Cycling UK Forum

stewartpratt wrote:Torx key? Most nipples will take a flat-bladed screwdriver, Shimano a cross-head; which ones do you have?

These ones http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=27642 they are the ones the rim originally had too, I'm replacing like for like.

tykeboy2003 wrote:Why not do it yourself? I rebuilt a wheel for the first time in december last year and its still straight and true. I referred to Sheldon-Brown's site and took my time with excellent results.

I did try a little while ago, and not having a lot of time it wasn't a perfect job, it was horizontally OK or good even for a first try, but was disappointly not vertically, which I think is worse, it wasn't too bad and indeed I still use it as-is, but I'd prefer a wheel done by someone more capable than myself.
Having the nipple problems is putting me off since replacing a heap of spokes takes a lot longer than just loosening them before truing.

The rim is as strong as I've ever seen, it is an atom labs one and I've done many miles with three of the thirty six spokes missing, but I generally replace them when two or more break, I never replace one on it's own. A properly built wheel would be a nice treat and no more broken spokes.

stewartpratt wrote:And go and find a red Spokey - they grip the nipple at three corners instead of the normal two, so they tend to be better than most for spreading the required torque.

OK, a further question on that subject, I currently use the torx key on the end of the nipple rather than a spoke key, is that better or worse?
Also is it advisable to use pliars on the spoke near to the nipple to hold it or do I allow the spoke to twist as I try and adjust it (given the fact that most are fused)?

Thanks for all the replies. It explains what I'm seeing.
I'll try grease and easing oil and suggested.

Only 3K miles till I can get a wheel builder to rebuild it into a new rim and that will sort all my problems, just need to raid the wife's purse every week till then

On my 26" rear rim I have problems with the spokes mainly because the wheel needs a proper rebuild, but I need the bike for the time being, so I am sticking with it until I have a couple of weeks holiday and I can get it rebuilt.

So, onto my question...
Whenever I replace a spoke it isn't long before it is fused to the torque nipple and won't undo or tighten without breaking.
The spokes are steel and I believe the torque nipples are aluminium.
Am I doing anything wrong or is this a problem with matching steel and aluminium in this way?
Would greasing the thread make any difference?

[XAP]Bob wrote:...in this case I was the larger vehicle, and therefore have the greater obligation to avoid an incident.

Is that true?

I'd say anyone is under obligation to try and avoid an incident, but fault is not yours, you sound careful and did the correct checks.
So pat yourself on the back for doing well and don't let this hold you back.

"Stop, look and listen" is a good one to shout if you feel you have to shout anything

Hi there,

Just over the road from my house are some bushes (it's at the end of a cul-de-sac) and someone had dumped a bike in there.
I left it a day and a half or more before deciding to take charge of it and to try and find the owner.

My wife called the police about it and they weren't interested because it hadn't been there for 3 days, geeze, things don't hang around unlocked for 3 days, I was amazed nobody had made off with it within hours.

It's a fairly old yellow mountain bike, not worth much, the panniers on it look fairly new, but they are cheap and it has was looks like a fishing rod bag attached to it too. All bags are empty. So I'm thinking it's been stollen from a fisherman somewhere down the nearby canal, but have no idea how to trace the owner, it could of course be miles away.

Anyone missing an old yellow mountain bike in the Mytchett / Farnborough area?
Or anyone have any advice about tracing an owner?

Come the weekend I may give the bottom bracket area a clean, see if there is a post code or whatever stamped in there.

irc wrote:So a driver wearing a blindfold would still only be 75% to blame if he hit someone who was bareheaded?

Unless you could prove the driver was blindfolded and/or not driving within the acceptable boundaries e.g. care and attention, speed, car suitably maintained etc. I expect a blindford is the care and attention one.

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if they assess the condition of a bicycle after an accident, for example working brakes, suitable tires for the road conditions etc? I see some right clunkers at times.

edit: car => care

irc wrote:The issue is why, in a case where the driver was 100% to blame should damages be reduced depending on how the cyclist was dressed? It the driver was 100% to blame he should pay for 100% of the consequences.

Ah, I think the point is the dressing determines the blame percentage, so a driver would never be 100% to blame (assuming they weren't drunk etc) if the cyclist wasn't dressed like a bollard.

Tonyf33 wrote:Indeed, the case for hi-vis/bright colours is equally non proven I beleive and in any case you don't see many vehicles liveried up with it so why should cyclists?

A friend who was knocked off (whilst wearing a hi-viz jacket) had the driver say "maybe my brain confused you with a bollard or something, I just don't know how I didn't see you"
So I actively avoid any clothing that makes me look like a bollard!
I prefer to look like a normal person too, wearing hi-viz kit makes me feel a bit odd but then so do cycling shorts.
Against a green countryside yellow is VERY visible but in built up areas I am convinced it is the converse, there is a lot of yellow light already.

I wear dark clothing as a preference and I always have the brightest lights I can afford always on even in bright daylight summer. Besides lights are more visible against a black background and also going through a tunnel or trees you can be less visible without lights not to mention the fact that the weather may change.
500+ lumen flashing lights work best in my experience. Other friends have been knocked off with brighter but static lights, so I think bright AND flashing is the key.

This is all my feelings / thoughts on the subject, nothing scientific, so let me know your thoughts.

irc wrote:While insurance companies have tried it on I'm not aware of any cases where not wearing a helmet was found to be contributory negligence.

Do a search from the CTC website for "helmet legal litmus test" and you will find a link to
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/c ... cent-cases

which I quote:
"Research suggests that, routinely, there has been a tendency to reduce damages by a quarter when a cyclist was not wearing a helmet. It is suggested that this cannot be right or just, as so much depends on the circumstances. However, in analysing the settlement process, and cases in coroner’s courts, it would appear that cycle helmet wear is also becoming a kind of preliminary legal litmus test in cycle compensation cases"

I'm not sure if it was this one that I had seen in a CTC e-mail some time ago or not, but the source of my knowledge on this was the CTC, so in effect they have encouraged me to wear a helmet

Of course if this information is wrong can it please be countered by the CTC and removed from the search results / page?

Sorry for joining this late, I'll go off topic a bit to begin with then come back onto the subject I promise.

Cunobelin wrote:.. and the compulsory use of cycle paths, paying of road tax, getting off the road altogether?

The CTC is absolutely correct to remain in a situation where it advises that helmets are not the magic bullet" that some helmet evangelists believe it to be.

I commute in a built up area and cycle paths on the pavement are pretty awful; I avoid using them for the safety of myself (from cars pulling in/out from driveways) and zombie pedestrians. However there are occasions when they are safer; so I like having them there as an option.

Unfortunately some drivers do get agressive when you are on "their road" and not on "your cycle path", but they get my standard response in times of conflict

Road tax is paid by everyone, that's a separate matter, but my personal view on car tax is just scrap it, it's a waste of resources to administer and police it, just increase fuel duty instead.
TV tax is another one that annoys me, but I won't go into that

Coming back onto topic here's my personal view (for what it is worth):

For insurance purposes I wear one, but when courts etc stop taking them into account (I can dream) then I probably won't.

They are a nice comfort blanket and (sometimes) I do feel vulnerable without one, but that may of course mean that I am less careful when I am wearing one, so I don't know which is worse, nervousness or over confidence?

As far as I am aware cyclists have very few accidents and head injuries are in the minority of these very few. If I am wrong about this then please correct me with solid scientific evidence.

Minor injuries happen to us and throughout my life I have had knocks and scrapes but my body is amazing, it can fix itself, sometimes with medical help, but non the less I am made to endure cuts and scraps.

If I'm more likely to die in my car than I am on my bike (regardless of wearing a helmet or not) then surely all that matters is that I commute to work on my bike? Surely this advice applies to everyone: Cycle (helmet or not) and be less likely to die than in a car?

Ah, great, thanks, that'll be my confusion, much appreciated for setting me straight.

Thanks for the tips BB, I'll check those out too, ebay didn't reveal much of interest, probably the wrong time of year for that.
I hope to pick up some other items (e.g. base layers) from that type of outlet before the winter really hits too.

Edwards wrote:The old saying "You get what you pay for" is a very good one up to the point you can afford. Remember it does not matter how much you pay the road surface will rip it apart with normal cycle clothing.

Thanks for your post Keith. You are absolutely right and yes the point I can afford is about £50 rather than the £150+ Rapha price tag
That would also concern me, a simple and even gentle bit of air time followed by the road would hurt even more when a £150+ item of clothing was damaged too. I do cycle past branches and brambles sometimes too, so (knowing my luck) a rip/tear is fairly probable too.

eileithyia wrote:It was because I found the Aldi one useful that I took the plunge and splashed out on Pearl izumi one last winter.

That sounds like a good recommendation for a decent brand, I'll keep that in mind too.
This one looks good by the same manufacturer:
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/Pearl_Izumi_Custom_Elite_Ultra_Lightweight_Vest/5360050648/
Other than the advertising, what does everyone think? [edit - just noticed the sizes available, what a shame]

I've got dhb armwarmers (which are a bargain right now if you ask me) that I'm really happy with, anyone know how good their gilets are or those by other brands like Altura?

mers hanson wrote:i dont think the spokes are different lenght, i thought that was one of the plus points of a rohloff

I'm pretty sure it was something I was reading from the Thorn PDFs that make up their website
I could of course be wrong and any difference in LHS vs RHS would be very small.
Can anyone confirm?

This is my OEM plate, works a treat with the QR axel.
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/rohloff-aftermarket-to-oem-axle-plate-converter-mki-for-qr-hub-prod22888/

Personally I'd avoid any anti rotational "arm" solutions, but then of course you need decent length vertical dropouts to accomodate a plate like mine.
Having had threaded axels in the past I would go for QR since the benefits far outweigh the theft risk and indeed I lock the back wheel up and your typical thief will have an adjustable spanner and Allen keys to hand anyway.

For eccentric bottom brackets see here http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/eccentric-shells-and-spares-dept773_pg1/, you could even get a blinged up (gold) one.