Cycling UK Forum

These days I always replace chain and cassette together. (I once tried chain rotation and found that the drawbacks far outweighed the benefits.) I replace them when chain wear is somewhere between 0.7% and 1% (measured with an engineer's rule, not with a chain wear gauge.) I have found that chainrings last about three times as long as the other bits (and you don't save much money by running them longer).

When it's coming up to replacement time for all three I just run them until I get fed up with the noise and/or vibration (due to wear, that is, not due to lack of lubrication!). At that point, which comes sooner for my good bikes than for my hack, and which comes later in winter than in summer, the wear is always more than 1%, sometimes a lot more. I would guess that I am still some way off getting slipping problems.

I have recent experience which has some relevance to your project. About a year ago I bought a bike (Jack Hateley) on ebay. I was attracted by its 531 plain-gauge frame with Nervex lugs. (The components fitted to it were not of that quality, though.) It turned out to have been bought new circa 1990, but the frame was quite a lot older and had been built for 27" wheels and 5-speed so 120mm OLN.

I was able to modify it following a visit to Ripley cycle jumble. I bought a pair of renovated 27x1¼ alloy wheels for ~£45, and that was not the only such pair on sale that day at that sort of price. So, they are available and affordable. (This also means I have a pair of usable chrome-plated steel 27x1¼ wheels to spare. I don't want them; might you?)

I also bought for £2 an old (superficial rust) but unused Suntour 5-speed 14-28T freewheel block (i.e. good quality) to lower the gearing a bit (from 14-24T).

The bike had had little use, the tyres were OK and the tubes still held air, so for less than £100 in total I had a nice little run-about that is a pleasure to ride. If I need to replace the tyres, 27x1¼ are still available, albeit with very limited choice.

Also relevant, maybe, is the fact that some years ago I had Roberts widen the back end of my Roberts touring frame from 120 to 130mm by cold setting, so you could switch to a modern freehub as I did. If I decide later to widen the Hateley I shall probably do it myself - references to Sheldon Brown etc are elsewhere on this forum.

The Roberts, too, was built for 27" wheels but I have been using 700C for a long time, with the original Weinmann centre-pull brakes until I decided to upgrade to dual-pivot with a bit more stopping power. So affordable, decent brakes that fit older frames are available.

To sum up, I have found cycle jumbles useful if you want to keep the bike close to its original spec. OTOH, updating it to 700C, freehub+cassette instead of freewheel block, can be done without too much hassle.

Wishing you and other forum contibutors a happy and constructive new year,

Chris

Philosophers can argue for ever and never reach a conclusion. Here's the best argument for asserting that the frame defines the bike.

I built my touring bike in early 1985 starting with a frame built at the end of 1984 (as evidenced by the frame number 84..., and I do still have the paperwork). By now everything has been replaced, as and when necessary and with more modern components, except the frame, which has been re-enamelled at least twice.

I strongly assert that it is the same bike, 1984 vintage. Riding a pre-1985 bike I cannot be 'done' for riding a bike with no pedal reflectors!

Hi
Good to hear from those with experience of both Gatorskins and GP 4 Seasons. I have been swearing by Gatorskins for the last couple of years, finding that they roll easily but are nevertheless very robust. (If my tyres don't stand up to abuse, I change the tyres, not the abuse.) But you're right, they are a bit slippery on manhole covers etc. in the wet. I had been wondering whether to switch to GP 4 Seasons, and now I probably shall. I use a mixture of 28mm and 32mm tyres on various bikes. Does anyone in the UK sell 32mm GP4s? Conti make them but they're not on the websites I usually look at.
Seasonal greetings,
Chris

I have carried a tandem on a towbar rack, but not the one you specify. Mine had horizontal troughs for the wheels, not sloping ones like the Thule 9503, but my wife's solution to my problems might be applicable to yours. With the tandem upside down the saddles just fitted nicely in the wheel troughs, using suitable packing to prevent damage, and I clamped my steady-stay to the 'drainpipe'. No problems with chainsets, pedals, chains etc fouling rack parts. Wheels off, obviously, as you say. Rear mudguard and rack off too. I can't remember whether I also removed front mudguard and/or rack to keep the load within the width of the vehicle. I only did this once, when I sold the tandem, and the weather was dry, so I did not have to worry about gravity sucking water into places it would normally suck it out of.

kylecycler wrote:That last one: I've often wondered whether the Waggoners Rest (Proprietor: Joe Boniface - check out the sign) was a real place - I doubt Frank Patterson conjured it up out of his imagination.

'boniface' (lowercase b) means inn-keeper or landlord

Cheers!

Brucey wrote:

mig wrote:if a transmission was infinitely clean would it run indefinitely without wear?

no; bicycle transmissions are too slow moving and too highly loaded to ensure that the surfaces are separated by a lubricant film.

I believe that the John Marston 'Sunbeam' with the 'Little Oil Bath', had a transmission which outlasted the great majority of its owners. It had a 1/8" chain always running in line in a chain case which excluded dirt and was sufficiently oil-tight to maintain a pool of oil through which the chain passed continuously. They don't make 'em like that any more. (http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/Museum/Transport/bicycles/Sunbeam.htm)

SA_SA_SA wrote:You wouldn't happen to have an eidetic memory (of CJ's speech) ?

No, this is far from verbatim.

The gist of Chris's speech was that answering technical queries not only helped the questioners, it helped him, it informed all his work. It kept him in touch with the problems encountered by CTC members, people who use bicycles for transport and travel. These problems are quite different from those encountered by riders who whizz around on stripped down road bikes for sporting purposes, and who are in the minority of cyclists, even though this might appear not to be the case in the current popularity generated by Olympics and Tour de France successes. He illustrated this theme with the front mudguard safety problem, i.e. 'unbreakable' plastic front mudguards which, when the front wheel throws up a stick which then jams between mudguard stays and spokes, roll up and jam between the wheel and fork crown instead of breaking, throwing the rider over the handlebar, a potentially very serious accident.

Without the contact from members it would have taken longer for this problem to be recognised. Having been alerted to it he was able to investigate the problem and potential solutions from an engineering point of view, and then write articles and reports, and campaign with the cycling trade and industry for safer mudguards, ultimately resulting in such devices as 'Secuclips', which solve the problem. He was assisted in this by his seat, as a technical expert, on the British Standards committee concerned with cycles. He showed that he had brought to the meeting magazine articles and technical reports on the subject, which he invited attenders to look at afterwards.

That, he said, is a good example of what the CTC has lost by abolishing his role. Buying in technical expertise on an 'as required' basis, even from himself, is not the same because the contact with ordinary cyclists and their problems has been lost. Also, bought-in experts make the bulk of their living from other parts of the cycling world and so are unlikely to have the impartiality of a CTC employee, who is paid entirely by ordinary cyclists.

PDQ Mobile wrote:Well water and oil don't mix ...

They mix; try shaking a bottle of French dressing. They just need some mechanical persuasion, and they get that as the chain goes round and round and flexes sideways. Yes, leave the French dressing to stand and it separates, eventually, but it does take some time.

Brucey wrote:the chain pushes and pulls oil, water, crud in and out of the bushings as it flexes. ...

Agreed. IMO the main enemy is water thrown at the transmission by the wheels running on wet roads. (1) That water is likely to be pretty dirty. (2) It will wash dirt on the outside of the chain to the inside. My observation is that much more chain wear occurs during "winter" (the wetter half-year) than "summer" (the drier half-year). So pay attention to the effectiveness of your mudguards and front mudflap.

I know not all of you are on facebook, so here is what I have just posted there:

Another issue of 'Cycle' has dropped on the doormat. Once again there is no mention of the redundancies and their consequences, despite these matters being on the agenda for the AGM on 18th July. Once again Chris Juden has not been thanked for 31 years exemplary service.

I was made redundant. My company had to close a complete department, around 400 people, because of defence cuts. We had to accept the inevitable; but the company treated us as well as one could reasonably expect. How different is the CTC! By persisting in doing and saying nothing the Council is turning a PR blunder into a PR disaster.

I don't believe that the councillors are all totally hard-nosed with hearts of stone, only interested in money, but if they had wanted to give that impression they could hardly have done better. Maybe they have been frightened into their stance by the lawyers who have advised them concerning the redundancies. Lawyers are paid to put their clients' material interests before anything else. However, I cannot see how thanking a loyal, long-serving member of staff would cause any legal problems.

The AGM took place after the copy deadline for the August 'Cycle', so the October issue will be the first opportunity to report or reflect on that meeting. As far as I am concerned that is the Council's last chance to redeem itself. If their silence continues I shall conclude that the CTC is an organisation I no longer wish to be part of. The member groups are the wonderful cycling clubs they have always been, but nationally the CTC appears to have changed utterly. Has it gone rotten at the core? Councillor Martyn Bolt has on facebook asked ordinary members to put their heads above the parapet and stand for Council. Well this ordinary member (sorry, past member, as of four days ago) asks Councillors to put their heads above that parapet and break the obnoxious silence. Please tell me, publically, that I am mistaken in perceiving the centre as rotten. Is the Councillors' Code of Conduct overriding everything? Should it?

West Surrey CTC is a fine bunch of people, and I want to continue riding with them. For that to happen one of two changes has to occur. I have already made the first one clear. The second is that West Surrey CTC will follow the example of CTC Heart of England and convert from member group to affiliated club. CTC-HoE's stated reason for the change is not related to the foregoing, but I suspect there is more to it. Their committee has presented a good case and clearly expects their special general meeting to approve taking this path, so they would see no need to publish additional arguments, especially contentious ones. They are not the only member group to follow that road in the last couple of years. Paul Hilditch on facebook has also expounded the reasons why member groups might consider this option, and says "other groups are thinking along these lines."

Finally, let me just put a thought into your heads, if it hasn't occurred to you already. I am a numerate, possibly nerdy, sort of person, and I have done a couple of sums, of the approximate, order-of-magnitude sort. The CTC spends £1 roughly every 2 seconds (annual turnover divided by working hours per year, ...). A bit over 5 minutes' turnover would pay for Chris Juden's life membership at the going rate. (I don't know what the exact fee would be because I don't know how long he has been a full member, except that it is for rather more than 31 years.) The other calculation is that the fee would be the same as paying his salary for 31 years and one and a half days instead of just for 31 years. Just how mean has the CTC become?

CTC AGM - and why I am resigning

I have just posted a piece which I think is too long for this forum on the West Surrey CTC Forum, at:

http://westsurreyctc.co.uk/forum/topic/ ... july-2015/

I found this thread while trying to identify the lugs on a frame I recently bought:


I think the head lugs are Nervex Super Legere Model 45/159, and the seat lug probably is too (Nozzle Cut No. 159).
I think your seat lug is also Nervex Super Legere, Nozzle Cut No. 158.

Jack Hateley has a Classic Lightweights webpage. He was firmly in the BLRC camp, founded by the builder of your frame, Percy Stallard, both in Wolverhampton.

Thanks, Langsett.

My question was really a challenge directed at Tony R, and I should have made that clear by quoting.

TonyR wrote:

Psamathe wrote:
CJ and a couple of others (whose names I don't know) have been made redundant. That you are unaware of this really emphasises the "omission" by CEO and CTC in not announcing this to the membership.

Ian

Yes, we all know that and it has been covered in February's Cycle. So you said that "was more misleading than saying what was actually done" So pray tell us what was actually done that was not covered in Cycle. And the couple of others that nobody seems bothered enough about to even know their names? What of them?

Psamathe is right. I have searched several issues of 'Cycle' for the word 'redundant' and never found it. In the February issue Paul Tuohy said "With very low demand, we have decided to stop our dedicated Technical and Touring helplines. Instead, we'll be reinvesting this resource." That second sentence is management-speak for 'we have made three members of staff redundant', i.e. what was actually done. Was Tony R right in calling it misleading? Yes! A resounding YES!

In the February 'Cycle' there was somewhat more in the Letters pages, but that came not from the Council nor from the executive.

Where and when did the CTC ever publish the fact that it had made three staff members redundant?