair of M+.

If you don't have a bad puncture problem, you do not want M+.

Mud.
Normal Marathons, M+ have tread only to reasure naive buyers. They are not going to grip in mud, and the token tread will not help grip clean surfaces. Slick tyres would grip better.

If you have muddy uphill/downhill sections, not just the odd muddy patch on the flat, you need something with knobbly bits. Start looking at cyclocross or even MTB tyres.

My favourite on/off road tyre is the (just discontinued, still available) Marathon Cross, which is tough, light (& compliant) for its size, has soft rubber that grips wet roads, and works over a very wide range of pressures. The most recommended such tyre seems to be the cheaper Land Cruiser, which I have seen, but not tried. M+ is available with knobbly bits.

If your towpath and trail are well drained, so knobbly bits don't help, you can look at wide road tyres like 28mm Schwalbe Ultremo ZX or Vittoria Rubino Pro. These are light. flexible, grippy tyres. Excellent road tyres, but fat enough to be OK on clean off-road.

A bit heavier & tougher are road tyres like Schwalbe Durano and Durano Plus - like M and M+, but lighter roadie tyres.

Heavier and tougher again, and we're back to the standard Marathons.

Schwalbe Land Cruiser seems to be rated as a CX tyre.

We have 40-622 Marathon Cross, which is quite a bit lighter for the same size than Land cruiser - so maybe more flexible & grippier.
We run them from <30psi to 100psi.
We also have M+ ATB, but M+ is not good unless you have a bad puncture problem.

[possibly teaching you to suck eggs] Whatever you go for, off road low pressures are going to be faster, and on-road, high pressures are going to be faster.
At the low pressures you might need for grip and rolling off-road, these tyres will be draggy on road.
At the high pressures you might want on-road, they may be sliding around off-road.

So for rufty-tufty on-road/off road touring, I think you want fat light tyres that can take high pressures (for their size), a pump, and a pressure gauge.

But we've been out on Heather moorland without worrying too much about tyre pressures.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=40565

Hmm. Not exactly Tissington trail, then.

Yes, check the chainline.
And the front mech - I think there are some front mechs only designed for small chainrings. But you probably have something designed for 42-48 teeth, so it might even shift better.

Obviously you're gearing the thing up, but why do you want to do that ? What's the problem that you are trying to solve by doing this ?

I did this to a slick-tyred gas-pipe mountainbike one of the kids was going to school - he was complaining that 42-14 on 32-559 tyres was a bit spinny, and as he's big, and fairly quick, I believed him.

If you have a cassette on the back, another idea might be a narrow road cassette, like 12-21, 11-21.

Tonyf33 wrote:

JEJV wrote:
Otherwise, there's just more stuff to go wrong, in new and interesting ways.

How exactly?

scottg wrote:I like my Cateye Strada Wireless, everything except max speed works fine.
Hi tension lines and other rf messes up the max speed reading sometimes,
I really don't think I've reached 64mph on the flats recently.

Note: metal fenders will play hob with it, I could never get it to work
reliably on a bike with Berthoud stainless fenders.

pherron wrote:I had a wireless until I found it wouldn't work with a B&M Cyo headlamp. Backed to wired now. However it was great and problem free as long as my light wasn't on!

byegad wrote:The disadvantage of wireless is interference from traffic light sensors. I routinely sit waiting for the lights to change reading 109mph!

drossall wrote:Can't be bothered with wireless. One more battery to fail and muck up your mileage reading, and less warning because there's no display to go gradually faint.

OTOH:

DavidT wrote:I've had a Cateye Micro Wireless for 6,000 miles. No problems. Battery life fine.

How exactly? More electronic components. More batteries to fail. Necessarilly low power wireless transmission, and simple modulation. more battery compartment seals to leak.

Tonyf33 wrote:or possible water ingress into where the connecting cable goes into the sensor,making the unit completely useless.

The alternative being a seal for a compartment with a replaceable battery.
I'm only interested in computers with cadence, so that's two batteries, and two transmitters.

Tonyf33 wrote:Unlike wired comps whose wires never catch anything to be pulled out of placed, they also never get tugged/nicked or possible water ingress into where the connecting cable goes into the sensor,making the unit completely useless. Nope I can't think of anything to go wrong with a wired set up?
I mean each to their own and that but both have their weak points, personally I think wireless kits have less.

JEJV wrote:Do you have a full sus MTB ?

The only time I've had a problem with cables catching on stuff was when a free-range horse started nibbling my bike when I left it at the foot of Ben Hope.

Wrapping wires unnecessarily round stuff that moves, like brake cables is not a good idea. The narrow cable ties that come with wired computers are a bad idea on their own. Wrapping a bit of inner tube round the cable before attaching a cable tie may be a good idea. To reduce the localised stresses on the cable.

Do you have a full sus MTB ?

That might be a good reason for a good wireless computer.

Otherwise, there's just more stuff to go wrong, in new and interesting ways.

Phil_Lee wrote:

johnb wrote:

belgiangoth wrote:Can anyone recommend whether the discharge to recondition option is worth it? Also, should I just bin my old NiCads and move on to NiMh - or is it worth buying a more basic charger that still accepts NiCds?
I can't tell what the £50 chargers offer that the £10 don't - looking at the 7day v6500 but it doesn't take NiCds or recondition batteries.

I have upgraded from several different 7dayshop chargers to the MH-C9000 WizardOne Charger-Analyser which I got in Maplin and Sanyo enloop batterys.

Yes there is a major difference in the batterys and chargers in fact there is no comparision, so to answer your question, yes it would be worth your while to bin your old charger and batteries.

If you want technical info do a search for Maha MH-C9000 WizardOne Charger-Analyser and you will get a lot of info from techie websites.

+1 on this charger and the Eneloops[...]

+1 For the Maha Charger. The slow charge ("Break-in") is the standard way to charge new "standard" NiMH cells. The "16 hours at 250mA" written on the side of the cell. Their chargers seem to be designed by folk who know something about batteries, and implement their knowledge, even if it means annoying some customers by saying "I'm not charging that!"

Low self-discharge cells "eneloop", "recyko", "hybrio",... shouldn't normally need a forming cycle.

OTOH, I would avoid Ansmann chargers for NiMH cells, if possible. I've had a couple - have an XC-3000 and one of it's big predecessors.
The delta-peak seems to be set way too high, and it doesn't seem to have a sane overvoltage limit. If the charger gets up to 1.5V, something has gone wrong, Mr Ansmann. So it seems to grossly overcharge (and so damage) at least some cells. Some AA NIMH cells get very hot when charging. I've even had new GP2700 AA cells audibly venting on the XC-3000. GP = "Gold Peak". Make a lot of batteries, thought not seen in supermarkets.

Some folks talked about "binning" NiCd cells. Hopefully not literally. Cadmium isn't very nice, so they go in the battery recycling box at work or at the supermarket,...

But isn't this a thread on the wrong forum - wouldn't candlepower forum be better ?

Malaconotus wrote:

JEJV wrote:Not sure that the Conti tyres have carbide studs.

Nordic Spike do have studs.

http://www.conti-online.com/generator/w ... ke_en.html

Says:

"The studded bike tyre officially approved for road use. Available with 120 or 240 studs of hardened steel, making it possible to bike through ice and snow."

So they'd wear out, then, unlike the Nokian/Schwalbe Carbide-tipped spikes ?

42-622 Marathon Winter.
Nokian 40-622 W240 similar, with slightly deeper tread, and more expensive.
Not sure that the Conti tyres have carbide studs.
See: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/studdedtires.asp

niggle wrote:Add Vittoria Rubino Pro 28-622 245g, £19.95 each, lovely tyre to ride on, good reputation, I like Paselas as well but these are lighter and cheaper:

Yeah. I tried to get some about a year ago, but hardly anywhere seemed to do them, and when I ordered some, ordinary Rubinos turned up
So we seem to be all Schwalbe round here. Except for a pair of Nokian W240's. I should be a Schwalbe distributor.
11YO has the ZXs. Got lucky after his Stelvios died. They seem to be wearing pretty well for a racey tyre, but he's obviously light, & doesn't have a glass-strewn commute.

I think (I've never actually seen one) that the Froggleg [sic] canti's use the old-style unthreaded post pads. So CR520/720s (with decent pads) would probably be better, as they use V-brake-style pads with domed washers that are easier to adjust.

hungrydave wrote:The cantis came with three different lengths of spacer and bold that go between the brake arm and the pad - they are short ones on there at the moment.

Would it have the same effect on mechanical advantage, if I could angle the pads down enough, to fit the long spacers instead. This would 'open' the brakes up, having the same effect on the angle between brake arm and lever as lowering the straddle cable.

Yes. Putting longer spacers between the pad and the brake arms should increase leverage/MA.

hungrydave wrote:It would also decrease the ratio of 'pivot to pad' : 'pivot to cable attachment point' - which is maybe a bad thing?

Not sure it would make much difference.

eoinin wrote:The rims are Mavic marked T221 and also 622X17
[I normally ride 700x23

eoinin wrote:how narrow tyres could I physically fit?

Any 622 clincher. 17-622. Whatever. But that might be unsafe.

eoinin wrote:And what is the narrowest I should really consider?

25mm on those rims. 23mm maybe OK on 16mm rims.
http://www.schwalbe.com/gbl/en/technik_ ... nt=Technik

How quick are you ?

Used to narrow tyres.

If you are proper quick, you want narrow tyres for reduced air resistance. Could have narrow front & fatter rear.

Otherwise, the widest lightweight road tyres seem to be 28mm.

A lot of people get fixated on the mass of the tyres, claiming crazy stuff like an extra few grams of tyre will stop you accelerating or going up hills & nonsense like that.
But the weight of the tyre - the carcass, really, may indicate how flexible (grippy) the tyre is, & maybe say something about rolling resistance.

reohn2 wrote:[...]
28mm Conti Grand Prix= 320g
28mm Ribmo=370g
28mm Pasela= 280g
30mm M/Racer=325g

Schwalbe Ultremo ZX 28-622 235g

531colin wrote:Getting decent braking from the hoods is a common problem for lots of people, as a search of this forum will show.

This.

BigG wrote:The main problem I find with braking from the hoods is that it is not possible to exert as much force on the levers as when braking from the drops. In this latter position, you can use your full grip to squeeze the lever against the bar. Squeezing the lever very obliquely against the hood does not allow the same same force to be applied.

The Shimano reach adjustment wedges make this less bad.

But astonishing is going on with the lever design ?? It seems like 99% of people with drop bars spend 99+% of the time on the hoods. So is anyone home at Campy or Shimano or Sram ?
Can we have a dogleg lever, please ? You know, like MTB levers ?

A lot of the Canti braking complaints should be complaints about the brake lever design.