Cycling UK Forum

horizon wrote:My impression is from reading posts over the years that people get saddle sore long before they run out of puff. That's not on a steep hill, obviously, but from say a couple of hours continuous cycling. <snip>

Please bear in mind that I am trying to build fitness, and quite quickly, so I am constantly pushing for a maximum sustainable cruising speed.
That is, high cadence but below spinning out.
If I feel that I am spinning too easily I go up a gear.
If I am starting to have to push hard and my cadence is dropping then I change down a gear.
This keeps me breathing deeply but not gasping/crying for air, and my legs complaining a bit but not desperately.
The aim is to have used up all my energy reserves by the end of the run - if I've got loads of 'go' left in the last couple of miles then I just have to push harder.
I do wind down in the last little bit, though

As you say, hills are different.
My aim there is to get to the top without going down into the 'granny', which tends to get me working as hard as my body will take for a few minutes.
Been one gear off the 'granny' a few times.
The hills around here are water cut dips in a flat plain, so short but pretty steep.
Fast going down but hard going up the other side.

If I was cycling gently I would expect to go for a couple of hours and still have plenty of puff left.
I might try a longer gentler ride some time to see if it is the cadence which is causing some of the pain.
For context, I tend to sail past leisure cyclists out for a gentle cruise on MTBs but get comprehensively blown away by more active cyclists in all the gear on road bikes.
[Although on my last ride a very nice guy sailed past me, and when I asked if he had a tow rope he dropped back and chatted for a while before our routes diverged and he flew away again. He said he was cycling round looking for hills to sprint up. Made my day Gentleman of the road.]

I should perhaps restate that my aim is not to modify my long term riding style.
I am taking the opportunity (prompted by a previous conversation) to investigate the correlation between saddles and bum pain on different bikes.
My starting point is a bike/saddle combination which I know from long experience is comfortable for me on brisk rides of two hours or more even when I haven't ridden for some time.

My finding so far is that the bike I am testing is causing me more discomfort than I would expect if the saddle was the only factor in bum pain.

My comfort saddle seems better than the original set up and the discomfort has been reduced by various saddle adjustments but I still feel that this particular loan bike is less comfortable than my own.

To fully confirm this I need to get my long term bike back on the road.

Meanwhile I will continue to use my only roadworthy bike on the principle that a ride with some pain after the hour mark is better than no ride or a shorter ride.

Cheers

LGC

* Quick postscript - just been out for about two hours, usual route plus a diversion, wearing my old cycling shorts with the real imitation chamois. It may be my imagination but this seemed a lot less painful. Then again I could just be hardening up. *

One clue is in the text

Last week I recognised the futility of waiting for me to fix up my bikes and swapped the Madison G11 onto the Scott.
The scientifically minded will recognise the start of a useful test - known good saddle on known bum breaker.

So I started my fitness campaign last week and have done three circuits of my 20 mile route so far.
Prior to that I recently had a couple of runs out on the Scott (which confirmed bum pain problems) and a run out on the Rover 3.5 which confirmed I needed to sort the drive train out and a short run on my Dawes Galaxy which ended with a broken chain and a decision to renovate the drive train.

I first started cycling pre-teens.
Cycled a lot up until about 17 including days out over quiet country roads with my mates.
Did some fairly long commutes in around '75 in Derbyshire on a friend's road bike.
Bought my Rover 3.5 around '94 and commuted a lot over 9.6 miles each way and also trained up for and did the London to Brighton.
I generally could cycle for 2 hours without any problems regardless of my frequency of cycling and general fitness level.

Trained up for a 22 mile commute in Berkshire in '07/'08 and managed a few times but the length of the commute meant I didn't do it often.
Again using my trusty Rover 3.5 with the Madison Gel saddle.
Again no major bum bone problems.

Since '09 I have been out a few times in the summer for a two hour pootle on the Rover 3.5 with no major bum pain.

So my expectation this time was to be able to cycle for a couple of hours and run out of wind/legs by the end but not be saddle sore.

My suspicion is that there is something about this lightweight aluminium bike with thin tyres which is making it a much harsher ride than my heavier steel bike with fat tyres and thus pounding my poor bum into submission.

The only way to really check is to get my Univega Rover 3.5 back in good condition and to do some comparison rides.

Cheers

LGC

Quite a while back there was thread drift in a topic which ended up discussing saddles, and pain in the bum bones after an hour's riding.

{michael42} was struggling to work out if a new saddle would cure the problem, and if so which saddle.

At the time I recommended a Madison G11 Gel comfort saddle which I have had long term on my steel framed mountain bike which is set up for road use with fat slicks.

I was intending to get this bike back on the road after replacing some bits, but this hasn't happened yet.

I also have the use of a Scott mountain bike with front suspension, road tyres, and the original Scott saddle.
This crippled me with bum bone pain within the hour when I took it out for a ride.

Last week I recognised the futility of waiting for me to fix up my bikes and swapped the Madison G11 onto the Scott.
The scientifically minded will recognise the start of a useful test - known good saddle on known bum breaker.

Replacing the saddle in exactly the same position on the seat post resulted in quite a lot of bum pain before the hour mark.
Which suggests that it wasn't just the saddle to blame for the original problem.

So then I started adjusting the saddle.
I moved it back along the rails and this seemed to make me both lower down and the saddle more nose up.

I raised the saddle - some improvement.
I lowered the nose of the saddle - more improvement as there was a bit more weight on my legs and a bit less weight on the saddle.
As I rode I gradually felt I was too low, and progressively raised the saddle.
Now I am cycling so my bum bones (the painful area) are more or less on the wide area of the saddle and I can shift fore and aft a bit to vary the pressure.

I am still getting some pain after the one hour mark but it is a lot less, and a short break seems to clear it for a while, as does a change in cadence now and then.
Still uncomfortable over bumps after 90 minutes, though.
This doesn't look too good if I am aiming to go out on CTC Sunday rides.

So what else to change?

I am riding on what I guess are hybrid tyres - about the width of road tyres but with knobbles on the sides.
My long term more comfortable bike has fat slicks designed to go on MTB rims for road use.
I think these probably give a much more forgiving ride.

So firstly I should get my old trusty steed back on the road to confirm that I can still ride for a couple of hours without undue pain.

Probably should do a bit of measuring as well to see what differences (if any) I can find between the setups.

I should also get the Dawes Galaxy back on the road as a far more appropriate steed for Sunday rides.

I don't think I am dedicated enough to put the old Scott saddle back on the Scott to see if I can reduce the pain by adjusting the saddle.

If I keep up the 90 minute rides, of course, I could acclimatise over a few weeks and the pain could just go away. I am not confident about this, though.

So the - what do they call them? - take aways from all this?

Changing the saddle can improve things but it looks as though the saddle isn't everything.

Subject to testing it could be that wider, softer tyres can reduce bum pain.

However if you try all this and fail there is still the possibility that your current frame just doesn't suit your body.

Still, cheaper to swap saddles and tyres than to replace the frame.

Oh, one final note.
I am currently using some Lidl/Aldi (can't remember which) longs with a synthetic pad in which is nothing like the synthetic chamois I am used to in more tradition cycling shorts.
They are brilliant at keeping legs warm in the chill breezes we have at the moment.
It is always possible that these are not providing as much protection to my nether regions as my old shorts.
Further testing when the weather is warmer and I've hardened up a bit.

Cheers

LGC

As a passing thought - people use head (or perhaps bar) mounted cameras to record both interesting stuff and as a record in case of an accident.

However the camera can be quite bulky and there is speculation over helmet mounted cameras reducing the effectiveness of helmets.

Finally, if I had smacked a cyclist off his bike my first reaction might be to rush over to him saying "You all right mate?" and quickly nick the camera and conveniently 'lose' it.

If I understand Google Glass correctly it can transmit data to the 'cloud' in roughly real time - presumably through a mobile phone.

So potentially it is less conspicuous that a standard camera and also has potentially less impact on other items if mounted on glasses.

It can potentially also store larger amounts of video instead of having to loop the last 'n' minutes.

So - should we all become 'Glassholes'?

Or is the combined feed from cyclists to Google far worse that the plethora of CCTV cameras we have at the moment?

Cheers

LGC

Thanks - I will Google them.

I have sent a query to Madison but they say it may take 2 weeks or more to respond.

I am really looking for personal recommendations because that is the way I selected the original saddle many years ago - there are loads of 'comfort' saddles on the market but not all may be supremely comfortable.

It is still a lottery because one size does not fit all.

Oh, should have made clear that I am looking for a synthetic saddle not leather, as I tend towards inspired neglect so I don't want to worry about the saddle getting wet if the bike is left outside for instance.

Cheers

LGC

I have a Madison G11 gel saddle which has been recommended in the past as
a supremely comfortable saddle.

IIRC this is the reason that I bought it back in the day.

It certainly seems to suit my bum.

I would like to buy another for a second bike; I know I could switch
saddles between rides but this does seem to be a bit of a pain compared to
having each bike set up permanently.

However, Madison do not seem to make it new at the moment - at least all I
can find with Google is a range of models including G10, 12, 16, 18, 19.
However no G11.

eBay seems to offer one every three to six months, but no luck at the
moment.

So does anyone know the nearest equivalent to the G11 in the Madison
range, or another saddle of equivalent comfort?

Cheers

LGC

Done.

I found the question on cost difficult - I took it to be the cost of the bike and any fitted accessories at the time of purchase.

I didn't include other bits that were added or replaced over a period of years as I assumed you were looking for the 'one off' level of financial commitment.

If you look at a bike fully loaded for a long trip, you may well find that the detachable bits (panniers, lights, cycle computer, bottles, tool kit, pump etc.) come to a significant amount, as does all the clothing and waterproofs. However these are not necessarily bike specific if you own more than one bike.

Cheers

LGC

O.K. - TdF is in Yorkshire.
La Vuelta has stages in France.
Where is the next Tour of Britain due to be held? Belgium? Portugal? Greece?

Geographically confused.

LGC

[XAP]Bob wrote:<snip>
I don't necessarily disagree that a high vis top is visible from further away (that is, after all their designed purpose) - but that on the road network the additional distance is not useful.

If I'm driving along a road then my stopping distance would be 300 feet under normal conditions at 70mph - I really need to have seen cyclists from somewhere approaching that distance on a high speed road. In an urban environment 20m (75 feet) is the marker. In order to hold a driving licence I am required to be able to read a car numberplate at that distance.

If I can READ a car numberplate, then I can identify a cyclist.

Even at 50mph my stopping distance is only just over double that that I should be able to read a number plate - cyclists are normally alot larger than the line width on a number plate.

I don't think that dark is BETTER than light (possible exception around the flowering of rape), but that the differences are not relevant to the road environment - and therefore I can't recommend specialist "visible" clothing.
<snip>

Beware long ramble!!

Been thinking about this argument that has been offered in slightly different forms several times.
Stating that you can read a vehicle licence plate at a set distance only establishes a minimum ability to see what you are currently looking at.

Another often stated argument by car drivers against speed cameras is that it is inherently unsafe to force them to keep looking at a speedometer in a 30 limit when they should be focussing all their attention on the road and surroundings. In this case, they are arguing not about ability to see a minimum distance but their ability to keep a clear mental picture of all activities and hazards around them when driving at 30 mph and suggesting that looking at a speedometer may be enough of a distraction to make them miss a hazard and thus have an accident.

I think this is a specious argument, however it does illustrate one important point.

It is not your ability to see a certain distance that is important, but your ability to see and asses all relevant hazards in your current driving environment.

If you are driving at 70 mph on a motorway then your focus is mainly in the middle to far distance - looking for hazards which are coming into your range. You also re-check hazards which are closer - vehicles which may brake and/or change lanes. So high viz jackets are identified at long range because you are approaching them at high speed. This is good. However you probably aren't checking out all the fields and markers beside the carriage way, noting all the sheep and cattle etc. because they are unlikely to suddenly rush out into the road. Junctions are few, clearly marked, and have (hopefully) long slip roads. So your general threat assessment is completely different from your threat assessment in an urban 30 mph limit.

Driving in an urban 30 mph limit your attention is very much on the near distance.
Watch all pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement, also pets which might head across the road.
Check under every car for feet which indicate short people about to step out from concealment.
Look ahead to every junction for cars etc. about to enter the carriageway and check if they have seen you.
Look for vehicles about to turn.
Look for parked cars about to pull out.
Look for parked cars about to open their doors.
Look for cyclists in the road.
Phwoooaarr - look at that <insert sex object of choice>.

Some might also look at passengers whilst discussing important issues, check their hair in the mirror, light a fag, fiddle with the radio, change tracks on the .mp3 player, poke the sat nav, pick their nose or do any of the other myriad things which can prove a distraction.

So the ability to SEE isn't the real issue.
It is the ability to take in all the surroundings, asses the threats and focus on them whilst ignoring the non-threats.
So you can read a number plate at 20M.
Now read EVERY number plate on EVERY car as it comes within the 20M range, plus note all the pedestrians and guess age, sex, hair colour, clothing colour, oh and read all the signs in all the windows of all the shops plus the adverts on the buses and the signs beside and on the road and all the stickers in/on the backs of all the cars and....
You just can't take all the detail in.
You have to prioritise and discard.
So your mind is trained to prioritise threats and discard non-threats.
SMIDSY?
So if you increase your visibility against your current background it is just possible you increase the chance of you being noted during this process and being prioritised instead of discarded.

Which could be a good thing.

Cheers

LGC

Just to note that the school crossing person wears a combination of yellow, red, and silver reflective on the ankle length flashers mac

So there is one occupation at least which goes over board for high viz in 30mph (or less) limits.

Mmmmmmmm..........shiny!

LGC

I think you should be able to factor your rides to encourage the beginners.
Helps bump up your numbers at the start but doesn't help you achieve really high numbers.

So a single 100 mile ride can be counted as E10 (10 * 10) or as 4 additions to an E25 (4 * 25) or two additions to an E50 or a single addition to an E100.

Long rides on touring holidays or events can bump up your E number in the lower reaches (IMHO harder to ride 100 miles in one go than to ride 5 miles each way on 10 days for a commute) but once you get to E20 or above then you have to buckle down and work for it.

Mainly, it seems unfair if you put in a couple of 100 mile rides and your E number stays very low.

Then again, it is only statistics.

Cheers

LGC

Gearoidmuar wrote:I'll quote you one case..

Longterm acquaintance of mine, bigtime cyclist. Always wore plain dark blue jersey. I certainly said it to him on five or six occasioans that he should wear something more visible.
He is now mildly braindamaged and can no longer cycle. It was the THIRD time in a year that he had been struck by a car.

One of the important aspects of making decisions is critical thinking. This includes being willing to consider you are wrong...

Although I am on the side of brightness (as opposed to the dark side), I feel obliged to point out that correlation does not imply causation.

If you could show that another brightly clad cyclist of similar ability and riding style had covered the same routes at approximately the same time and not been struck at all you might be on the way to some evidence of correlation.

When a subject becomes emotive and the science is inconclusive then all you can do is rely on your own opinions formed from your own (possibly flawed) perceptions.

As I have already said, I find that when driving a cyclist in a bright yellow top stands out in most circumstances and catches my eye at a greater distance than a cyclist in 'normal' clothing.

Please - don't try to tell me that if that is my conclusion there must be something wrong with my eyesight (tested every year, optician confirms very good corrected sight with higher than usual visual acuity) and/or my driving style because my personal observations do not fully conform to your strongly held beliefs.

I will continue wearing bright yellow when cycling because that seems logical to me.

Of course, if there is overwhelming scientific evidence which is not refuted for over ten years that wearing dark clothing is BETTER than wearing bright yellow then I might change my mind if I am still cycling.

Cheers

LGC

Edit:
P.S. I wore my new Aldi bright yellow cycling top for the first time last Friday - and I did notice a strong positive effect.
Then again, I was standing in the entrance to Tesco collecting for Diabetes UK.
A few people told me I deserved money just for standing there in such a bright top

gaz wrote:It may not have any original componenents but wheel size and brake type will narrow it down a little. 27" wheels and centrepulls will put it into a category marked pre 1988, 700C and cantilevers post 1988 (IIRC, give or take a year or two at most).

Threaded steerer or aheadset would be a further cut-off point, probably early 2000's but I don't know for sure.

Brake cable routing on the top tube has changed over time, including a period of internal cable routing.

Pictures may help the Dawes cognescenti.

Picture to follow in the next day or so when I get it out of the bike storage area and wash enough crap off to save some shame.

Centre pull brake, so pre-1988.

[I did see a picture of one with side pull brakes but I don't know if that is earlier or later.]

I can't be sure that the wheels are original and I doubt that it had a triple at the front and 7 (including granny) at the back when new.

Brake cable is along the top of the top tube.

Single set of bottle cage tappings.

Front mech clamped to the frame.

My feeling is that it is quite old.

Cheers

LGC

Apart from buying it some flowers, then suggesting a quiet meal somewhere discreet.....

I'm not sure that very much is original, and the frame has been repainted so there are no obvious distinguishing marks.

In fact there is nothing on it that says Dawes or Galaxy but the frame does look like a friend's Galaxy.

So how would you go about establishing the age?

Cheers

LGC

Very old thread, but I have the same issue.

Paraffin, gunk, citrus degreaser, whatever - the old oil and grease has to go somewhere after it is cleaned off.

So is there a safe disposal facility?

I know you can get rid of old engine oil down the tip, but what about waste gunk or paraffin?

Cheers

LGC