Cycling UK Forum

There are charities and charities. I subscribe regularly to a number of them. I give money to Oxfam because I live in a country which is obscenely rich when compared to the obscene poverty of the people Oxfam helps. It is not in my interest to give money to Oxfam, but I like to do my bit to redress the balance of an unfair world.

I give money to the CTC because it IS in my interest. To analyse my reasons for belonging to the CTC in the current context I would say that, for me, membership benefits outweigh the charitable work, although I have always been extremely happy to support the CTC's campaigning on behalf of all cyclists, and have done some local campaigning myself. But even that general (charitable) campaigning is in my interest because I too am a cyclist.

I have been a CTC member for 40 years for the fellowship of like-minded individuals, for the technical and touring information services, for the magazine, for local groups, and for the insurance and legal aid. Recent events have blasted a hole in that list. I used to read the magazine from cover to cover within a day or two of it dropping on the doormat. Lately, though, it has been rather less inspiring and for a long time now the first thing I have turned to is Chris Juden's stuff. Now that is to be no more (very probably). How soon before it appears three times a year as a slim 'Cycling Charity News'?

What really gets me is that a 136-year-old organisation that I have belonged to for most of my adult life has totally transformed itself in less than 136 weeks, not only without consulting me, but without even informing me until after the dastardly act was done and dusted, i.e., I haven't been informed directly even now. I've been shafted by what used to be a lovely club to belong to. That's the way I feel.

Yesterday I cancelled my membership renewal direct debit mandate. Mr Matt Mallinder, Membership Director, take note (for I am sure you will read this). That does not mean that I have cancelled my membership, for it has a good few months to run, during which time I can reflect on what to do when the renewal notice lands on the doormat. I might pay up, I might do nothing.

My thoughts are beginning to crystallise. Like Michael Gayler, I do not want to join British Cycling, but viewed solely as buying liability insurance and legal aid for £32 per year (or £29 by direct debit) it looks good value. I haven't checked my household insurance yet so I might not need it anyway.

I have been active in West Surrey DA/CTC for all my 40 years of membership, serving on the committee for 16 of them. Could I leave this network of good friends? I know of a few CTC-like groups that are independent of any national body. After all, with modern technology it's easy enough to set one up, you only need a modest website and an email address list. No money need change hands; no bureaucracy; just people who like to enjoy a day out exploring the countryside on their bikes doing so together. I currently lead rides for West Surrey CTC but I can see myself switching to such a group. Maybe I would take some of my companions with me. It is not easy to predict how people are going to react to this bombshell from CTC HQ. Would we cohere or disintegrate?

I recently led a small informal tour to the south of France. The two people who came with me are active in local cycle users groups, not in the CTC, and have expressed a wish to do something similar next year.

I would wish to continue supporting campaigning. Should I remain a member for that? On reflection, my forty subscriptions, many of them the fat family/household ones, have already paid for a great deal of good work. Yes, maybe I should content myself with that thought and increase my donations to Sustrans.

Yes, I am beginning to think the unthinkable - I could leave the CTC. I no longer have confidence in the CTC Executive. It has done so much damage to its relationship with me by its mismanagement that I don't think it has time to repair it before my subscription runs out (shortly after the AGM!).

I am posting this to both the CTC forum and the facebook group; there doesn't seem to be much overlap.

Here is a piece sent to me by one of the local CTC members:

"Back to basics!

"The ongoing discussions seem to me to be mainly concerned with the (dismissal? early retirement?) of the technical adviser. What interests me far more is how our management is allowed to take such steps apparently without consulting the general membership. So far, all I have heard are rumours, speculation and suppositions – nothing, as far as I am aware, has been published or explained satisfactorily to the CTC membership – perhaps we are only here to pay our fees and let the powers-that-be do as they please.

"Unfortunately I am insufficiently au fait with the CTC Constitution to comment on whether the management is acting within their rights by making their very undemocratic decisions but, I would have thought, some sort of enlightened explanations would have been more than welcome and all this bad feeling could have been avoided.

"I am very concerned about the attitude of the CTC management and am seriously considering withdrawing my membership (possibly along with many other CTC members)!

Rico"

============================================================================

Rico leads a CTC ride group suitable for newcomers. If he and others like him allow their membership to lapse, how big a dent is that going to put in "CTC ..... helps people to cycle and keep cycling"?

Mick F wrote:Is there any other charity that has members of its club, rather than donors?
Are there any other clubs out there that are charities?

FWIW, the Ramblers' Association is a charity. It's not unlike the CTC, although it does not have the equivalent of a technical officer or touring officer. When it became a charity a few years ago you hardly noticed the difference. You still get a magazine, and there are lots of local groups which organise walks and footpath maintenance parties (voluntary). It campaigns mainly for leisure walking, for a network of usable footpaths.

I am on the committee of a music society which is a charity. Members' subscriptions basically pay for concert tickets so there is no tax break there, but we ask members to tack on a donation and are able to reclaim tax on that via Gift Aid.

I think the current mess is the direct result of becoming a charity, but I also think it doesn't need to be that way. I need to ask the right people the right questions.

Philip Benstead wrote:Dear all
I have some facts please read this carefully.

...... We will continual to provide technical information via the cycle magazine, CTC website, CTC forum and via a helpline (in that descending hierarchy)......

I hope that lay some concerns to rest.

Please feel free to direct queries to matt.mallinder@ctc.org.uk

No! No helpline. I have emphasised in red part of a previous post:

Chris Jeggo wrote:This is the automated response you get if you send an email to technical@ctc.org.uk:

"Automatic reply: Enquiry: Tyre sizes

From Chris Juden <Chris.Juden@CTC.ORG.UK>
To chris@jeggo.org.uk <chris@jeggo.org.uk>
Date Today 15:39

Thank you for your enquiry. Chris Juden has left CTC.

As part of our ongoing review of how CTC can best support members we no longer have a dedicated technical helpline. Instead if you have a technical query about bikes or cycling please visit our online technical resource at http://www.ctc.org.uk/bikes-and-bits, read our back catalogue of product and bikes reviews at http://www.ctc.org.uk

CTC, the national cycling charity, inspires and helps people to cycle and keep cycling. To join or support us visit http://www.ctc.org.uk or phone 01483 238301/0844 7368451.

Registered office: CTC National Office, Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales no.1147607 and in Scotland no.SC042541."

CTC ..... helps people to cycle and keep cycling ..... but is far less helpful without a technical service.

Bicycler wrote:

Chris Jeggo wrote:Do we expect CTC to represent all cyclists on such issues as engineering/technical aspects of highway law, highway design and construction, vehicle regulations and standards (British or European, motor vehicles and cycles), the Highway Code? Yes. Do we expect CTC to have authority and credibility when campaigning on such issues? Of course. How will CTC achieve this without a Technical Officer with the appropriate qualifications, experience, track record, authority and credibility? How indeed!

I think this undermines your point somewhat. Do we expect the CTC to employ their own full time specialist lawyers in highway law and drafting of legislation, engineers specialising in road design and construction, motor vehicle mechanics and designers...? Or do we trust that most of the day to day work isn't highly specialised and expert opinions can be obtained when needed.

I think the CTC needs someone who understands those aspects of the issues I listed to the extent that they affect cyclists. Someone numerate who understands how things work and who knows how to ask the right questions. Take speed humps for example; what are the similarities and differences between the way they affect motor vehicles and cycles, which have different suspension systems; what sort of profile will produce effects closest to the different desired effects on different vehicle types? You have to have some understanding and knowledge of vehicle lighting and highway lighting because that is the context in which cycle lighting has to operate. You don't have to be a specialist in lorry headlamp design agonising over whether to put a parabolic reflector behind the light source or whether a spherical one will do; but you do have to know enough to fight your corner.

Chris Jeggo wrote:.....
A defence minister was being interviewed on the radio.
.....

We don't want the equivalent of that radio reporter answering the phone.

Come to think about it, what the CTC Technical Officer has to do has considerable similarities with my last job. I needed to have a good understanding of fluid dynamics, electromagnetic scattering, the numerical solution of partial differential equations, and radars and their signal processing. I was not a specialist in any of those subjects, but I had to understand them enough to apply their results to my inter-disciplinary field. Now I've told you that I'll have to kill you.

mjr wrote:

Chris Jeggo wrote:Further to my previous post, you might be interested in my thoughts on past and future CTC technical service that I posted yesterday to the facebook group I set up:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... 415444303/

What's happening on this Discussion Board is great, but I think that if people make full use of facebook tools then the message can spread more rapidly.

There are many many problems with facebook, including that they manipulate what you see to mess with your mind. Please post things to this forum and share links with facebook. If you're concerned by possible democratic problems with CTC, then you should probably be very very concerned by how little say you have over facebook.

I'm under no illusions about facebook, but I think its tools have great potential for rapid dissemination of news, which seems important to me at this stage.

These are the thoughts I posted on facebook:
===============================================================================================================================================
What services has the Technical Officer been providing? As I understand it, mainly two:
(1) answering members' questions, and providing technical information to them in a more general way via 'Cycle' and the CTC website; and
(2) representing the interests of all cyclists to external organisations on technical/engineering aspects of cycling.
You might say that (1) is mainly a member benefit and (2) is mainly charitable.

I have asked Chris Juden a good many technical questions over the years, and have always got a good answer. I'm in a good position to recognise a good answer, having a couple of degrees in physics and more than 50 years' experience of maintaining, repairing, upgrading and rebuilding my and my family's many, diverse bicycles, and having worked in a technical capacity in the defence world throughout my career up to my retirement a few years ago.

Now that the Technical Officer has been declared redundant, is CTC scrapping this member benefit or providing it a different way? There is an answer of sorts on the CTC Forum, posted by Phil Benstead, apparently on behalf of Matt Mallinder of CTC HQ, listing ... CTC website, CTC forum and a helpline.
There seems to be less technical information on the current CTC website than on the old one; some stuff I used to find useful can no longer be found. There is some new stuff which seems rather elementary and fewer topics are covered in detail.
There has been some discussion on the the CTC Forum of the extent to which it can replace Chris Juden. A few contributors to the technical discussion boards are very knowledgeable and competent, while others appear to be but give bad advice or appear to misunderstand the problem. It can be very time-consuming to separate the gold from the dross, and often impossible to distinguish them if you are technically naive. Assessing the credentials of contributors is not easy, and time-consuming. The Forum is a poor substitute for an acknowledged expert on tap.
As for the helpline, who is going to man it if there is no Technical Officer?

Actually, providing the information via the CTC website is a public, rather than members', benefit. How do cyclists find out how to keep older machines running when bike shops are keen to sell them the latest kit? Such advice has to be part of helping all cyclists with their cycling. Who is going to write the authoritative, practical, un-biased web pages and keep them up to date?

What about the technical/engineering campaigning? Let me start by telling a story.

A defence minister was being interviewed on the radio.
"Minister, why has the Government decided not to give the Army the infra-red sights it says it needs?"
Minister: "The Government has given the Army all the night sights it has requested."
The interviewer moved on, not being technically savvy enough to know that infra-red sights and night sights are not the same. Sure, they are both aids to seeing in the dark, but they work at completely different wavelengths; there is a fundamental difference in the way they work so they are not equivalent, they are complementary. The minister got away with an evasion, and the audience was left with the impression that the Government was giving our forces in Afghanistan the equipment they needed, all because the interviewer was not technically qualified.

Do we expect CTC to represent all cyclists on such issues as engineering/technical aspects of highway law, highway design and construction, vehicle regulations and standards (British or European, motor vehicles and cycles), the Highway Code? Yes. Do we expect CTC to have authority and credibility when campaigning on such issues? Of course. How will CTC achieve this without a Technical Officer with the appropriate qualifications, experience, track record, authority and credibility? How indeed!
===============================================================================================================================================

OK, that's duplication, another form of redundancy I disapprove of. But it's only once. I will consider your suggestion, mjr, of posting my next thoughts here and posting just the link to facebook.

This is the automated response you get if you send an email to technical@ctc.org.uk:

"Automatic reply: Enquiry: Tyre sizes

From Chris Juden <Chris.Juden@CTC.ORG.UK>
To chris@jeggo.org.uk <chris@jeggo.org.uk>
Date Today 15:39

Thank you for your enquiry. Chris Juden has left CTC.

As part of our ongoing review of how CTC can best support members we no longer have a dedicated technical helpline. Instead if you have a technical query about bikes or cycling please visit our online technical resource at http://www.ctc.org.uk/bikes-and-bits, read our back catalogue of product and bikes reviews at http://www.ctc.org.uk

CTC, the national cycling charity, inspires and helps people to cycle and keep cycling. To join or support us visit www.ctc.org.uk or phone 01483 238301/0844 7368451.

Registered office: CTC National Office, Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX Cyclists' Touring Club, a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales no.1147607 and in Scotland no.SC042541."

Further to my previous post, you might be interested in my thoughts on past and future CTC technical service that I posted yesterday to the facebook group I set up:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... 415444303/

What's happening on this Discussion Board is great, but I think that if people make full use of facebook tools then the message can spread more rapidly.

The silence from CTC management is ominous. Has democracy gone out of the window? Is the CTC changing beyond recognition?

Earlier this evening I set up a facebook group "Where should CTC be going?", prompted by hearing the news of Chris Juden's redundancy. Hopefully it will help to spread the news rapidly and enable CTC members to organise whatever response they feel to be appropriate in time to submit a motion or more to the AGM. The 1st February deadline is not that far away.
I think I shall follow Mick F and cancel my membership renewal direct debit; send a clear message to Mr Membership Manager that automatic renewal is a thing of the past for me. My sub is due on 1st August so if things don't look so black after the AGM I can always send a cheque. I have to say, though, that the way CTC management has behaved recently, it will be less of a wrench than I thought it would be to walk away and not pay my 41st annual subscription.
Edit: Why did I say "walk away"? Pedal away! It's late.

I bought this book in 2011, having read a good review. However, within a few pages I had added so many post-its with my comments that I started to write my own review.

The book starts with a five-page introduction. The first page is a catalogue of the downsides of the bicycle. But wait, wait for it; the very last clause of the introduction is, "I'm a cyclist because I reckon there is no lovelier form of transport". Surely it would be better to reverse the order. This might seem like nit-picking, but it is far from the only example of negative aspects being given more prominence than positive ones.

At the top of page two Bella Bathurst states that the bicycle "doesn't have a particularly distinguished industrial history". Most motor car manufacturers of the thirties (when there were very many of them) started life as bicycle manufacturers, and the early rapid development of the motor car owed a lot to bicycle technology - the cycle engineers had already solved many of the problems.

Two sentences later she says that the bicycle "requires a lot of silly clothing". The bicycle does not REQUIRE any particular clothing, silly or otherwise. Specialised clothing has been developed for particular forms of cycling because it works better than ordinary clothes. Indeed, later in her book she describes how cycling helped to end Victorian conventions in women's clothing that are now perceived as ridiculous.

Still in the Introduction, she writes that folding bikes, Moultons and recumbents "look ridiculous and can't corner". Has she ever ridden a Moulton? I have, and it cornered. Alex Moulton was a very distinguished engineer and his bikes work!

Chapter One is about frames and framebuilding. She mentions Reynolds 521 tubing. No such thing; she must mean 531. I don't think her phrase "something silly like a tandem" was meant to be derogatory, but tandemists could easily take umbrage.

An example of negative, woolly writing is, "a lump of cheap badly-adjusted chromoly". Chromoly is a frame material, and frames are not adjustable. Maybe some chromoly tubes are cheap, but there are also seamless, double-butted ones, and chrome-molybdenum alloy steels have similar mechanical properties to the manganese-molybdenum alloy steel that is the celebrated Reynolds 531. Her non-specific, disparaging remarks here and elsewhere about chromoly are not justified.

Here's another quotation from Chapter One. "Steel is regarded as a heavy, spongy, tolerant substance". Steel spongy? She's out of her depth.

There is plenty of good prose in this book, and she covers some topics that I have not come across in other books, but this all comes after she has wrecked her credibility before the end of Chapter One by pontificating on matters she clearly understands insufficiently. I enjoyed it so much less than I hoped to that it soon went to the charity bookshop instead of taking its place in my cycling library.

My serious cycling started in my thirties, and I found hard, narrow saddles like the Brooks Professional and B17 Narrow comfortable, once they had been broken in. However, sometime in my late fifties I realised these saddles were less comfortable than they had been, and found that the B17 Standard now suited me better. This is not only broader, but seems to be a bit more yielding than the B17N. Maybe this makes sense - my back side is also broader and more yielding! More recently I have found the B17 Imperial to be even better - that cut-out certainly makes a difference. The Imperial is expensive, but I found it easy to copy the cut-out to make a friend's saddle more comfortable. I'm sure Brooks would be horrified. The modification certainly worked, but that saddle has not yet done enough miles to determine whether I have terminally weakened it.

I spent some time reading your blog and drafting a comment, and then came back to this Forum and realised that my reply had been overtaken by respondents here, Brucey prominent among them, but I am running out of time so here are my comments anyway, only very slightly edited.

Introduction

I bought one of these new from a Guildford cycle shop in 1977 and ran it for a year, at the end of which my wife and I decided that we liked tandeming but wanted a better tandem. The Gitane was a relatively cheap, mass-produced machine and we concluded that replacing it was better than upgrading it.

Handlebar and stem

Sheldon Brown's remarks about Ava stems and handlebars do not apply since your stem is Pivo and handlebar appears to be steel. It is up to you to check the reputation of Pivo.

Transmission

I had not seen John Allen's article before, but it appears to be a correct, clearly written and comprehensive account. His discussion of the pros and cons of front crossover drive is interesting and makes some good points that I had not thought of.

My replacement tandem consisted of a Mercian frame and a collection of parts which I chose, bought and fitted myself. I used what John Allen calls "single-side" drive (which was generally called "direct drive" in the UK at that time) for the reasons he gives: two solo cranksets can be used, and the loads on the rear bottom bracket (solo-sized) are less than for crossover drive. In the 1930's (golden age of cycling?) when far more tandems were produced than in the 1970's, tandem bottom brackets were over-size (or at least the rear ones) to withstand the greater loads. As life turned out, that tandem never did a big mileage, but I never had cause to regret my choice of direct drive.

The Gitane we bought had steel, cottered cranks and 10-speed direct drive, and there was no option for anything else, so I strongly suspect your transmission is a subsequent upgrade. The bike was basically a French import (although it did have 27 x 1-1/4" rims and tyres) and the freewheel thread on the rear hub was certainly French, so I would expect the bottom bracket threads to be French too. That will influence your choice of course of action. Any serious attempt to 'future-proof' the tandem will be very expensive; whether that's worth while depends on your intended use of it. Thus I would recommend a careful assessment of what you have and carrying out only essential replacements initially. The creaking might not be from the bottom brackets, so if they are not much worn a clean and re-grease may be all that is required. I have experienced creaking from slight movement between chainrings, chainring bolts and spiders. Chainsets (including bottom brackets) are the most highly stressed components of any bike and the parts must fit well and be done up really tight, using appropriate thread-locking compounds if necessary. (If you want to find out recommended torques I suggest 'Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance' and technical documents which can be found on the Shimano website.) If your present crossover drive is in an acceptable condition I would stick with it and only consider switching to direct drive if you find you get through rear bottom brackets at an unacceptable rate.

Wheels and rim brakes

Yes, definitely replace the steel rims with good alloy ones. Modern rims are much stronger than 1970's ones, and rim braking will be much improved. I fitted Mafac cantilever brakes to my Mercian and found them satisfactory. Maybe you need to replace old brake blocks; see elsewhere on this Forum for recommendations.

Hub brake

The hub brake was quite good when new. However, the Gitane's freewheel block started making noises I did not like, and in the process of investigating this I put a lot of oil into it. Some of it found its way into the brake, which was never the same again, despite soaking and washing the shoes in paraffin, slow baking in an oven at a bit over 100 deg C to drive off volatile matter, and removing a thin layer from the linings with a file. Had I kept the bike I would have replaced or relined the shoes.

Gears and cables, etc.

It sounds as if you have a friction problem with the rear derailleur. Clean (WD40?) and lubricate the pivots of the mechanism. You probably need to replace all control cables, both inner wires and outer casings, and on brakes as well as gears. Your levers do not contain return springs; indeed, where levers do have return springs, they are not for returning the mechanism being controlled (since that would entail pushing the inner wire, which can only be expected to pull), but for lightening the load on the return spring(s) in the mechanism.

That's about all I can think of just now, and I hope it helps.

This looks like a tool I threw away not that long ago, realising it was obsolete. It is a spanner for dismantling and re-assembling Suntour freewheels, Ultra-6 and possibly Ultra-7 IIRC.

I bought a Cheviot SE with a Deore Hollowtech triple chainset and the gears worked fine. However, I was not entirely happy with Shimano's official chain-lines, with the centre chainring being much further out than the centre sprocket. I found that I could remove one of the two right-hand spacers without any problem. Had I removed the second, I would have had to transfer it to the left-hand side as discussed above, and I decided not to do this experiment at the time.

Hi. Would the following alternative idea fit in with your plans?
Store your bikes while you explore without them, and then take them back to Australia with you. I live not that far from London Heathrow.