Cycling UK Forum

A couple of comments...

First, about the "correct quantity", it's a bit of a misleading thing saying people don't put on the "right amount". The "right amount" mentioned by the likes of Which is the amount required to multiply your safe exposure time by the quoted SPF, so if I would normally burn in x minutes then if I put the "right amount" of SPF 10 on then I am safe for 10x minutes. However, I do not need that same amount on for any useful protection, just protection for 10x minutes. if I put on enough to cover me, but not as thickly, then I'll have less time, but as long as I reapply in that time it's a non-issue. Having not timed how long it takes to burn in various sun conditions I just reapply thing layers reasonably often at a degree to which I know I'm unlikely to get burned.

Second, different people are more prone to burning than others. I am naturally pale and I burn relatively easily, so I use more sun cream and in higher factors than my wife, who tans naturally much better than i do. So what cream to use depends a lot on how easily one burns. In my case I usually go for 25+ and reapply fairly often (but even with 25 on I managed to get burned arms back in April..., didn't reapply enough!), but folk with darker complexions can get away with much less.

Pete.

SD60s are indeed no more: they have been "improved" (i.e., buggered up completely) into the SD65 with a far more covering upper, completely defeating the point of cycling in sandals to start with. Hey ho.

I don't wear them for "serious" MTB work with rocks being thrown up, but aside from that the injury potential is a bit like any other exposed part of the body. As long as the sole protrudes a little in front of the toes it's actually quite hard to kick things directly with your toes. For summer tours I just take SD60s and nothing else, saves wasting space with extra footwear.

My hack bike is a Brom, and without needing the cleats on the SD60s I just cycle in whatever I'm wearing, usually Tevas of some description.

Pete.

May be too late, but note that Markill produce a gas converter that is basically the same as the "Official" Primus one but costs half as much...

Of course, I only found that out some time after getting the expensive one! Hey ho. Anyhow, rarely use the spirit burner since getting the gas converter as the GC gives you all of the Trangia advantages of stability and windproofing and everything in one package with the fuel efficiency and much better control of gas cooking, plus you also lose the refueling faff.

HTH, pete.

Stella wrote:
The Outer Hebrides is exactly what I'm looking for in terms of natural beauty, amentities, climate (hopefully!) and size.

Well, if you're there at the back end of August you might see my wife and me on our recumbent tourers: do say hello!
The main problem, aside from getting there of course, is probably that in the words of a friend who's been there and who's wife spent some time on medical placements there, is that there's pretty much nothing to do if the weather's cack. Obviously that hasn't put us off, but do bear it in mind.

My biggest fear is getting stranded or lost between A and B in the middle of nowhere, but each isle or region is small enough to make it a non-issue.

There just aren't enough roads to get lost! it also means you're unlikely to be stranded, since all the roads are effectively "main", so you'll quickly be found if you have some mechanical disaster, and I would be surprised if not helped.

The main difficulty for me is the logistics of getting there in the first place! It looks like the Caledonian Sleeper to Glasgow (there aren't any options available for anywhere closer to the coast), the earliest of which I can get is the start of September, and then a train to Oban might be my best bet unless anyone else has another option? Then ferry to Barra hopscotching north up South Uist, Benbecula, North Uist, Harris and Lewis, ferry to Mallaig and train back to Glasgow. For a newbie, is it doable within a week?

The ferry to Mallaig goes out to Skye, so you'd have to cross Skye from Uig (where you'd get from Tarbert), so you'll have to figure an extra 50 miles in, or wangle a ride on a bus (probably not impossible). But even with the extra you're well under 200 miles, and you can cut short easily by not going much past Tarbert or catching a bus on Skye. That should be well within what's possible in a week, and the bail out option at Tarbert makes it almost certain.

(I've yet to ask my boss for the time off!) I would love to visit Skye too but it depends whether I can cram another day on top.

if you're going to go back to Mallaig I think you'll have to. The Stornoway ferry goes to Ullapool.

The visit.scotland website indicates that the Outer Hebrides routes are for road cycling, so I presume I won't miss anything by bringing my Trek road bike with slick tyres? It has no suspension, and the London roads are a pretty bumpy ride on it.

Well, that depends... we're planning to stick to the roads but there should be no shortage of tracks if you fancy that too. If by "road bike" you mean racer I'd put fatter tyres on for touring (say, minimum 28, max 38 mm) and you'll want some means of carrying luggage, preferably that isn't a rucksack. Mudguards are worth having too, unless you like being sprayed with dirty water any time the road is wet...

HTH, Pete.

Me on my HPVel Streetmachine GT, my wife Roos on her Nazca Fiero, Ben Loyal behind us

I've not voted as I'm ambivalent...

But Chris' opening post did address quite a few of the issues that would have had me as a "no", especially the "bare bikes" one at the end which would address the absurdity of buying a TT or track bike that had to have some cheap lights with it!

If we assume that it'd put £20 on the price then that would be a no: for a bottom or respectable hybrid someone was buying as a first bike to give it a try that would be > 10% and might put them off, but I suspect that £20 is a gross exaggeration, and again I think Chris' reasoning is fair, especially comparing what we see on the continent.

But one reason I won't give a yes is that with legislation the devil is in the detail. It's not that I don't trust our wonderful law making apparatus to come up with a well researched, sensibly implemented piece of policy that doesn't come back to bite us but... well, actually it is. I don't trust them to do that. So let's see what a proposed policy would be before we go along clamouring for something that's an own-goal and does put £20 on...

Pete.

p.s., btw Chris, I did buy a bike without a saddle, my 8 Freight coming (at my request) with no saddle and a seat-post that would take my B66!

What I suggest for buying panniers is take bike and rack to a good shop, wheel it in and try them on. You'll be able to check heel clearance and how easy they are to get on and off the bike.

I have at older set of "Univeral" Orks (not waterproof, mucho extra pockets) and build quality is good, but they're not as nice as the Ortleibs I use at the back. The fittings are certainly not as good as the Ortliebs (they're not bad, but Ortlieb are, IMHO, the best you'll get for quality and ease of use).

The Orks should be a good safe choice, though personally I'd take Ortliebs in preference. But if you want the extra room (the Orks are bigger) then the Orks take it... but also look at the big Carradice Super Cs. Karrimor are, sadly, not what they used to be (it is effectively a different company to the one that gave use Kalaharis etc.) so I'd not go there any more.

Pete.

Daniel B wrote:no I wasn't saying that at all, only that my bike has no mounts on the forks, which I thought were required for front panniers?

Lowrider racks come in various flavours, some assume braze-ons and if you've got braze-ons then those are the easiest to fit, but there are options (including for MTB suspension forks) that don't need them. But as noted above, I don't know whether a carbon fork would be happy with racks designed to for use without braze-ons.

But you really shouldn't need a full set of 4 panniers for a weekend in B&B. I use two pairs of panniers for a week's camping, and I'm not even trying too hard to be frugal.

Pete.

Sepulchre wrote:
Agreed on the map reading bar bag. Might get me on myself. That or GPS...again feel it's cheating, but for short trips might be useful.

The "cheating" argument has often been raised in mountaineering circles, but it's a really stupid argument. The idea is to have as good a time as possible according to your rules, not some luddite snob's. if you find navigation easier with a GPS, take a GPS.
But you need to realise that a GPS isn't really a substitute for a map, more typically something to be used in conjunction with a map. GPS doesn't give you a good overview of your options (even on dedicated mapping units, the overview you can get on a couple of inches of screen is not much of an overview). Knowing where you are to 10m accuracy isn't actually much use on its own, you need to know how to get to where you're going and a GPS can't make route planning choices for your personal needs.

Back to the general question - I definitely think less is more though, don't you? Never toured before (will do this weekend), but I'd rather a light load and a nice pace then heavy and slow pace. Depends if you like comfort at campsite or not. I prefer to eat grass and sleep.

Overall less is often more, but you can overdo it. You also need to assess the degree to which you are in it for the cycling, or the camping, or some combination of the two. If it's just cycling take a Visa card and a toothbrush, if it's camping take a trailer and lots of luxuries. I think for a lot of folk it'll be somewhere between the two
Our summer tour this year is planned for the Outer Hebs. We have less than 200 miles and a week to do it, so there's really no need to hurry, so we're taking a bigger tent than usual for a bit more luxury when we're camping. As often the case, horses for courses.

Pete.

And if a beginner gets some bottom-of-the line lights anyway (and has to pay for them), why would they bother finding out about alternative better ones for more money which might see them in better stead? Especially if they're getting the bike in summer to give commuting or whatever a go and don't know if they'll stick at it yet.

I have no problem with the existing lighting laws being enforced. Indeed, a programme of enforcement will have a much more useful effect on lighting law compliance than making people pay for something they can take off, not bother powering and might be a poor solution to their particular needs.

Pete.

Sepulchre wrote:

Daniel B wrote:No chance of panniers on the front, as the bike has carbon forks and no mounts.

Interesting this one. I have carbon forks on both back and front.

Are you saying that carbon forks are no good for touring?

More that they're not really good for clamping pannier racks too, I think. Not sure about that myself, but I'd certainly want to check before I added lowrider frames to carbon forks and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a no-no.

Have you thought about how you're going to read the map, might be an idea for a map cover in case of rain, or just somewhere to hang it from the bike. Easy to get to etc.

Another place where a Bar-Bag Is Your Friend. Many have built or removable in map-cases on the top so the map is always right where you want it, and protected from the rain.

Pete.

EMD_Nic wrote:Personally I do think that it should be compulsory to sell a helmet with a new bike. That's not to say you should have to wear it, that is personal choice, but I do think cycle stores should include into the price of a bike a basic to standard helmet.

Further to that I do also think that lights should be sold with new bikes as well. They are legally required after lighting up hours, and sorry but I do think it should be enforced. On my way home at one in the morning yesterday morning I nearly had a cyclist off his bike because he had no lights, no reflective gear and he was wearing dark clothing, he was lucky I saw him when I did (albiet very last minute!)

Sorry, but this is completely daft. I have 5 bikes, why would I want 5 sets of lights and 5 helmets? The money will have to come from somewhere, and ultimately it will be the person parting with it for the bike. Even if I wanted the lights/helmet, what if the shop doesn't stock something that suits my head-shape and style of riding.

That's before you get into other factors, like a lot of bikes are only ridden when there's light, and/or where there is no requirement for lighting (most off-road is done in daylight), or that cycling is no more dangerous for the most part than being a pedestrian, but insisting a helmet is sold with it makes it out to be a dangerous pastime where for some reason it is felt odd not to wear special head protection.

Sorry to be blunt, but it' a ridiculous idea.

Pete.

Daniel B wrote:2 pairs of cycling shorts
2 Jerseys
2 pairs of cycling socks

Just one of everything if it's a weekend. It shouldn't get too wet if you use your waterproofs, or if it's too warm for 'proofs then the dry stuff will get wet or dry out while you're wearing it.

Spare inner tubes X 6 per bike

6! Why 6? Two between the two bikes, unless you're planning a special tour of broken glass with knackered racing tyres... A puncture kit will take up any extra slack and take up much, much less space.

Tyre levers, including metal ones

I only use [Park Tools] plastic ones, 'cause I know that's all I need to get any of my tyres on/off. Try the levers in advance to be sure they work.

Decent multitools

Why plural?

Mini pump

Unless your bike(s) won't take a frame pump, take a frame pump. Bigger, and thus shift more air. Minimal extra weight.

Chain pin extractor

SRAM PowerLinks are your friends.

Beard trimmer
Shaving gel
Razor
Brush
Deodorant
Shampoo

My word! Unless you're planning on fine dining while you're out this is a bit excessive. Basic toiletries will be found in the B&Bs at any rate. You can perhaps forego trimming your beard for a couple of days without the Style Police getting you!
My personal feeling about deodorant is it smells considerably worse when mixed with a bit of honest sweat than the sweat alone.

Pair of normal shoes
Trousers, 1 or 2 pairs
2 pairs of normal socks
2 pairs of boxer shorts
T-Shirts X 2
Long sleeve top X 1
Zippy/Fleece
Jacket of some kind?

Excessive, I would say. Shoes are heavy and bulky, sandals or Crocs are light and less so, and perfectly adequate in summer. No need for socks either. You'll be away for 3 days and using cycling gear most of the time, why do you need any more than a single pair of trousers and a single top (take a long sleeve, roll the sleeves up if it's more T weather...) You'll have a jacket of some kind already, your cycling jacket, so why take another? Take good quality light travel clothing and it won't suffer in transit, and won't be at all disagreeable if worn for more than a day.

What do you reckon - have I missed anything, is it too much, and will it fit in a normal pair of panniers - what capacity would you recommend?

Way, way more than you need. I'd read the Touring Light article in the current Cycle. I personally don't go as far as that suggests in cutting weight, but it's a good indicator of possibilities. All you need will fit in a pair of normal panniers, but i'm not sure about that lot!

Thinking of Altura dryline panniers, either 34 or 56, and probably a rack bag as well.

Rack bags are good if you're not using panniers as they draft by the rider, but used in combination they mean you can't lash oversize stuff to the rack, and they're a pain (relatively) to take on and off. A bar bag puts things in a more convenient place for immediate access, is easier to take on and off and helps take some of the load off the back.
IME Altura make nice panniers, but I think Ortliebs are better as a place to put cargo. They're rack fixings are easier to use than anyone else's and the quality is really really good rather than just really good.

HTH, Pete.

Well, lifejackets...
Anyone ever notice how canal tow-paths have become popular cycle routes?

Now, if you get it Wrong while cycling along one and land in the canal, which will do you more good, a crash helmet or a life jacket?

You can tell where this is going, I suspect, but I'd suggest you'll get by with neither...

Pete.

Bananaman, you're missing the point. Nobody is saying cyclists are immune to problems because other folk have them... but spin the perspective around. Pedestrians do not use helmets, even though they suffer from head injuries at least as much as cyclists. Pedestrians do not use helmets, even though sailors wear life jackets, and so on. Why don't they wear them, when they suffer so many head injuries? because the risk is low enough, and the faff is great enough, that it just isn't worth it. Exactly the same appleis to (non sportive, road) cycling.

There is no need to be more worried about head injuries on a bike than as a pedestrian. That is not to say nobody is ever injured. How much do you worry about head injury a s a pedestrian? Do you wear a helmet? given the risks are on the same order, the same thinking is in order on a bike. The reason it typically isn't, I would suggest, is not because cycling is more dangerous, but because it is incorrectly perceived to be more dangerous.

If you're worried about brain injury in relatively low risk environments then wear your helmet on the stairs. If you don't think that's worth it, then why not, and why is it worth it on the bike despite a similar risk level?

Pete.