Cycling UK Forum

Samuel D wrote:Small-small or small-smallish is another matter. In those gears the chain often rubs against the outer chainring, creating noise and wear that cannot be avoided. Shimano typically warns against using the smallest three rear sprockets with the inner chainring, if they make noise.

Depends on the set up, pure Shimano seemed to get away with it aside from last cog, but I've seen plenty of FSA/Truvativ front ends that pick up the chain on the big ring lifts when in small/smallish. Plenty of riders seem fixated on staying in the small ring (cadence) or the big ring (machismo), or are just nervous due to front changer unreliability (having been riding Di2, it has changed my confidence in getting a reliable change - SRAM can be extremely difficult to get a reliable change under pressure so I know there are good reasons for being wary).

There are elements of set up that can sort out contact (and many people don't get using trimming to avoid front derailleur wear). A too short chain may exacerbate the problem as a tight derailleur pulled forward will put the chain at a wider angle and be more prone to front ring rubbing.

So chain length varies in importance - sometimes the wrong length can introduce safety issues.

It really depends on the bike. Most road bikes set up with a short cage derailleur will struggle if you get the chain links wrong.

Group sets have a capacity - so the amount of spare chain the derailleur can gather up, the range of sprockets the rear derailleur can handle, the range of difference that the front derailleur can cope with.

On a short cage road bike, you'll find if you have a typical Ultegra set up, 11-28T on the rear and 50-34T on the front, then the chain has to be exactly right, or it will either be over-tight big to big or hanging down when small to small. It surprises me how many of our experienced club riders ride chain crossed.

When you start stretching things (like trying to get a 32T onto a standard groupset) you'll find that you may have combinations that you cannot sensibly use.

Triples tend to be more forgiving with their long cage and the long cage versions are engineered for greater cassette range these days.

I found I normally needed to drop between 1-4 pairs of links on any new chain, I rarely got to fit a chain straight out of the packet whether it was 114 or 116 links.

My routine: put the chain on big - big, hold it in place and count the spare links when tight. Put it on small-small - check how many links required to put the spring of the rear derailleur under tension - that is the maximum length.

If big-big is less than to small-small, I'll go with small-small size.

If small-small is less than big-big then you've got a problem and something is incompatible. You will have to chose whether to go without small small or big big and set the chain accordingly. On a triple this is normally less of an issue as many bikes really really don't like being ridden that crossed up.

If big-big is more than small-small then it doesn't matter and the derailleur will still be gathering up the spare.

I've never bothered calculating chain inches - on the bike is much more comprehensible.

For small groups, gmail works well, I use it on our Residents Association, though we do not maintain large mailing lists, just as a contact point.

The basic trick is to set it up as imap. This allows everyone to access it, and does not delete emails but allows you to see someone has read them. You need to invent some protocols to ensure that mail is properly handled, but shared access allows those who like to read emails on their PC or smart phone to use it and those who just want Web mail to use it too. Mails only get marked as read when they are read, whereas automatic downloading with POP3 marks things as read when downloaded, or alternatively leaves mail permanently marked as unread.

gmail has a contacts list and in principle you can get this to synchronise with other contact systems, e.g. Thunderbird email, Outlook, iPhone, Android, but it is a bit clunky and you have to be confident that those who are synchronising with it aren't going to break it. However, it can be a master list that everyone can access.

Here are a few examples from Solihull:

Warwick Road into Knowle - dual on road cycle paths on a wide stretch of road, though sub-standard width so drivers do not feel the need to pass cyclists with adequate space. It then does the "Outside of the roundabout trick" across exits. Then it hops onto the pavement for about 50 metres uphill, where it then has a dismount point at a side road. After crossing the road, it drops onto the road again and has a good segregated lane with hatchings. Finally it meets the High Street where there is insufficient width, simply dumping the cyclist with a give way at a difficult and complex junction. Biggest problem I have along there are half passes - a bus who seems to have forgotten he was passing me and cut the entrance to the roundabout, and a driver who carefully pulled out around me on the High Street, but then pulled back in when I was alongside his wing mirror - he did not appreciate the tap on the window either.

Example 2 is the Statford Road from Shirley, a busy 40mph dual carriageway. Segregated lane, but weaves in and out of service roads, across driveways and then mysteriously finishes at a roundabout. Further up there is a complex loop around the Tesco entrance, with a pavement route weaving across a busy fuel station exit with multiple lanes, the wrong way around a roundabout (dismounted crossing). You are then encouraged to cross at a wait forever double toucan crossing to take a 1/2 mile diversion to avoid the busy J4 M42 roundabout. When it rejoins the A3400, it provides a crossing to a footpath. To get to where I live you then turn left and get dumped at a set of traffic lights with no visibility and no safe access onto the road. The other direction is a barely used narrow countryside footpath covered in glass and other debris marked as shared use but with no obvious modifications. Basically, it is impossible to safely follow the cycle path, but fortunately there are alternative rat runs to make the journey without using the main road.

Elsewhere, we have dangerous junctions where the cycle facility consists of warning triangles with cycles in them.

I don't believe that Solihull has a single cycle lane that improves matters for the cyclist on the public road. They've even got in a knot with cycling through a local park, where a vociferous minority are trying to enforce a ban on cyclists, when there is no evidence of any problems in the park (unlike the evidence left by the people complaining, dog walkers).

hexhome wrote:I think that you might find these OFM maps worth trying, they are changing my opinions, though it's early days yet! There is a definite problem with velomaps and trunk roads.

Always keeping an eye open for new versions. I was bit disappointed that OpenCycleMap never seems to have pushed onto providing a Garmin version for ready download.

OFM seems to be suggesting that they are 8 months out of date - unless that is just them being bored of maintaining the web site?

I was quite keen on Velomap until I discovered didn't route for me because it did strongly highlight cycle routes.

hexhome wrote:

andymiller wrote:Another option rather than abandoning the map would be to switch off the 'avoid highways' setting.

Again there's another option: change your settings: when you want a fast route switch to 'route for cars/motorbikes' and if you want a more scenic option switch to 'route for bikes'.

I'm confused by the reference to algorithms - I thought the algorithms were in the software - either on the PC or the GPS or on the unit itself - although I can see how the map can influence the routing outcome (eg classifying certain roads as highways).

Is there anyone who can give a quick explanation of how the Garmin gps and the map interact - eg does the Garmin cycling option mean that it prefers roads marked as cycle-friendly in the mapping database - or simply avoids roads where bikes are prohibited?

This isn't as clear as it at first appears. Each mapset seems to have it's own way of interpreting GPS or Basecamp settings. For example http://www.openfietsmap.nl/tips-tricks/ ... amp-3-3-en and http://www.velomap.org/velomaporg/autorouting/

In neither of these examples do the obvious settings produce the desired results. As an example, I have been struggling to get OFM to give me a route other than on fast trunk roads, after reading the instructions carefully, I found that on the GPS, selecting 'faster time' produced the desired result. I have not been able to achieve this with Basecamp yet. So to take your suggestion to switch off 'avoid highways' would actually have the opposite effect!

For cycle specific routing which avoids fast trunk roads with OFM, my Etrex 20 has to be set to route for 'Car and Motorcycle', no avoidances and route for time. If I change profile to bicycle, it will route me along a fast trunk road. I would advise anyone who uses any of these solutions for autorouting to read the providers instructions regarding settings very carefully.

Incidentally, you have assigned quotes to the wrong sources.

Just to clarify, there are some aspects of routing that are built into the mapping and cannot be altered by settings. The trunk road setting of VeloMap is built into the mapping as permanently missed off routing information, so there is simply no data.

As a quick guide to what is going on, OSM has all the roads with tags on them to describe the types of roads they are. These are arbitrary and every system that renders the map data into a working map for Garmin has to use a tool to translate the data from OSM into Garmin's definitions via a variety of tools. TalkyToaster uses one system, based on his knowledge of the UK road system, Mr Velomap has based his work on the German system. The tag used for trunk roads is the same in the UK and Germany, but in Germany it means "No bikes", in the UK it means "Bikes allowed" As the OSM system has no way of understanding national boundaries, it is not possible to generate a Europe-wide system based on the current tags. It's basically an error in the underlying data of OSM, using the same tags for different road types. Velomap takes it a bit further, and as it is targeted at cyclists, he makes use of the car option as another alternative for cycle routing and has, fro example, made cycle paths appear to the routing software as if they are roads so that option will work.

Using the TalkyToaster OSM maps, I got a 12 mile auto-route home from New Street Station (the joys of arriving back on the train from C2C at 10:30pm on a rainy Sunday) to my home near Solihull and it took me a perfect cycle route on my 800, avoiding main roads - going parallel to them even though this was slightly longer - taking a direct route that took advantage of cycle routes in one or two places. It clearly was correctly weighted to avoid main roads without refusing to use them when there was no alternative.

So, I guess to summarise the issues:

1. There are many different variations of OSM available.
2. Different variations will route differently and interact differently with routing options on the Garmin.
3. The routing may work differently on different Garmins, so there is no guarantee that one person's experience will mirror another's.
4. Routing does work well on OSM. However, there are variations, and also BaseCamp may route differently to the Garmin device.
5. More modern Garmin devices can provide guidance from tracks. Older eTrex devices expect to have a route and do not generally provide routing on tracks.
6. OSM is more likely to have areas where there are mistakes on mapping than the OS derived professional mapping; however, aside from that there is no guarantee that the Garmin OS routing is better than OSM derived maps.
7. If an actual route is required to be followed, on older eTrex devices, you need to build one or more routes of 50 or less points, and check the route on the device to convince yourself that it will work.
8. Appearances are dependent on device, and there are no best versions, just personal taste.
9. Garmins can get a bit upset if they are not convinced you have started a route and will merrily try and guide you to the start until such time that they are convinced you have passed though a via point, or some other clue that you are on the way. Newer Garmins are better at this than the old eTrex.

A reasonable routing test is to find a route where to get from A to B you have a choice of 100 metres on a trunk A road (e.g. working across the A46 north of Stratford-upon-Avon or across the A50 near Burton-upon-Trent) where the alternative is a 2 mile diversion. (This is also a test for you - would you want to cycle 2 miles to avoid a potentially dangerous trunk road?)

Bells have to be fitted by bike shops when selling bikes for use on the roads, but there is no requirement for them to be maintained, remain fitted etc. The voice is sufficient to be a suitable warning.

I reckon a well chosen word is sufficient depending on circumstances, from an "Excuse me" on a shared path to [expletive deleted] as a car pulls out in front of you!

I've not used them. I did try the Velomap versions of OSM, but reverted to TalkyToaster's.

TalkyToaster's have the search bug on my 800 which means that you cannot look up places on the go - this is a big problem and seems to be a generic issue on some Garmins due to the underlying database not being properly understood by the people developing the tools.

The main issue with different people's versions of the map is how they alter the weighting for the routing. I reverted to TalkyToaster's because the Velomap version refused to route on trunk roads (e.g. the A50). In Germany, trunk roads, as defined in OSM, are inaccessible to cycles, they are lower grade motorways, whereas in the UK they can be your local high street! That means the routing can do weird things.

In terms of visibility of the gubbins, you can reduce the detail shown using options on your Garmin, though it depends how the map is built as to what it will hide away and whether this matches your needs.

Around the areas I ride, I have found that the OSM maps sometimes route better than the Ordnance Survey maps - 1:50000 version that most people get included when they buy mapping. The only omissions I've found is footpaths in some areas, and obscure roads, though there are occasional OSM glitches that pop up when some kind soul decides that a junction needs rearranging just before the snapshot is taken. If I need footpaths I will be taking a paper map anyway.

Not a lot to go on! Bound to be something simple, they always are when you've stripped the whole bike down and found nothing!

Is the front derailleur cable rubbing on the tyre?

Is there something stuck between the cassette and the wheel?

Do you mean that as you go faster, it changes, or simply if you pedal it happens, and if you don't pedal it doesn't?

Have you got a bike stand? It sounds like you need it up on a stand and if you can reproduce the noise (which is not always the case!) then it is simply a case of hoping it is not echoing around the frame as you try and pin it down. If you haven't got a stand, you can jury rig something so you can move the pedals and listen.

Most new caliper brakes have a bit of tape on them - certainly any Shimano, as well as Tektro. It is to protect them when being fitted, as they can over-extend on opening up and they can then mark. Once fitted the tape should be removed, but 99% of bikes seem to have this left on - which makes protecting the cosmetic finish a bit of a nonsense.

horizon wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:Drink driving may be an exception - perhaps it is that people are well aware of the impairment that they feel, together with the worry of having an accident together with the high impact of a prosecution, but that was still supported with significant amounts of education, and I would suggest that most people don't drink drive because they have been persuaded it is simply wrong rather than through the worry of being caught.

Ian: I don't want to divert your thread and I haven't checked my facts but AFAIK the mandatory one year ban had the greatest effect (as well as closing various loopholes). You didn't need a crash, just a light not working and a breathalyser.

I that is an important and useful point in that it is about the perception:
1) Serious consequences if caught, including social stigma.
2) Perception of likelihood of being caught - impaired driving attracting notice, plus if stopped some forces have mandatory breath test, and the smell of alcohol cannot be readily hidden.
3) Can be charged a significant time after the offence I got stopped for speeding on the M5 at 2pm by a nice policeman who didn't charge me in spite of the foolish speed I was travelling. He had done 5 drivers over lunchtime who had been drinking the previous evening.
4) No requirement for witnesses.

Compare this with "How to prosecute a driver who might not be nice to cyclists."

You need a witness, or video equipment that captures the evidence (which usually means multiple cameras). You also need a policeman prepared to put the effort into something - a close pass might be an offence but is it worth a policeman pursuing compared with other offences? Was it a one off due to misjudgement or was it deliberate? Do you get a prosecution for someone giving you 0.5 metres of space rather than 1.5 metres? When there is an accident, you usually can get a sympathetic response from the police and they will happily prosecute with the current laws if there is sufficient evidence, but if there is an accident, that represents alot less than 1% of the incidents that are frightening or intimidating, and it is those incidents that need education.

The YouTube guys who video their journeys (typically into London) do get good responses from the police over serious incidents, but these usually are ones where the driver can be seen deliberately swerving into a cyclist or is captured making threats of bodily harm. So I think the problem in the end is not legislation, but attitude, because the people we need to reach are not expecting to have accidents with cyclists so the threat of legislation will not impact their driving - they think they are driving appropriately.

There are two problems on visibility of my Mercedes Vito van.

1) The full boxed in rear means that you have no sideways visibility. This is a major issue at junctions that are not right angled. Turning right into a main road at a side road going in a similar direction gives you no visibility. You will see van drivers do odd things, like at such a junction with an island splitting left and right turns we might take the left hand one and turn right, because it is impossible to see otherwise.

2) The modern streamlined fronts have extremely large pillars to the side of the windscreen which are very swept back. At a roundabout, they completely obscure the visibility of traffic coming around a roundabout. The first time I drove the van, I completely missed a Jaguar S-Type as I hadn't appreciated that I would not see all the road when glancing to the right as it was entirely hidden by the pillar (which is about 10cm across I would guess). I now know to physically move around in the van to gain visibility. Many modern cars have a similar problem, the effect is that people believe that they have looked properly but do not realise that you cannot see (it took a near miss for me to properly appreciate how bad the problem was).

There is an odd psychology over the school run, and schools in general. We get taught that education is important, and that children are important* so school mums get the idea into their head that taking little Johnny to school is far more important than anything. Round here, we get very aggressive mums driving on pavements, getting into arguments with other drivers following the rules of the road that impede their progress, parking obstructing the pavement so that the other walking mums have to go in the road. We've had examples where they have refused to move out of an obstructed driveway because they haven't got time.

I've had them then burst into tears at residents meetings about how it is not fair that they cannot easily drive to school when it is raining.

I think the free issue of navy gaberdine school coats would go a long way to solve traffic problems.





*Resists channelling George Benson

Ron wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:Exactly right, which reinforces the point I am trying to get across, that really the only long term solution is education.

You are sounding like a disciple of Safespeed.
I would say there's nothing like a hefty fine or threat of imprisonment to assist the education process.

No, there is a need for the support of strong legislation, but unless you are going to invest massively in police or technology to enforce it, it is pointless to expect it to make a significant difference.

There was an interesting comment on mobile phone use which is still at extremely high levels - Sky News suggested that the usage level could be as high as 30% of drivers using phones while driving. So there we have the failure of fines and threats. Same with speeding - I think speeds are coming down and I'm not sure how much of that is fuel costs and how much is that sufficient speed awareness attendees are having an impact. So even though there are a significant proportion of the population that disapprove of mobile phone usage, it seems that the temptation to use them plus the unlikely event of being charged for using them means that legislation has failed as a solution.

Seatbelts have become accepted more through education than through the number of people stopped and fined (I can't think of one person I know that has admitted to being reprimanded or fined for not wearing a seat belt).

Some of the issue must be about increasing the status of drivers who know about driving around bikes. At the moment, you will hear people openly threaten cyclists and boast to their friends about how they deal with cyclists. Some motorists will go out of their way to drive dangerously to provide cyclists with "advice".* This minority need to feel that such attitudes are not acceptable to anyone, not just cyclists. However, it is clear that there are a vocal minority who believe that the most dangerous vehicles on the road to other people are cycles and are not shy about telling other people this.

Driving uninsured, without MOT is still very common, amazingly high percentages - why is that?

Drink driving may be an exception - perhaps it is that people are well aware of the impairment that they feel, together with the worry of having an accident together with the high impact of a prosecution, but that was still supported with significant amounts of education, and I would suggest that most people don't drink drive because they have been persuaded it is simply wrong rather than through the worry of being caught.




* Classic example was on a tight country lane, a motorist objected to our ride being two abreast, though we felt that there was sufficient passing space. He then drove along side the ride (still two abreast!) explaining how stupid we were, until I repeated several times "It's a blind bend ahead" as he was too busy shouting and not looking where he was going. He then demonstrated his driving prowess brake testing the group until I faked pointing out a camera with my Garmin and watched him speed off and nearly sideswipe an oncoming car in the distance, driving it off the road.

Second example would be the BMW who did overtake on a blind bend, even though I could see a car ahead being over to the left and stuck my right arm out as I could hear him starting to overtake. I believe that he tried to tell me that he had plenty of room, but he did not seem to realise that this was because the oncoming car had reacted to my hand signal and stopped while making a dive for the hedge. Many motorists clearly believe that overtaking a cyclist gives them a cloak of invincibility that means that they do not need to concern themselves with oncoming traffic.

...and of course, every single cyclist has had a rabid, fist shaking, swerving driver demanding that they get back in the gutter where they belong.

PaulCumbria wrote:I know the stretch of road at Ambleside referred to by the OP very well indeed, as it's on my daily commute. And the key issue is that, as soon as the markings end, drivers push much harder for me to get over so they can squeeze past, even though the road is way too narrow to do this safely.
So what to do? Increasing the number of people cycling exponentially is the ultimate answer, but the other issue I see is that legislators are afraid of the backlash they'd get if they applied appropriate speed limits.
For example, on that stretch of road near Ambleside, a sensible speed limit that acknowledges the right of all cyclists (not just young fast and fit ones) to be able to use it safely would be 30mph max. But in fact the limit ranges from 30 to 50 mph - the 20 limit on some sections was lifted to 30 a year or two ago in response to the whinges of motorists!

Exactly right, which reinforces the point I am trying to get across, that really the only long term solution is education (as reohn2 also suggests). Having gone round the circle, that's why you have to come back to how do you get ALL motorists (not just the majority of decent human beings) to accept that cyclists have access to the whole road where it is necessary, and conversely, that cyclists should know how to help traffic get past them when it is appropriate (I am not averse to pulling into a passing place on a narrow road, where some cyclists would be claiming their 'rights'). Lane markings, segregation and so on are all just sticking plaster solutions that are about acknowledging that drivers do not cope with cyclists. There are places where they are needed (e.g. complex or high speed junctions) where there are already too many demands on the average motorist, but they do not fit with the everyday. Trouble is that councils get grants for doing stuff, not for leaving well alone!

It is worth remembering that road designers sometimes put unreasonable loads on drivers. At a recent Inquiry into a motorway services on the M42, I identified that to exit the services and join the motorway, the proposed road layout required a motorist to make over 40 decisions to follow the correct route from services to motorway. You do not want cyclists in that mix!

The trick is to come up with ways to educate that do not put motorists down.