Cycling UK Forum

Evening folks,

Re Bicycle Quarterly (BQ), I ordered a subscription after stumbling across their blog. FWIW I can recommend it as an interesting and often inspiring read. Along with "Cycle" it's my favorite bike mag. The journalists seem more critical and objective than many other cycle journalists:
-They declare possible conflicts of interests.
-They're transparant about their testing methods (e.g. detailing the methods, even stating the testing mileage covered).
-The editor claims that they have a low dependancy on advertising revenue, relative to other cycling publications, making them less beholden to advertisers. However, I have no way of verifying this.
-I think a couple of the authors have science phds, and their testing seems more 'scientific' than other magazines, which can sometimes read like press releases from the manufacturers, and nearly everything scores at least 8 out of 10.

I'd agree that they do have a preference towards the French-style randoneuring bicycle. The authors justify these based on experience. They do participate in Paris Brest Paris, Raid Pyrenean etc. and have found the French style preferable to what we would term audax bikes; 700c wheels, 28mm tyres, saddlebag. However, overall the motto is 'ride the bike you have':
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/11/0 ... -you-have/

I have an audax-style bike as my best bike. I brought a 1973 650b Peugeot on ebay to have a taste of 650b. The ride and steering seemed a lot slower than my audax. Unfortunately I didn't ride it often or far as it was just too small for me. I fell for 650b tyres (Grand Bois Hetres) in a big way though. I'm currently (slowly) building up one of these, fortunately in my size too...
http://store.velo-orange.com/index.php/ ... -mkii.html
I was hoping to have it ready for the autumn. (Sigh, famous last words.) Just got to fit the guards, wire the dynamo and index the gears. Time will tell if I've brought a peach or a lemon. I'll keep you posted. Cheers, Luke

Hi, I recently ordered a pair of the "Conti Top Contact Winter 2 Reflex" from Ribble. They arrived yesterday. Fortunately they sent the correct tyres. As pointed out above it seems Ribble have the wrong pic on their site:
http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/sp/road-t ... onttyrr216

The ones I received look like this:
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/w ... er_en.html

In Ribble's favour, they were the cheapest UK supplier, postage was free and delivery was prompt. (I'd considered a German retailer, but the last time I brought from a German site collecting from the courier, DPD, was a bigger faff than from my local post office. I live in Tooting, SW London, and DPD's depot is in Croydon, ~7 miles away. Pain in the ****!)

Hi Gents,

I ordered a pair of these earlier in the week, following Willem's positive experiences I thought it worth a punt.
I've used Schwalbe studded winter tyres on my commuter bike over the last two winters. They are amazing on snow and ice, but mostly I trundled along like a tractor on cold but not snowy / icy roads. They do wear fast as mentioned above. Overall they were a little bit of an overkill for most of the conditions I rode them in. I live in London and it seems we don't get as much snow as the rest of the UK. As pointed out above, potentially the Contis could fill a niche for those cold, wet winter roads that aren't snow/ice bound.

Cheers,

Luke

Hi folks, sorry to hear about others' dangerous experiences with the Paselas. I've had them in 28s, 32s, 35s and 37s and am a bit of a fan. I've had the odd puncture but (touches wood) no blowouts or sidewall failures. Apparently it is the supple sidewall that reduces their rolling resistance, relative to stiff tyres.
I've used 32s Ribmos and they're a great tyre. I found the Paselas more comfortable though. By chance, I've currently got a 32 Ribmo on the front and a 35 Pasela on the rear of my commuter. Works great, but won't win any beauty contests.
I'm ordered a set of the Conti Winter tyres following their good press on this forum, am looking forward to seeing how they compare.

Brucey - Panasonic do make tyres for Grand Bois. The Grand bois are similar to Paselas but lack any punture protection belts to aid suppleness and minimise rolling resistance.

Best wishes,

Luke

Interesting piece on aerodynamics here:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/05/0 ... -bicycles/

Best wishes,

Luke

Is it on a bike you lock up after use?
If so you could attach a sticky label with 'Garmin' on around your D lock, triggering a reminder to remove your computer. Or have a Garmin keyring on your keyfob, so you're reminded on handling the bike lock key?
I read Derren Brown's biography once, he describes how to train your memory, e.g. to learn how to count cards, memorise lines, dates, names etc.
He says:
-we tend to remember the bizarre, grotesque, unusual, shocking and extreme.
-we remember by connecting events / objects into a sequence or story, and personalising / anthropomorthising can help.
-Having mental tripwires, triggers or prompts helps.
E.g. Picture the scene. You park your bike up then walk through the front door of your workplace. I imagine Derren Brown would suggest that every time you walk through the door you visualise a lifesize Garmin bike computer, sitting at your desk, leaning back in his chair with his feet up on the desk saying "Aren't you forgetting something?" Or you walk in to find him holding a lighter in one hand and £300 worth of burning £50 notes in the other.

Cheers,

Luke

Hi Steady Eddy,

Re second hand, there's a 25" seattube Raleigh in 531C on Hilary Stone's page:
http://hilarystone.com/images/sale%20im ... a-531C.jpg

Plus a 25" Raleigh Record Ace in 531:
http://hilarystone.com/images/sale%20im ... 5-1981.jpg

Also a 25" Omega:
http://hilarystone.com/images/sale%20im ... -98009.jpg

And a 24" Bob Jackson:
http://hilarystone.com/images/sale%20im ... n-blue.jpg

Also, you mentioned Dutch bikes in your first post. There's a Dutchman on the Retrobike forum. He often sells secondhand retro Dutch road bike frames, e.g. Gazelle, in larger sizes. Could be worth keeping an eye on.

Cheers,

Luke

Hi Robert 17,

In the last 2yrs on my Long Haul Trucker commuter / shopper / do it all dogsbody, I've used / am using the following:
-Panaracer Pasela TG, 37mm & 35mm.
-Panaracer Ribmo, 32mm.
They're quite similar, though my preference is for the Paselas, as they still provide great puncture protection but I find them more comfortable (however this is biased by the larger tyre size).
I flip the bike upside down once a week or so, deflate the tyres and pick out shards of glass etc with a penknife, so I tend not to get p*nctures until the tyres are really worn.
I brought a set of 35mm Paselas recently via Chain Reaction Cycles, who had them on special offer. I originally wanted 32s, but the cheap price swung it.

Cheers,

Luke

Hi folks,

I've a VN Yukon, 58cm size, 2010 model. (Think I read somewhere that VN have changed the frame spec slightly since then though...?)
It came with a pair of Deda "Black Rain" carbon forks, which I changed to a pair of steel forks.
I use the BR-R650 57mm brakes mentioned above, front and rear. I've run 28mm wide tyres and SKS mudguards with both forks, but clearance is tight.
I've fitted the following 28mm tyres ok:
-Panaracer Pasela.
-Continental GP 4 seasons.
-Grand bois Cerf.
Wheel rims are DT Swiss RR 1.1, standard road bike width rims, ~19mm wide I think.

Cheers,

Luke

Hi Gary,

Echoing the above, I've run a Campag Triple, 49/39/26, with a 9 speed 13-26 cassette and a medium Mirage rear derailleur. All works well. The rear derailleur also coped perfectly with a 14-28 (or is that 14-29, sorry, memory fails me).

Best wishes,

Luke

Lucaltmann,

Glad to hear you made it. The idea of Arch to Arc intrigues, but also scares me in equal measure.

What bike did you use after all? Did you stay with your hybrid? Did you ride in a pace line after all?

Cheers,

Luke

Brucey wrote:Luke, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write such a thorough synopsis. Very interesting indeed....

Hi Brucey, no worries matey, your posts have helped me out no end so glad to hear my one was of interest.

Your 753 experience sounds awesome. In my head the momentum is building towards a 753 frameset. Sigh, "n+1" strikes again...

Schwalbe / Conti inner tubes?
Tip top puncture repair kit?
Clarke's brake blocks?
Zefal HPX frame pump?
Tubus racks?
Scotch in the hip flask?

NewHorizon wrote: On a separate Yukon question, what is the dropout width? I've seen 132.5 and 130mm quoted.

Hi NewHorizon, I have a 2010 Yukon, mine has 130mm spacing. I recall Van Nicholas (VN) marketing it as an audax / sportive style bike, so I would have thought the current models have road spacing? I brought mine from Fat Birds in Hunstanton, if they still sell VN you could phone them for confirmation?

Best wishes,

Luke

Brucey wrote:
Also; I found this comment on t'interweb;

'Bicycle Quarterly published an interesting report of three bikes made with identical geometries and components, but different tube wall thicknesses. Riding tests were then done with 3 different riders testing all three bikes, not knowing which bike had which kind of tube wall thickness. Two of three riders consistently preferred the bike made with thinner tubes, the third couldn't reliably detect any difference. ' Has anyone read that article?]

cheers

Hi Brucey,

Bicycle Quarterly journos cover this topic here:

Frame Flex and "Planing":
Double-blind test of three bikes with different tubesets. Why some bikes perform better than others: Vol. 6, #4.
Frame stiffness and Pedal stroke: Vol. 7, #4.
Measuring frame stiffness and the balance of the frame tubes: Vol. 9, #3.

I've lost my copy of Vol. 6, #4, but have the other two. Apparently the 3 test bikes were all steel, and varied only in the stiffness of their main triangles (top & down tubes), and had identical rear triangles. One had 'standard' tubing with 0.9-0.6-0.9mm wall top and down tubes, two had 'superlight' tubing with 0.7-0.4-0.7mm wall top and down tubes instead. (Sorry, I don't know what the seat tubes were made of.) Small weights in the lightweight bikes kept the weight identical.

3 riders tested the bikes and wrote their comments without discussing with the others to prevent bias. All riders were blinded to the identity of the bikes. 2 of the 3 riders could distinguish the frames based on their ride, and they preferred the ride of the more flexible, thinwall frames

Here's a link to a pic of the 3 test bikes.

http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/3BikeTest.jpg

In Vol 7, no 4 they fitted powertab hubs to a standard and superlight tubed bike. 2 riders rode 5x 340m hill sprints together, and swapped bikes after each one.
Riders were blinded to the tubing of the bikes. The flexible frames did not increase power output, but allowed both riders to sustain a higher percentage of peak power for longer:

Rider 1; Superlight; Average power as a % of peak: 81% & 86%.
Rider 1; Standard; Average power as a % of peak: 76%, 70% & *.

Rider 2; Superlight; Average power as a % of peak: 84%, 80% & 79%.
Rider 2; Standard; Average power as a % of peak: 72% & *.
* peak power output less than 85% of best run.

Anecdotally, the authors state that when they have ridden flexible, thinwall frames they find it easier to maintain cadence on longer rides, so the benefits don't just apply for peak efforts.

The authors hypothesize that higher end, thinwall tubing offers a performance benefit. The riders pedal stroke gets in sync with the frame, which the authors term 'planing'.

"To envision how planing appears to work... realize that a smooth rider has a relatively uneven pedal stroke. The rider powers the cranks mostly during a short power peak in the middle of the downstroke... Compared to most gasoline or electric engines, even a high cadence for a cyclist (120-180rpm) is relatively slow. The result is an inherently uneven power delivery for cyclists. (With superlight, thin wall frames)... the frame flexes during the downstroke. This means the bike can accept peak power beyond what can be used for acceleration. The stored power then is transmitted to the drivetrain when the frame springs back during the upstroke. On the stiffer, 'standard bike, the frame appears to resist the downstroke. Inertia limits the acceleration of the bike, and the bike cannot accept the excess power."

The two riders shared similar power to weight ratios but one is "slightly lighter" (unfortunately rider weights were not published). The slightly lighter rider enjoyed the ability to sustain power output for longer than the heavier rider. Hence the authors state "A rider who is heavier and/or stronger might do better on the 'standard' bike, and perhaps even prefer it". Though I imagine the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions from this.

In Vol 9 no. 3 they tested frame stiffness of a sample of 9 similarly sized frames (top tubes 550-582mm range). 7x steel frames of varying thickness and tube diameters, 2x Alu and 1x carbon to try to quantify the performance differences experienced in testing.

They used 'the Barra test'; the head tube and rear triangle were clamped to an alignment table. A weight was applied to the bottom bracket to measure its lateral deflection under weight. They included a rear hub in the rear triangle of the frames. The most flexible frame, made of standard-diameter (25.4mm) superlight tubing (0.7-0.4-0.7 wall) deflected twice as much as the stiffest frame, made of thickwall oversize tubing (31.8mm, 0.9-0.6-0.9 wall); 10.7mm vs 5.1mm.

The four frames with the highest deflection were 2x Alu (Alan Cyclocross, 7.9mm deflection, & a lightweight 1930s Barra Alu road, 9.3mm) and 2x lightweight, thin wall steel (Rene Herse 1973 531C, 10.3mm deflection, and an unknown superlight steel frame, 10.7mm).

The three with the lowest deflection were 2x oversize steel (Kogswell P/R prototype, 5.1mm deflection, & Surly LHT, 5.4mm); and 1x Carbon (Trek Madone, 5.2mm).

Subjectively, the authors tended to prefer the riding characteristics of the flexible frames, rating them as better for acceleration and climbing. However, they found the carbon Trek offered very good performance on the road v's the LHT, which didn't reward spirited riding. They felt the ride difference was greater than could be explained by the small difference in overall weight of rider plus bike. Here the balance between the frame tubes is cited as a factor. The Surly is characterised by large diameter, thick, stiff down and top tubes and long, slim (18mm width), ovalised chainstays, which are more flexible. The Trek is characterised by a relatively slender top tube, larger down tube and short, fatter chainstays. This proportions of this arrangement loosly approximate to those of traditional racing frames, e.g. 531c with 25.4mm diameter top tube, 28.6mm down tube and 22.2mm chainstays.

The authors conclude that the balance of the frame tubes' stiffness is of greater importance than overall stiffness. From their sample flexible top tubes and stiff chainstays were preferred for better performance (my emphasis - I have a LHT myself and I accept that unloaded it feels a bit dead and leaden, but it's a tourer not a performance bike, and I imagine the stiff tubes and my stiff tubus rack make it feel so solid when loaded.)

Overall it's Interesting stuff. Personally I haven't ridden enough bikes, let alone back to back to offer any insight. The 'planing' hypothesis makes sense, but I'm no engineer/physicist. I do have a science degree and feel the BQ testing methodologies are the most scientific of the bike press.

More than ever I'd love to get my leg over a 531c or 753 road bike and find out for myself!

Best wishes,

Luke