Cycling UK Forum

What a c*** idea! Have the management read all the research about relative journey times in urban environments? Have they considered the environmental impact?? Have they worked out the impact on the posties' health??? - bet Pashley are cross about it, too - I think they make the bikes...(Assuming this decision refers to which vehicles they're going to ask the posties to use in an urban environment...I spose vans make sense in the country)

simonineaston wrote: has proved difficult to fit to my Brooks saddles, which all share nearly identical rails.

Actually, it turns out that they're not as identical as all that... the B17 rails are wider apart than the Pro rails - predictably, I guess Like thirdcrank, it's the Pro I'm having trouble with - the clamp popped onto the B17 rails pretty straightforwardly last night
I'll have a look at that Topeak product you linked too - Ta!

I've had a Topeak tool wedge for years - it's great and doesn't show any sign of wear, zips all still work, sliding catch still works great, and all the tools still work, showing little or no sign of wear - Super Product
But... the supplied 2-piece mounting plate, that's clamps to the saddle rails has proved difficult to fit to my Brooks saddles, which all share nearly identical rails. There's only one precise point I can find where the 2 pieces will clamp the rails in a satisfactory manner, and that angles the wedge correctly so I can wrap the velcro strap round the set-post. It takes ages to get it just right... has anyone else had this trouble or is it just me???

simonineaston wrote: my experience has been that the distance between small towns / villages is small - 4-6 kms at the most,

I've just been planning my own summer cycling trip to Brittany, and having perused my 1:25k maps, I'll revise my estimate to "5-10 kms"

frank9755 wrote: We tweaked the route slightly to miss out a leg which goes up to Huelgoat, and cut through a series of villages with enclosed parishes - essentially a type of church but which are a big thing in that part of the world - and that day ended up being the highlight so would recommend it as a variation.

Good bits
Nice little towns with good hotels and great restaurants, pleasant roads with little traffic, interesting but not too hilly. Courteous drivers - only one car came too close in 200 miles.

Less good
Sparsely populated, hence few / no shops to stock up on food in some areas. Brest not great - would just stay down by the port if I were ever to decide to do that route again.

Completely agree with previous poster - but would like to discuss the assertion, "few / no shops to stock up on food in some areas..." I've done several trips since around '02 when some chums bought a cottage over there, 1/2 way between Roscoff & St Malo and my experience has been that the distance between small towns / villages is small - 4-6 kms at the most, so my problem has been resisting the tempatation to stop and eat at every place I cycle through My trips have been mostly north of the N12, and as far west as you can go without getting wet, and as far east as St Briuec, so we may be talking about slightly different areas. As far as I can tell, if a place is big enough to have a church, it'll have a bakery, stuffed full of fresh bread, fruit tarts, Breton far (local custard/prune cake - nicer than it sounds ), chocolate eclairs etc.etc.
My two top tips for you are:
1) Nantes to Brest Canal - very lovely, easy to cycle / navigate, but my tip is - it's bit boring for touring cyclists, 'cos it's too flat... 1/2 a day on it, and you'll be wishing you could shift gear.
2) Menu Ouvrier - if you're really hungry at lunch time, look out for unassuming cafes in small towns. If you spot one offering a menu ouvrier, AND there's lots of white vans parked in the town square, you have struck gold. The menu ouvrier is aimed at hungry workers, and the white vans will have contained all the nearby plasterers, electricians and so on, who know a foodie bargain. For about 10/12 Euros you'll get 3 courses, and cheese and coffee and a carafe of cidre ou vin. No such deal exists in the UK...
Oh, and the "enclosed parishes" are worth a look too - Have Fun

As a keen amateur, I've built several wheels for my Moultons, as well as for "cumbersomes" i.e. those cycles with wheels bigger than 20"
My tuppence worth would be to say that smaller wheels are easier to handle when you are building them, so I don't think 20" -ness should deter you.
I agree with the earlier poster who implied that your hardest task would be to source spokes in the correct length. You really need to know the exact dimensions of your chosen hub / rim combination. It's very hard to work out from scratch, too, at least it is for a non mathematician like me, 'cos it involves trig. and so on to calculate, being as how the rim, hub and spoke form a triangle...
Of course you can always use string - seriously! Tha'st what I did last time. I bought an SA hub to replace a Shimano derailleur hub and guesstimated the spoke length with bits of string. You've got about a centimetre leeway - too long and you can always judicously remove the proud part of the spoke (providing you've got an angle grinder, that is, s/s spokes are very hard) and on the other hand if the spokes are too short, you have to hope there's enough thread in the nipple to hold.
You also need to factor in the dish, i.e. how off-set the hub is relative to the centre line of the rim.
Get the spoke length wrong and it'll all turn into a nightmare - but get it right and it's reasonably straight-forward, especially if you've got some good pictures of the spoke pattern taken before you dismantle the old wheel. Oh and don't forget that hubs / rims can come supplied in a wide range of hole numbers, so make sure yours match. (alhough I do remember seeing a web site that listed a range of really exotic spoking patterns that allows the user to build wheels using hubs and rims that had different numbers of holes...)
Personally, I got a lot of simple satisfaction out of cycling about on wheels I built myself.

moved mine back about 5 or 6 complete turns it's certainly flatter and much more comfortable. Will hold it there for a while before contemplating any more nut twiddling
As a fall-back, I've bought a B17 from a "certain on-line auction site", which I popped on this morning for the daily commute and is an all-together different experience, as it is flatter and broader. Might end up using this Brooks varient as my long-distance saddle. Does seem a bit masochistic to subject one's self to 2 lots of Brooks breaking-in, though!

I've actually abandonded the idea of lacing my Pro, for the reason given above. I cautiously tried a few ways to simulate the action of the laces, meaning the sides were limited in their movement. I didn't like the resulting immobility of the ridge, although its worth pointing out that I tried this on a Pro, which is still both fairly new and stiff as well as having quite thick leather...
I've since had an email from the good folk at Brooks (see other thread "adjusting a Brooks saddle" viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22843), as well as finding an article by the dear-departed Sheldon Brown (what didn'the written about?!)
Here his 2 paragraphs that summarise his take on this issue:
Most leather saddles have a tension-adjusting nut located under the nose of the saddle. Fortunately, this nut usually requires a special wrench, so most people leave it alone. In almost every case that I know of where someone has tried to adjust the tension with this nut, the saddle has been ruined. My advice is to leave it alone.
If a leather saddle gradually becomes too soft and too wide after many thousands of miles, it is sometimes useful to punch a few holes in the bottoms of the side flaps and lace them together under the saddle frame.
This allows the width and firmness of the saddle to be adjusted to the rider's taste. Some older models came with a row of holes along the lower edge of the side flaps, for this very purpose.
I think his remark, "if the leather saddle gradually beomes too soft and wide..." is the key phrase.

Here's what the good folk at Brooks had to say on the subject of my slightly concave Brooks Pro... I sent them a good picture so they could see exactly what I was talking about.

Hello Simon
Thanks for writing to Brooks
This saddle is in serious need of tensioning, I think.
Every 6 months (or so), we recommend that riders inspect the profile of their saddle specifically to look for this dipping effect. Usually a 1/4 or 1/2 turn on the tension pin nut (moving the nut towards the rear of the saddle) with keep the saddle in good shape.
If you have never adjusted the tension at all, then I imagine that you will need to add more tension than I have described above.... but please do this in stages, as it is also very risky to apply too much tension.

Best Regards


Steve

Hi Folks,
I've just started to experiment with this fun pass-time... see http://www.wallbike.com/content/butchering.html for some interesting attempts.
I would like to point out that the most obvious effect of lacing a soft Brooks is to raise and stiffen the central ridge of the saddle. When the owner sits on anything but a very stiff example, the ridge gives by forcing the sides out. It's supposed to do that. By preventing the sides from moving you also prevent the ridge giving. Far from improving matters, the potential is there to make the saddle uncomfortable to use. This observation is based on my first attempts to lace my own Brooks Pro as well as reading around the subject on t'internet...

Mick F wrote:I think the issue is not that it sags in the middle, but it sags near the back.
Am I right about that?

Mine "sags" in the middle by about 8mm - I didn't measure it - but mine's in the middle, not the back.

If I'm wrong, mine's the same as yours. And I love it.

I've got a bit of both, really - and before anyone says anything, I only weigh 9 1/2 stone...
I do love using it though in spite of the dip. I bought it years ago - it was in the Bargain Bin @ SJS 'cos it had no box and a scuff on it that polished out on the first application of Brooks proofing wax. I had a venerable old B72 on my old Moulton APB which I sold a couple of years ago, and have been waiting 'till I bought the TSR to start using the Pro. I ran it in last year cycling around Brittany. I guess I'm used to sliding down into the dip by now and almost unconsciously push myself back onto the "sweet spot" - I "micro-adjusted" the angle of tilt yesterday and the first ride (down to the shops...) suggests that this small adjustment has made a big improvement.

A "new, improved" photo of the offending article, for your admiring appreciation, has been added at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/SimoninEast ... 1530642946

CREPELLO wrote:Simonineaston,could you give us an idea of how much it sags in the middle compared to the front and rear?

Yes - 8 mm...

patricktaylor wrote:The tendency for the saddle to dip in the middle can be counter-acted by lacing the sides together like a shoe. If you press the top, the sides move outwards, and the lacing will prevent this, with a stiffening effect.

Yes, I've seen some Brooks saddles with such a feature - now I know what it's for !
I'll wait to see what the good folk at Brooks have to say, and in the mean time, I'll get onto my chums to see which of them has a hole-punch beefy enough to chomp through the not inconsiderable barrier of a Brooks Pro

Hi folks,
I have been using a Brooks Pro for about a year on my Pashley TSR

http://picasaweb.google.com/SimoninEast ... 1915993026

My problem is the slight dip in the middle of the saddle which you can just about see in the pic., which was taken last August - the dip's more pronounced now. If I adjust the saddle so the the rear half is flat, my bum stays where it should be, but the front half of the saddle is raised slightly, and becomes uncomfortable. Conversely if I tilt the saddle so the front half is flat and so comfortable, the rear half is at a sufficient angle that my bum slides into the dip in the middle - clearly what I need is a flatter saddle.
Does anyone have any experience of adjusting Brooks saddles, and would they care to comment?
(I've emailed Brooks themselves and will post their response when it comes.)