Cycling UK Forum

cycle tramp wrote: ↑4 Jan 2025, 10:31pm

NickJP wrote: ↑4 Jan 2025, 9:22pm

slowster wrote: ↑4 Jan 2025, 10:12am What is it like to ride unloaded?

Very nice.
PXL_20201213_024100183.jpg

Rivendell frame?

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑2 Jan 2025, 4:38pm

531colin wrote: ↑2 Jan 2025, 4:16pm There’s a “gusset” of sorts under the top tube, looks like more of a gesture than a structure.

There's no gusset, it's just the way the fillet braze shows in the photo.
............

Nearholmer wrote: ↑2 Jan 2025, 3:05pm….,……,,

I’m also thinking that if the seat post went way down into the seat tube, and was a snug fit, there would have been little “working” of that upstanding bit of the seat tube, so I’m adding it didn’t/wasnt.

Sweep wrote: ↑27 Dec 2024, 7:44pm Do "magic links" or whatever they are called (various systems of course) tend to wear faster than a chain's main links?

Reason I ask is I pretty religiously check train wear with a tool (yes I know you are supposed to use a steel rule and a set of log tables but I'm not up to it) and often find that while the vast vast majority of the chain is fine and dandy any measurement taken across a span of chain including the link is not.

Being a mean git I am tempted to keep using the chain but usually give in and replace it.

Because of this "rogue" measurement.

So are links made of cheese or is something else going on?

Have tended to use SRAM but more latterly KMC.

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑1 Jan 2025, 3:48pm

jb wrote: ↑1 Jan 2025, 2:37pm There is no reason for the joining link to wear any faster than the rest of the chain, the parts that rub against each other are the same. It probably could not take the same load but it's working load will be higher than needed anyway.

For KMC: The joining pins in the QL are different to the main chain pins; they have a groove where the side plates click in so the pin is both narrowerer at the wear point, plus the plates are thinner than other side plates in the chain at the pin slot so the wear load is more concentrated at that point of articulation. Maybe a different steel alloy from other links is used in the QL sideplates and pins? A few unknowns.

Brucey wrote: ↑25 Dec 2024, 7:47pm

andrew_s wrote: ↑23 Dec 2024, 6:30pm...To demonstrate, try riding with your hands making fists resting on the rear side of the bar, so you can only push on the bars, not pull, and you'll find that you ride entirely normally.
Then try turning left into a side road with one hand off the bars. What you'll find is that you can make the turn quite easily with your left hand on the bars, but that if you try to use the right fist while signalling left, you'll have to unclench your fist so you can pull on the bars.....

FWW think this is correct. but subtly different to what might really happen. I don't think it is at all commonplace to ride in a perfectly straight line. More usually the bike leans slightly from side to side eg. in time with the pedalling action. each weave/perturbation being counteracted by the steering's natural self-centreing tendency. Thus when you ride through a puddle on a drying road two distinct tyre marks are usually left, both weaving slightly, with the one from the front wheel weaving a little more than the rear. It is my belief/understanding that countersteering commonly arises as a result of attempts made to block this (natural) weaving motion. Both countersteering explanations require that you push slightly on the same side of the handlebar, but the second explanation also tallies well with both the observation that the turn is not usually initiated by a positive action of any kind and that some bikes are readier to turn than others, presumably as a result of having larger perturbations.