Cycling UK Forum

Nearholmer wrote: ↑29 Oct 2024, 10:22pm Age.

Oh, and luggage.

And, a less all-consuming passion for riding a bike.

All might be reasons for wanting super-wide range.

Not just a super-wide range.
The reduced gaps between gears is appealing too. I spent many years appreciating the versatility of a close ratio cassette (freewheel, mostly, if truth be told) and I’ve never really changed. Likewise, I can’t get on with significant differences between chainring sizes. I use my 10x3 gravel bike for solo rides where my speed is fairly constant and rarely drops below 10mph so small ratio gaps are ideal. I also do rides with my partner who has limited power and often drops to walking pace so very low gears are a must.
Triple cranksets are the only way to achieve this. Granted, an internal hub gear could be substituted but the ratio gaps are pre-determined.

There’s a huge amount of variables to take into account. It will depend entirely on your frame choice. Even with the manufacturers spec to hand it may be a case of having a lot of parts options to hand and just have a go.
You can, of course, use a non gravel specific frame as a gravel bike. I use a Spa Elan which is listed as a Audax/sportif. It takes 45mm tyres and a triple crankset so is a perfect road/gravel/whathaveyou allrounder.

fastpedaller wrote: ↑27 Oct 2024, 11:14pm Yes, I had one break some teeth off the first time I used it. I never had a problem with Regina ones, and the Regina CX ones were very nice indeed!

Thanks.
Can you remember when that was?

rareposter wrote: ↑27 Oct 2024, 9:15pm

peetee wrote: ↑27 Oct 2024, 8:49pm 2. Tubeless - why bother? (See above)

Because - in the same way that disc brakes are not all about absolute power, there are many other benefits - tubeless is not all about punctures, there are many other benefits.

I'm not saying "you must get tubeless" by any means, if you're happy with tubes that's fine. As with my post above agreeing with Nearholmer's post, there are a number of pros and cons and each person will have a view on if the pros (for them) outweigh the cons (for them). However, to narrow it down to "I very rarely get punctures" misses out all the other pros of tubeless.

Much the same way as the oft-repeated argument of "I can stop fine with rod/caliper/cantilever brakes, why would I need discs?" misses out all the other advantages of discs over and above stopping power.

That’s fine. I don’t disagree. I’m just adding my own perspective as requested. I have no reason to invest and change. It’s the same reasoning behind why I still use 10 speed systems on my bikes.

A long buried memory surfaced today and I had to bring it up on this forum.
How many of us used these freewheels?
I did; the 7 speed ones. I liked the ability to get exactly the ratios I wanted and remember quite distinctly the Suntour service board in my LBS with pegs for every cog and position.
Now then, did anyone ever have an issue with these cogs breaking teeth?
I had great service life from mine for a few years. Cogs would wear and I would replace each of them like-for-like or with a more suitable tooth count if my fitness or chosen ride terrain changed. Then suddenly, on any new cogs I bought, teeth were breaking off on a regular basis. I did complain but the proprietor said ‘tough luck’ in as many words. A better rider might have taken the failure as a compliment on their power but a waif like me just felt conned.
I think things improved but I can’t be sure as I soon went over to Shimano cassette hubs.

My experience is this:
1.Tubed tyres - Ridden for 33 years of which 17 years was daily commute. Punctured approximately once every other year, only one of which involved a irreparable sidewall and another one where the replacement tube failed involving a mile or so walk home each time. Average repair time 5 mins. Longest repair time around 10 mins.
I’ve seen tyre technology go from strength to strength and I’m very happy with the tyres on all my bikes.
2. Tubeless - why bother? (See above)

Tubes on all my bikes and I have no intention of changing.
In my job as a bike mechanic I won’t fit or repair tubeless.

I have a Campagnolo Record crank with single ring in the outer position set on a Shimano square taper bottom bracket which creates perfect chainline. If memory serves, the BB is a 113mm.
It might take me a few days to check it but I can do if you need me to.

Good to see you posting, Mick.
I too have had a lean season or two with regard to cycling. Likewise I’d rather it were otherwise.
Did you see my post about cyclists being barred from the new A30 dual section?
I know you want to do the old section but my info might have some bearing on how you stitch those old sections together.

toontra wrote: ↑12 Oct 2024, 5:51pm On climbs it's easier to generate power on a larger proportion of the crank rotation if seated - i.e. "360 degree pedalling".

When standing the power is more concentrated on the downstroke - i.e. "stomping".

I suspect it's stomping for show but 360 for dough.

Not quite true. This may be the case for some people but I pull upwards with the opposite foot. I grant you that the power stroke is of a shorter rotation though, as it’s much harder to power all the way round when standing.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑12 Oct 2024, 10:53am [
I think you are confusing highway with carriageway. Especially in the last paragraph; if it's part of the road, it cannot be not part of the highway.

My apologies. You are right, on this occasion I did write highway when I meant carriageway. This post was an attempt to clarify my first which did correctly state the difference between the two;
The highway is the entire construction, the carriageway is the area within the road markings. The carriageway is the area set up for traffic usage.
If you refer to my original post where I describe how riding on the left of said white line with the intention to continue unimpeded (which is surely the intention of choosing such a road) puts you in conflict with adjoining traffic, here is the junction adjacent to that cycling collision i describe in the next post. It’s very clear that what I describe is exactly the layout of the road markings. Even if you chose to follow the segregated area around into the minor road and cross where it is safe it is clear that that area is not an area of the carriageway as it does not follow the course of the road, it is simply a boundary area that allow the carriageway edges to be continuously and consistently set out for the purpose of clarity and safety.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑12 Oct 2024, 7:33am

peetee wrote: ↑11 Oct 2024, 10:47pm The tarmac area beyond the solid boundary lines is not part of the carriageway of an highway and driving or riding on there may constitute an offence dependant on the circumstances.

Really? Can you supply or link where you found this information?

On any road dual or otherwise a solid white line denotes the edge of the road and should not be crossed. When I say in some circumstances I mean that the area beyond should not be used as a continuous route of passage. On some roads there is a solid line in the middle and this always indicates that traffic must not cross.
Many years ago I was driving home and came across a cyclist injured on a dual carriageway. He had been riding, head down on the area beyond the line and hit a traffic cone. I visited him several days later in hospital and he said that the police had interviewed him and stated that the area was not part of the highway and he should not have been riding there.
A few years later I worked in a civil engineering company highways division and also had a conversation with a road engineer who stated the same; specifically it is part of a road but not the highway. It can be used (as a refuge or means to avoid a blockage) but not for continuous travel.

The tarmac area beyond the solid boundary lines is not part of the carriageway of an highway and driving or riding on there may constitute an offence dependant on the circumstances. Police action notwithstanding, if it isn’t the rightful highway then if you were injured or in a collision whilst there you may be uninsured and liable for damage.
For example, a road joining a dual carriageway will have giveaway markings in line with the solid white line on the left boundary of the dual carriageway. If a cyclist on the dual carriageway were to the left of this line they would be in a collision path with a vehicle waiting to join the dual carriageway. At the point where the roads join the cyclist would, effectively be travelling on the side road at right angles to the flow of traffic and, therefore, commuting an offence.
Consider also that not all dual carriageways allow cyclists even where space permits. The new A30 dual carriageway section in west Cornwall has signs saying they are not permitted. I’m not sure the reasoning for this. It is, in terms of design, a standard layout with no restrictive features.

Stroudy wrote: ↑8 Oct 2024, 12:53pm
That's the last time I say something like 'oh, your BB is creaking. pop it around after the ride, and I'll tighten it up for you! Lol.

TBH, since the advent of carbon frames and press-fit this-n-that, if every owner of a creaking bike was determined to throw everything at solving the noise there would be a lot of bikes off the road for a long time and a lot of mechanics with healthy bank balances.

I think the pads are catching on the disc web (the arms connecting the braking surface to the centre where the bolts are).
Either the pads are wrong, not properly installed or the diameter of the disc does not match the adaptor between the frame and the calliper.