Cycling UK Forum

Apols I've not managed to get through all the posts on this one, so may well repeat some previous comment:

At night time when driving I sometimes find modern bike lights too bright, in that it takes me longer to realise it's a bike that's quite close, delaying me slowing down , something that is potentially needed on the narrow and lanes round here. I find it much easier if the cyclist also has a flashing light rather than just one front facing v bright white light. Reflectors on pedals/ankle bands and additional flashing back and front lights all seem to be easier for me to spot quickly as a cyclist. As I don't like it when cars shoot past at great speed at night on narrow lanes, I try to moderate this risk by flashing alot (in a strickly non-British standard way) Obviously won't work with all drivers,but the risk to me is cumulative & I ammore than happy to use my own judgement to manage the risks.

I agree on the contrast issue during the day......but I struggle to see how often black will contrast with much in the countryside or in town at day time. Hence my surprize at how much reaction this post has received. I just thought all those cyclist in black kit were vain or hadn't thought about it ! ....( but I see views differ & I must be presumptious)

I don't tend to drive much in towns during the night so I won't comment on black in towns at night, but during the day in busy traffic I'm far more likely to spot a large fast moving vehicle ,particularly if in a contrasting colour, than any cyclist. It's obviously not that helpful saying it's the drivers that are the risk when it's the cyclist that will get hurt. Ask my missus ( 4 years to recover from the drivers mistake....who didn't see her amoungst the traffic). So when I'm cycling through busy traffic I go for bright contrasting clothes /helmet & won't be wearing black. I'll also continue to keep vigilant and manage the traffic as much as a cyclist can do. Anyway my choice & I'll stick to it.

Many Thanks for the replies.

I note Brucey says in the previous thread on Zac19's that there are single and double eyeletted versions and best to use double for the back. I may go for these for the back and LX17's for the front....or just use lx17's.

Incidentally on the double eyeletted point, Brucey reasons this due to the dishing on the rear wheel ( So I presume extra tension required). Which has set my mind wondering/presuming that for more typical medium weight several week touring that the eyelets are more important than rim weight/design ? In which case look for the lightest double eyeletted at back that takes your chosen tyre choice?

So is wheel rim material and section not so much of the issue to withstand loaded touring ? with eyelets, spoke number and wheel build quality more important to trouble free use ?

(I recall long rough stuff but not overly loaded touring on Mavic 517's ( circa 400g rims, single eyelet) and a previous lightish single eyeletted rim, that I ended up with cracks appearing in the rear rim ( but not on the front). I had presumed this was just too light a rim, or possibly an over tight build ( although I'm pretty sure the tension were balanced on those wheels).

I note spa say Exal LX17's will take up to 54mm tyres. So look like a reasonable option on our 26" tourers on which we use 1.75" (45mm) conti travel contacts. so looks like they can cope with more than posts above suggest ?

Any one happily used 45mm of Exal LX17's

Anyone aware of any decent 19 mm non-disc brake silver 36 hole 26" mid weight rims ?

(I have Sputniks for the rear wheel for rough stuff touring , but they seem overkill for most of our mainly road based fully loaded trips and I think I'd prefer a 19mm to 17mm, but will get the exals if no good choice now.

+1: test ride
+1: 6 speed
+1: consider chainset/ gearing option

I live in Wales. Even with the wide ratio BWR hub there is no point having the bigger chainset and higher gearing unless you are a flat world cycliist or have thighs of steel and strong kneecap tendons.

+ little stumpy bar ends make a really big difference to comfort cycling and getting up hills when the gears are not as low as you'd like.

a couple more questions before I take my 1978 AG apart. Looks to me like the hub has done nothing for many years:

1) Would part HSA 284 be the right replacement main axle bearings ?
When I rotate the back wheel it sounds like the bearings are no longer retained in a cage. I will soon see, but am presuming I will need to replace bearings/cages. A 1971 brochure shows the main axle bearings as: HSA 103 Ball cage & I can't tell if this is just the code of the cage or with bearings. I can't find part HSA 103 to buy though. But can see a HSA 284 on the modern equivalent to the AW

2) size of bearings on 'inner dust ball ring ??

3) read somewhere that standard lithium bearing grease may be too thick and all grease should be used sparingly. So do I need a specific Sturmey archer grease or is there a more widely available grease type that is suitable

4) hub has an oil cap. 1971 brochure says use a few drops of SAE 20 Mineral Oil at least once a month. Elsewhere I've seen SAE 30 rather than SAE 20. So is there an easily available good oil ? and presumably its advisable to inspect and clean/remove at least the worst of any dried up or thick crud, rather than just add new oil ?

Thanks again.

1971 brochure shows nuts as part: HMN 140 - 2BA nut

found brass 2BA nuts online so if I find a dremel eventually and cut off I'll replace with brass nuts as well trying to rig up the blade terminals suggested. ( belt and braces)

Thanks & glad I stopped then. It's still working thankfully. So will search out a suitable connector.

Do you think there will be any option to secure the terminal stud later ? solder ? epoxy or not.

Hi

( the pun is unintended)

Anyone out there an expert on the left hand side of the SA AG3 ?

just tried to remove the back wheel from an old bike I bought with an AG3 dynohub. One of the dynamo wire terminal nuts unscrewed ok. The other was rusty and the terminal turned with the nut. So have stopped to have a think about options to remove nut & refit later. The wheel can't be removed, unless the dynamo wires are removed.

The exploded parts diagram I've found do not show any detail for the terminal itself and how it's fixed to the armature.

So does anyone know how the terminal is fixed & if I should actually try to undo it... as in is it more likely to cause damage ?? (looks like there is a limit to dismantling , as I've read that I should not separate the armature and magnet)

....or is my safest bet to leave the spade and nut as they are jammed in place ( and hopefully still with electrical continuity), and cut that dynamo wire and install a connector ?? { would be a shame, but better a working dynamo than not]

Thanks for the comment. We will test the tweaked set-up with 4 weeks in northern Spain .....the 1st proper tour in 4 years since a car unkindly broke various of my missus' bones ( The arthritis is just an age related added extra). We'll see how it goes & consider set-up from there.

RE lining the the hip up with the seat tube angle: I didn't see a specific reasoning. But found two places citing the principle. There is obviously some logic that moving your weight affects the balance, by why the sweet spot should be in-line with the seat post angle ?? I don't know.

(If using plastic frame spacers when in soft bag on a flight, I've taped them in place. But generally when touring/flying I carry with me some appropriately sized sections of bamboo as a spacer and use the skewers to hold them in place. I've done this for 25 years so far without mishap. Need a good thick bamboo cane & a clean square cut. use washers as well if concerned not enough in contact with dropout face )

Thanks for the comments.
(Having posted I've been trawling the web, plus my missus & her bike have been on the turbo trainer with plumbline etc)

With the set up she has been using, but which recently has been causing a bit more neck/shoulder/wrist pain, KOPS suggests her saddle was 3/4" or so too far forward.

I found stuff online also about balance and that this should be best when the hip is lined up with the axis of the seat tube. This also suggests that her saddle is 3/4" or so too far forward.

Simples !....almost . If I understand things correctly, pushing the saddle back that 3/4" should as a rule of thumb be good for balance and transmission efficiency+ reduce weight on her (slightly arthritic) hands(thumbs).

But is that not more likely to cause neck/shoulder ache ?

( for info its a flat bar converted mountain bike roughstuff tourer with long round the corner bar ends. Bar ends used for up hill and headwinds, palm on bar ergo grip or holding grip at levers most of the time)

As I could, I've added a 1cm spacer and raised the handlebar height....... I presume this may be a bit better for the neck...but puts back some of the weight on the hands undermining the benefit of moving the saddle back ?

Is the above logic correct ?

The other issue we have is the frame probably too long ideally. It's running currently with a 50mm stem so not much option to shorted. the raised handlebars (grip section) are now about a centimeter above saddle height.

I'm thinking that with this frame we have a neck ache vs hand ache compromise & we'll just have to see if the slight tinkering helps or hinders.......but should serious aches continue we may have to think about a new frame.

Colin531 suggests that Knee Over Pedal Spindle (KOPS) is a useful rule of thumb method for saddle fore aft saddle position ( having set the saddle height)

His guide says the plumb-line should be held at the top of the shin ( not kneecap it seems). Is that the correct interpretation as it makes quite a lot of difference. ( even with my missus who definitely doesn't have knobbly knees)

Colin indicates that the KOPS method is also much maligned on t'internet. Views welcomes on how the KOPS approach should be done & other approaches for initial set up to get into the right ball park for a touring/leisure cyclist.

If you have a few years and wheels in you, I'd say get a stand.

I started making/truing wheels in the bike just using a smartphone scribe/pen as the pointer held on the stay with a thumb (!) It worked, they were not as true as one would wish, but they survived.

I now use a Park TS-8 stand, though I don't particularly recommend it as it has a hard pointer, which either moves or worryingly scrapes the rim and the wheel often doesn't seat well meaning the rim can sit in an un-plumb perpedicular (sp?) position which is a pain, particularly as I don't use a dishing tool just flip the wheel around to allow working from both sides until the wheel is centred. So one often think the rim is off centre, then realise it just isn't seated correctly. I can live with it though, now that I have it, and the wheels are a lot better.

However I find a substantial advantage of a truing stand is that I can sit down and it is more comfortable & I am more consistent and zen-like in my approach + it is easier to set up back-light so that the reflection on the rim makes the gap appear twice as big. Making wheels in the bike, my back ached and I'd keep on stopping which made me less consisted & it was just harder to use the pointer. I know my method was rather basic, but similar issues I believe will apply.

you got me there. I rarely venture beyond 8 speed. (Another good reason not to may be !)

I had a struggle the last couple of times with SRAM powerlinks. So searched on youtube. there are several videos on removing without tools. Now seems easy .

secret seems to be:

1) spray/clean link
2) hold chain either side with right hand thumb on one plate & left hand forefinger on other
3) push thumb & forefinger together a bit whilst wiggling/plying chain and trying to push in the direction it will unlock.

works for me. definitely try the wiggling...not just trying to push straight

there was also a method with a piece of string threaded right round the two pins, back & crossed over so you can pull the string to pull the two pins together. That also worked for me but plates pinged across the garage...but my hands were clean ! (well cleanish)