Cycling UK Forum

jimlews wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 5:39pm You could treat your HB bag with a silicon spray and treat the seams with silicon goo.

As noted above, seams tend to be the problem. Tent fly seams, the usual beneficiary of said silicone goop, are practically always flat seams. Luggage seams rarely are, and that makes them much harder to apply such a treatment effectively (which, in turn, is why practically nobody bothers).
The point of a silicone spray on the outer would be much like the beading coat on waterproofs. to stop water wetting out the face fabric. And that's a useful thing in itself because you end up carrying less water around with you, but isn't the same thing as waterproofing. Once enough has soaked in the surface tension keeping water out will be broken and, silicone spray or not, it'll leak.

jimlews wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 5:39pm But
Cotton Duck is the best material for cycle bags.

For some values of "best"...
I think it's good (my Brompton bag is a Carradice cotton duck number), but "best" normally boils down to context. Cotton duck is pretty heavy stuff and harder to clean than coated synthetics, for example.

jimlews wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 5:39pm Ortlieb ?
They are certainly waterproof, but I hear mutterins about internal condensation.
And then there is that £rice !

I've been using Orts for over 20 years and I've never had an obvious problem with internal condensation, and in fact this is the first time I can recall anyone raising it as an issue. You can get condensation on pretty much any surface if the air around it is moist enough and the temperature falls to its dew point, but I really don't see that as a problem in panniers.

Price?
Carradice Super-C 5 litre handlebar bag is £89.95 at their web site, Ortlieb Ultimate 5 litre bar bag is £72 at theirs.
Carradice Super-C 28 litre universal panniers, £109.95, Ortlieb Sport Packer 30 litre, £145
Carradice Super-C 54 litre rear panniers, £149.95, Ortlieb 40 litre Back Roller (widely available at 140), £150 (widely avaialble at ~ 130)

So bar bags a bit less, per volume panniers a bit more, but not stupidly more than Carradice.
And I prefer Orts over Carradice for panniers mainly because I think the fittings are better more than anything particularly about the material. Carradice are likely better for those who like separate pockets built in, and so on, but for something that's going to last well over a decade in regular use the price on either is reasonable.

Pete.

AllRides wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 6:24pm

Nearholmer wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 5:49pm PS: trousers. A lot depends on a lot of things, but I’ve gradually defaulted to wearing trousers that are good for utility cycling as my standard items. They happen to be ones sold as “walking trousers”, but they’ve got the key ingredients: look ok-enough as ordinary casual trousers, ditto comfort, fabric is some very slightly stretchy stuff that is slightly water resistant, and dries quickly if it gets a bit damp, zipped pockets. Ideal for walking the dog too, of course.

My philosophy with clothes since I’ve no longer worked where I needed to look fairly smart is to buy things that work for both ordinary use and for utility cycling, that way I’m not changing clothes to ride a bike, I'm already wearing them. These days, you can actually find clothes that go a fair way up the “smart” scale, but which work fine on a bike, although the smarter things tend to get a bit pricey.

Thanks! That’s really interesting - any suggested brands?

Rohan are my usual tailor of choice for the above, they have various in stretchy, quick drying, comfortable and hard wearing fabrics.
They're not cheap but they last very well (as in potentially decades) and if you wait for the sales (several per year) you can usually get a decent discount.

We got rid of our car a while ago and I don't like driving our big van in town, but my default has always been my bike because I like cycling and bar exceptional trips on deserted, curvy roads through the countryside don't really like driving. So unless you actually like driving remember to tell yourself the reason to get the bike out is because riding is worth it just for itself, and driving is just a means to an end.

Pete.

steve.y.griffith wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 11:51am I have a very nice Cannondale bar bag but sadly not waterproof . Not sure of material similar to rucksack fabric any suggestions for which waterproofed to use ?IMG_0851.jpeg

Rather nice attachment system pity not made anymore

Waterproof fabrics are easy enough, you take a fabric and layer on an impermeable coating, job done. The fabric of your bag is quite possibly waterproof.

Waterproof seams, on the other hand, are hard because of all the needle holes through your nice waterproof fabric. You can cover them in a tape to seal them, as per waterproof coats, but this is harder with luggage which tends to use chunkier fabrics and the usage tends to damage seam taping, so things leak, so manufacturers tend not to bother taping luggage (it's not laziness on their part IMHO, just recognition of misguided effort).

And that's your problem here, I suspect. Either use a liner on a wet day for stuff that needs to stay dry or get something actually designed from the ground up to be waterproof.

Ortlieb and similar use welded seams so avoid leaky thread-holes, Cotton Duck swells when wet to fill voids (in the weave as well as stitching holes). The latter isn't fully/formally waterproof, but it is effectively weatherproof.

Pete.

Katie Archibald wrote a column for The Comic a few years back on a mashing-heavy approach to gear usage, https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comm ... alk-399493, and when I got my first derailleur geared bike I used very much the same principle.
Coaching at a JCC I see quite a few similar approaches, it takes quite a bit of sustained effort to change the idea that bigger is always better for a gear to be in (I was well into my twenties before I really got it into my head that wasn't really how it worked).

These days I use gears a lot, keeping changing to keep my cadence at my happy rate (~80), so with plenty of hills round here I use the whole range a lot.

Pete.

TrevA wrote: ↑12 Feb 2025, 9:46pm

irc wrote: ↑8 Feb 2025, 1:24pm

Ron wrote: ↑8 Feb 2025, 11:18am
I have an interest in the number of people cycling!
The more the merrier, cyclist need a stronger voice to fight for decent cycling infrastructure to improve cyclist safety and make cyling a more convenient and attractive transport option for all.

Not sure facilities are the issue. In my town people travel a mile and a half from the furthest areas to the town centre. Easy cycling. There are good off road paths. A seperated cycle lane on a main road. Plenty low traffic side streets.

People choose to use mostly cars. Thereafter walking and bus/train. Cycling? Not so much.

Similar in my town. 3 miles from one end to the other, mostly flat, busyish main road but plenty of quiet side roads with through routes for cycling. People complain that the main car park is always full, spend time cruising around looking for a space, whilst the nearby covered cycle racks stand empty.

Much of this is habit.
Our culture is incredibly car-centric to the point where people select cars as a default mode irrespective of the job at hand because they're used to doing that. Thinking is not involved.
In such a situation if you ask someone why they don't ride it's entirely typical to reach for rationalisations of their existing behaviour rather than thinking about if alternatives are possible and whether they may be advantageous.

"The school run" by car is a terrific example of this, something that pretty much everybody involved in dislikes, that there is vastly less need for than is actually done, and where alternatives are typically available to those who bother looking for them. 45% of trips to primary school are by car...

Pete.

On Tubeless, see https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/i- ... -tubeless/ for a well informed piece on how they're not the answer for everyone.

Pete.

Paulie73 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2025, 9:09am Hi all I currently have road tyres on my mtb which are continental gatorskins and was quite expensive! Problem I’m having is I’m still getting punctures despite these are supposed to be puncture resistant! Any recommendations appreciated as I’m thinking of replacing them something else maybe Schwalbe marathon plus ???

Puncture resistance is a spectrum rather than on or off, and will also vary according to the pressure you run at, and despite active attempts to make them better at resisting punctures Gatorskins are at the relatively light end of bombproofing so you can't expect miracles.

Even Marathon Plusses have been known to get punctures so nothing* is completely proof, though personally I find Marathons (without the Plus) good enough, with something like 1 a year across several bikes running them. But Marathons (even the relatively whizzy ones) won't roll as well as Gatorskins on decent tarmac... you choose, you lose.

Pete.

* there are non-pneumatic tyres which won't puncture. I've never tried them but from every account I've ever read their lack of popularity appears to be well deserved

Up on eBay at the moment at https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/335842442737

Where it says "off road" this is what SQLab think, and it was sold by off-road specialist Ghyllside Cycles of Ambleside for a dedicated off-road tourer.

See https://www.bikeradar.com/reviews/compo ... dle-review and
https://nsmb.com/articles/sqlab-610-erg ... ve-saddle/ for glowing reviews.

This is a lightly used SQlab Ergolux saddle, ridden just long enough for the owner to decide it wasn't quite right for them. The design is aimed at "MTB Tour & Travel" and SQlab claim it is "E-bike ready", though I'm not sure what would make a saddle E-bike unready!

It features an active rocking mechanism with elastomer inserts that sit between the rails and the seat to damp the movement, 3 are provided and selected according to rider weight. Having been used and thus clamped to a seatpost the rails have minor marking from that, but otherwise it is just about good as new. Width on this particular one is 16 cm. It cost £130 as supplied.

Pete.

(Edited to update link after relisting)

cycle tramp wrote: ↑12 Feb 2025, 8:09pm
There's some sort of myth about cycling which is flat handlebars=more comfortable, dropped handlebars=less comfortable....
...and I don't think that's true...

Given the number of people riding for long periods on drops and happy with it, it's pretty much certainly not true.

What I would suggest is that drop bars may well require a bit of getting used to and adaptation, but anyone who's been riding them for any sort of time will have that sorted and then it's down to preference on particular ride stance.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑12 Feb 2025, 8:09pm For some reason, most flat handlebars are now considerably wider than they use to be which means your wrists, and perhaps elbows are taken out of their natural angles...this is made worse by dropping the handlebars below the height of the saddle..

I suspect the "reason" may be fashion, driven by downhill/enduro type MTBs where I imagine it's pretty relevant but for those of use who haven't had our fear glands surgically removed it's a bit of a moot point (and indeed makes riding singletrack a bit harder if the trees encroach close enough).
I saw a post by Chris Boardman a while back trying out one of his brand's new MTBs, he grabbed the bars where he wanted, marked them there and sawed off the excess as he found them ridiculously long.

Angle wise, various degrees of sweep are available to account for this.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑12 Feb 2025, 8:09pm Right now, if dropped handlebars work for you, I'd just exchange the stem for something with a bit more rise...

Or at least identify what it is that makes you want to try something different.

Pete.

chocjohn9 wrote: ↑12 Feb 2025, 8:29am I'm on the tall side and have always riden bikes with drop handlebars. But for a bit of a change, I fancy a flat bar touring bike.

Is there a rule of thumb for the geo I should be looking at?

Rule of thumb is, I'd say, try everything you can and see how it feels, including alternative setups of drops. Different folks like different things, and those preferences change over time too (a lifelong drop-riding pal recently converted his tourer to butterfly bars, so far so good I think, I gave up drops after a few years riding recumbent, then getting on drop bar machines again and finding I just didn't really get on with them any more whatever the reach, raise etc. was).

"Flat bars" covers quite a range, so there are varying degrees of sweep and/or rise with or without bar-ends (be those at the actual ends or inboard, straight, curved, ergo-shaped etc.).

Pete.

Aye, a few years ago my missus and I had no particular interest in off-road at all, mainly limited to the odd hack to a distant bothy or Munro. Now she races 'Cross and off-road touring is quite the thing for us. My road tourer is still my Weapon Of Choice for road trips after > 20 years, but it doesn't really cut it for trips where most of it is off tarmac.

But there is one thing that makes a "forever" bike reasonable as a prospect, which is a good bike lasts for decades and once we're into retirement age we get to the point where our bikes might well outlast us...

Pete.

PH wrote: ↑11 Feb 2025, 10:38am
If you don't mind the aesthetics of a dangly chain tensioner... So although not ideal, I don't think they're the deal breaker some think they are.

Indeed. Anything with rear suspension that doesn't have a unified rear triangle will need one, so it's entirely typical for e.g. Rohloff-ed recumbent tourers to use a tensioner.

Pete.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑11 Feb 2025, 9:53am
It has occurred to me that maybe a specialist could take one of the bikes I have, and alter it to accept a Rohloff …… I wonder how much that would actually cost? How would it compare with what I’m likely to spend grinding exposed gearing to oily dust?

Drop Ben "Kinetics" Cooper a line and ask...
(he builds frames, modifies frames, and builds a lot of Rohloff conversions)

Pete.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑11 Feb 2025, 9:28am Shimano ones don’t seem to have the reputation for being “bombproof” that the Rohloff does; I don’t think I’ve ever seen one applied to a bike that is intended to be given a hard life off-road.

The Brompton G Line has an Alfine 8 as standard, and the roughtier-toughtier Kinetics MTBrompton typically comes with an Alfine 11, but that is a bit niche (and the MTBrom has a Rohloff option too).

Pete.

AndyB1 wrote: ↑11 Feb 2025, 9:18am To keep the price down, Rohloff hubs can sometimes be found secondhand.

What about Shimano IHGs? Much cheaper. They have less gear range than Rohloff but could a 2 speed crankset be added to give a ‘road’ range and ‘off road’ spread of gears? No rear mech, and Front mechs seem to be more robust.

I have an Alfine 11 on my Moulton, and I like it a lot, though with the caveat that I've had it less than a year. IIRC someone used one to set a round-the-world record when it first came out a few years back (a little after Mark Beaumont had rekindled interest in the record, setting his first on a Rohloff-equipped bike) so they're certainly up to "proper" journeys, though I've heard various reports that one shouldn't expect the same levels of bombproofing as you get with a Rohloff.

If you address the smaller range with a front derailleur you'd need to use a chain tensioner, and while that's certainly not the end of the world it adds an extra exposed moving part and means you can't go down the belt route. You could get round that with a Schlumpf mountain/speed drive, but since the idea of using the Alfine was to save money that will rather blow that idea out of the water...

In summary, a nice box of cogs and good value for money, but perhaps in a "forever" bike a splurge is justified.

Pete.