Cycling UK Forum

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 4:56pm I've teleported Brucey's post from the 'lubrication' thread to here too as I think it's a great tip. I've a bunch of old KMC QLs I'm going to try that with.

It's a terrible idea.
The pin is bonded into the side plate, you'll wreck the integrity of the link by twisting the pin around. KMC and SRAM 8/9sp quick links can be reused a few times then once they start feeling slack you just replace.

A new link costs a couple of pounds, why would you try and save that money by fiddling around with the one thing that holds the chain together and needs to be 100%?!

The risk of a quick link failing (which it's very likely to do if you start twisting pins around ) is really not worth the "ooh, I saved myself a whole £2..."

There's saving money and then there's wasting a lot of time and effort "modifying" a quick link to allegedly extend its life by a couple of chain splits.

malcolmcv wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 2:12pm Yes, the chain is fitted correctly.
Interestingly they used a black SRAM powerlink/lock to connect the (grey/silver) chain - aesthetics!, rather than whatever Shimano supplied with it. I see there is another recent thread about these.

My guess is that the chain the shop has is the sort that comes on a massive roll and just gets trimmed to length rather than individual chains in a packet - they'd come with their own quicklink. Lots of workshops operate like that, they just buy a huge roll of chain (and often the same with cables too, you can buy a box containing 10m of outer cable).



So the shop has cut the correct length of 10sp chain and then grabbed a connector from the large bag of quicklinks. Hence the mismatch.

It'll work OK - might not be "ideal" but it's not the end of the world.

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 8:51am I don't think cagers use hearing...

It's really not helpful to the general debate to be using terminology like "cagers" or "motons".

It's similar (but the other way round) if cyclists are referred to as Lycra Louts for example. Derogatory turns of phrase don't help the discussion.

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 8:45am The main reason you see "better" flow at lower speeds is that they're more likely to be enforced by average speed cameras, and therefore more likely to be limited by the two second gaps, rather than by human failures in braking.

No, the reason you see better flow is that there's far less variation in speed, less need to do harsh braking or acceleration and proportionally more reaction time.

The 2 second gap thing is a bit of a red herring - cars can be much closer together at slower speeds (because stopping distances are much less) but because they're doing 20mph, the gap is still 2 seconds.
A 2sec gap at 70mph is 62m / 205ft
At 20mph it's 18m / 58ft

More cars per unit space on the road, more capacity, better flow.

Mtb tourer wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 9:23pm Change to tubeless, it's an eye opener when it's time to renew tyres. Bits of thorns and blobs of sealant on the inside of the tyre. A tube and big tyre boot is carried just incase tyre is split.

The OP has 26" wheels, not sure how common tubeless tyres in that size are...
Plus I doubt the 26" rims are tubeless ready. I know you can convert them with suitable amounts of tape but it's really starting to get into the "more trouble than it's worth" category for that.

Otherwise I'd agree, definitely worth doing on a commuter bike with suitably wide tyres and tubeless ready wheels.

It's designed / optimised for smoother front shifting and mud-shedding on 10sp Dyna-Sys MTB components. It'll work OK on other 10sp, it's just not ideal, there are more appropriate chains for the job on road bikes.

That said, if your chain needed replacing and it was the only 10sp one the shop had in, it's better than nothing and it's certainly less incompatible than an 8sp chain or a 12sp one for example.

AllRides wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 5:00pm Any suggestions on the ‘easy to get at’? I’d love to just leave it by the door out the front (like the car) but that sounds like a theft magnet!

I’m pretty good at the cost/benefit elements but the getting started / putting away and changing clothes bit is far worse than I had expected!

Can you keep the bike indoors? At its most basic, it's a case of leaning it against a wall (maybe with some cardboard to stop scratches from the bars) but you can get a range of cheap stands to park the bike more out of the way, even hold it up on its back wheel. That way, it's right there ready to go. Keep a set of lights on it so there's no rummaging around for those.

Clothing - ride in normal clothes. Maybe a pair of cheap waterproof overtrousers if it's a bit damp or there's wet roads, they can be had for a tenner from most cheap outdoors shops like Go Outdoors, Millets, Blacks etc. Utility cycling doesn't need special kit, lycra, or performance gear. For short rides, you can even just use normal trainers on SPD pedals - gets uncomfy after a while but for a short trip into town you don't need to clip in.

Dupont wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 8:17am The initial enquiries into a frame respray are not as expensive as I initially thought either.

For just a quick touch up / refresh of a small blemish, the auto-repair suggestion is spot on.

For even smaller amounts (like a 5 or 10ml can), try model / hobby / craft shops, they may well have something "close enough" for tiny touch up of small scratches. The kind of shops that sell model aircraft, trains, Airfix kits etc, the tiny cans of paint they have.

If you're considering a whole bike refresh, lots of new parts, complete strip and rebuild etc then a full respray from the likes of Argos Racing Cycles is well worth it. They'll also be able to do any frame repairs that may be required. They can also colour match so they'll scan the frame and create that colour.

No association with them but I've had a couple of frames resprayed by them and one bit of frame repair + respray. As the advert would have to say: Other resprayers are available!

https://argoscycles.com/

axel_knutt wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 5:47pm In which case I wouldn't give much credence to tests done on samples of just one of each chain type.

The guy is a renowned independent, known throughout the industry. GCN did an interview with him a while ago and quite a detailed video into his operation. If you read through his site in full, there's more info on the test rig, the types of testing and so on plus work he's done with CeramicSpeed.

Much the same as DC Rainmaker is a renowned independent expert on GPS units - rather than a shouty YouTuber, he is actually someone who does detailed measurable testing. Peak Torque is another one worth looking up, he does a lot of drivetrain efficiency stuff and engages with the manufacturers about their claims.

I was pointing out that it was a decent baseline of comparison - obviously it's not real world but as a guide to both best lubricants and chain wear, it's better than myth, marketing, supposition and guesswork.

Chris Jeggo wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 2:31pm Its measurements are all of chain longevity, and do not address the point I was making, that smaller sprockets are less efficient than larger ones, all else being equal. In other words, what is the difference in efficiency between a 33x11 gear and a 54x18 gear when using the same chain, sprockets that are identical in every respect apart from tooth count, and the same chain alignment or misalignment?

I get that it's a slightly different point about efficiency and durability rather than measuring specific cog size but the points I made - about 11 / 12 speed chains being more durable that 8 or 9sp - is because they are designed to wrap around smaller cogs, to work across thinner sprockets; it's a whole ecosystem to consider. There may well be lower efficiency in using a 10T cog than a 12T or 14T, the point is that the difference is so slight (when considered alongside other real world factors like aerodynamics) that it's just not a consideration, at least not on a modern groupset.

Cav doesn't arrive at the finish line and go "sorry, not gonna put it into the 10T, that's a bit inefficient..."
And I'd suggest that for a real world application of an amateur rider, it's unnoticeable.

Brucey wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 5:15pm b) There seems to be something screwy going on with the gear cable to your rear mech. Not only is the final piece of housing much longer than it needs to be, but also there appears to be an entirely superfluous piece of cable housing beneath the RH chainstay.

I think it's that weird plastic "sleeving" stuff supposedly to stop frame / cable rub. You're right though, it looks a lot like a sort of "test" build, not quite finished. No cable end cap on the front brake cable, the front wheel might be in the wrong way round (or the QR skewer has been put in from the wrong side). The stem looks a bit of an afterthought too - from a "purity" point of view I'd expect silver to match the seatpost and that stem and bar angle is all kinds of wrong!

It's like it's been put together but not "finished".

Does look in decent condition though, the paintwork is still smart, bar tape is clean, no obvious signs of it being knocked around in storage etc.

Chris Jeggo wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 12:57pm

rareposter wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 12:33pm
That's info from 20 years ago though.

Modern groupsets and especially modern 11 & 12sp chains are way more efficient, better engineered, better materials than anything from that era that the authors were talking about.

......

Reference to measurements, please. (I do not routinely scan the literature these days.)

https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chaintesting/

Lab condition testing - obviously real world may vary!
But the difference is pretty stark in places. Average of all 12sp chains to reach 0.5% wear is 3000km. Shimano 8 and 9sp chains wear to 0.5% in 1000 and 1500km respectively.

(scroll down for the graphs, there's some pretty dense and technical text before that if you want to read testing parameters, hypotheses etc.)

Obviously it's just a benchmark under lab conditions. It's perfectly possible in the real world to have someone who's ridden a 12sp drivetrain through rain and mud, lubed it with crude oil and never cleaned it vs someone on a meticulously cleaned and maintained 8sp drivetrain which is only ever ridden in dry conditions in which case yes, the efficiency results would be very different!

Edit: at the risk of opening another can of worms, the electronic shifting that is now fairly routine on 12sp drivetrains is more efficient too; there's never any mis-shifting, cables out of alignment, delayed shifting etc so - rather counter-intuitively - the drivetrains last longer.

Chris Jeggo wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 12:10pm I am certainly against using the full set of gears on my bikes. That is for a reason which no-one has mentioned so far - engineering. In 'Bicycling Science' (3rd ed, MIT Press, 2004) David Gordon Wilson states, "Kyle and Berto (2001) found unusually low efficiencies with twelve-tooth sprockets on derailleurs (meaning, presumably, that smaller sprockets would have even lower efficiencies)". Frank Berto, in 'The Dancing Chain' (2nd ed, Van Der Plas Publications, 2005) states, "The size of the small sprocket was very significant. Sprockets with at least 15 teeth gave a measurable efficiency gain".

That's info from 20 years ago though.

Modern groupsets and especially modern 11 & 12sp chains are way more efficient, better engineered, better materials than anything from that era that the authors were talking about.

It's a non-issue when considered alongside all the other factors like aerodynamics, the lube used, general condition of the drivetrain...
Much like how people continually go on about cross-chaining and efficiency. Maybe a consideration on an old 3x9, not an issue at all on a modern 2x11 / 2x12 / any 1x.

The reason that smaller cogs are used is for weight, actually fitting the cassette onto the wheel and to obtain the necessary gear ratios without having to resort to a 90T chainring. Also, shifting and smaller steps in gear ratio with smaller cogs.

Related to the cycle industry and trade - this recent video from GCN looking at the problems of counterfeiting, how to spot fakes, how not to buy them in the first place and what the industry is having to do to combat the problem.

https://youtu.be/qhGaci44z-4?si=L8_RXaQSyqR0LnoN

30 minutes long, it's almost a documentary and some of it is pretty sobering stuff when it includes the problems of slave labour, human trafficking and links to crime.

djnotts wrote: ↑15 Feb 2025, 9:48am Fewer gears the better IMO. Simpler bikes the better.

Very much this!

It was getting silly with MTB in particular; triple + 10sp (and I had such a bike for many years).
My newer MTB with a 1x and 12sp out back gives (to within a few %) the same range of gears (I'm missing a bit off the top end but I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I actually needed 44:11 (or 12/13/14) on a mountain bike) and I get the benefits of less weight, less complexity, less to go wrong, less to think about when changing up or down and more mud and tyre clearance.

No overlap of ratios and the larger gap between gears is irrelevant off road.

With many bikes, especially utility bikes, stuff at the lower end of the spectrum, definitely kids bikes, there's a strong argument for 1x and maybe up to 9 or 10 gears out back. Most people barely know how many gears they have anyway!

fastpedaller wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 7:07pm If you send some photos there are people here who may well be able to identify the fault.!

I suspect the fault (if there is one at all) is something only a very good bike shop with the appropriate alignment tools and gauges could ever identify.

There is a significant other fault and that's an owner who'd willingly ride a bike with a punctured front wheel for nearly 6hrs...

pwa wrote: ↑14 Feb 2025, 6:50pm I doubt I have ever said it, but when someone says they never use their granny gear I think to myself, "There's someone who lives in a place with insufficient hills". Sad folk, forced to live in flat places. Within ten miles of my home I could find a stretch of road just right for every one of the gear options on my 3x9 tourer set-up.

Rather ironically, the bike I have had by far the longest (over 20 years) is my singlespeed road bike and that's in spite of living on the edge of some very significant hills (Trough of Bowland and now, the Peak District). And yet it's been ridden as a winter training bike, commuter, audax bike (flatter routes!), events like the Dunwich Dynamo, even a few circuit races....and it still sees regular use out onto flatter terrain like the Cheshire Lanes.

Admittedly it's been rebuilt several times, very little on it is original but it's still only got one gear. With a bit of hard work it'll do up to 10% or so gradients but it's certainly not the sort of thing I'd take into the actual hills.

It would never be the only bike I owned but it's surprising what it will do with the right mindset and riding style.