Cycling UK Forum

Sweep wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 10:22pm
ah such is "progress".
I well remember (didn't seem too too long ago) thinking of buying a Thorn Rohloff bike when they weren't much over a grand.
These days I'll happily stick to rear mech bikes anyway. Even if "wrecked" (and happens rarely) pretty easy to sort as long as the frame/hanger isn't bent.
These days I favour simplicity in bikes and stuff I can sort myself.
Boffins, german or otherwise, not needed.

Before about 18 months ago I'd have been inclined to agree, but then riding my MTB through a nondescript patch of woodland got a small twig caught wrong which trashed the whole lot, the hanger was very substantially bent and the mount on the mech was a good 20 degrees+ out of true on top of the hanger bend. Not field repairable, had to walk out (not too far, thankfully)
Last summer my wife was off for a day ride on her MTB, she took it out of the bus and lent it up against a wall while she got her bags out, but being in a hurry hadn't taken quite as much care leaning it. It fell over, drive side down, and while that one was bendable back enough to survive the day the mech needed replacing (and unlike my old 9 speed this was a newish 12 and cost Real Money™) to get the gears working properly again.

So two trashed mechs for two riders in the space of a few months not involving any real degree of derring-do

But given all the years we've been riding that's still pretty good on average... but spend a day in mud and the changes get progressively worse the whole time (muddy 'cross races riders change bikes every lap to decrease the chances of a gear fiasco, and it's hardly unusual to see a pro rider chugging around on foot with a mech hanging off in a decidedly not-right fashion) because there's nothing stopping all the bits filling up with crunge, not good on a "go anywhere" bike to my mind.

Simplicity works at different levels. While the internals of a Rohloff are not "simple", externally there's far less to it, and thus far less to catch nastiness (be that traumatic or chronic) than a derailleur where all the moving parts are exposed to anything one is riding through, so in practice there's far more chance of things going The Way of the Pear with a "simple" derailleur.

Pete.

You can get an easier-release ATAC cleat now. They're still very positive until you twist to the release angle, but it's 10 degrees rather than 13 (or 17 if you use the them the other way round).

Having tried them I'll be sticking with them, easier out and no accidental disengagements.

Pete.

AndyB1 wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 2:02pm Hi Pete,
The OP is a year old now, but I agree a Rohloff geared bike with discs and mudguards and racks is nearer £4k today. The benefit, however, are lower running costs and a better resell value….and clean fingers….so that will eventually claw back some £.

I see the benefit primarily as not having to faff with/worry about derailleurs! I'm going for a belt too, more money in return for reliability.

Pete.

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 1:55pm
I hear what you're saying but they could at least get the length right between them. Additionally they could specify a narrow, wide and standard fitting. That would enable you to have a fighting chance of getting a pair that fits. Currently it's a bit of a lottery.

A formal standard of what you're actually measuring, as opposed to the length measured in barleycorns and a bit added on according to the taste of the cobbler, would be good, but beyond that... wide where? Feet are complex 3d shapes, not "foot shaped but relatively wide" and so on. For example, I have "wide feet" according to an experienced boot fitter, I have a pair of Spesh 2FO Roosts which are actually wide enough for me in the forefoot but are actually much wider than ideal at the back. I have some 5.10 Trailcross which are perfect at the back but a smidge too narrow at the front.
I get on very well with Scarpa for the most part, people with visibly narrower feet than me I know hate them as... too narrow: my feet are effectively very narrow at the sole level in the middle because my arches are quite pronounced so I don't need width there, I only really need it at the forefoot. And so on

Pete.

irc wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 1:10pm
Cycling has a hard sell considering weather, security, perceived danger. I know the risk can be drastically minimised by various methods. Most regular cyclists I know have crash stories to tell though. Even without the car option most people seem to prefer bus/subway, walk, taxi.

Perceived danger. So take away the risky-seeming environment and people are enabled to do it. Similarly security. Yes, Glasgow has bad weather... but so does Amsterdam.

There is nothing magic about Dutch turf or Dutch people. It's about planning for people rather than cars leading to a relatively benign environment. The turnaround of Paris from very car-centric to increasingly people-centric shows this can be done.

Pete.

irc wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 12:05pm
You need to be careful with sticks. Glasgow city centre is suffering a bit because sticks for drivers mean they go to out of town retail parks instead.

In Dundee they've been doing that without any sticks particularly required. Where planning and culture have mainly been about private motor traffic throughput and people driving everywhere then the presence of somewhere it's easy to drive to is quite enough to knock city centres for six if they don't provide something different.

irc wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 12:05pm My sister lives in central Glasgow. Used to have the choice of three bridge clubs within walking distance. Parking costs in the evenings after the council abolished post 6pm free street parking was a major factor in the clubs merging and selling their seperate premises. The replacement centre was built in an industrial estate with easy motorway access and free parking.

Like I say, you need sticks and carrots.
If they were within walking distance to a great many people, why didn't people walk? My guess is something that makes walking unattractive.

Pete.

irc wrote: ↑8 Feb 2025, 1:24pm

Ron wrote: ↑8 Feb 2025, 11:18am

irc wrote: ↑17 Jan 2025, 10:26am.I have no interest in whether or not more people cycle.

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.

The oft-quoted example is Stevenage, a New Town designed with lots of high quality cycling facilities. But as well as being easy to ride anywhere it was easy to drive and park anywhere, so in an increasingly car-centric society where the cultural norm has become "we travel by car by default" people used (and continue to use) cars.

In order for cycling to take a good slice out of the private motoring cake takes both sticks and carrots. Private motoring has to be a clearly worse way to get about and cycling has to have clear advantages before people will change habits, because changing habits is hard.

"Build it and they will come" is contingent on a lot of factors. It's working quite well in London because London doesn't have space for anything like the number of people there to be driving everywhere, so driving anywhere tends to suck, but London isn't like most of the UK (significantly more population than the whole of Scotland, for example).

Pete.

Cyclothesist wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 10:19am

alexnharvey wrote: ↑10 Feb 2025, 9:00am ...I found both the Mavic and Shimano boots a bit tight on my larger foot at first, especially with thick socks but eventually they soften up a bit. I don't find them hard to get on, certainly not as much as a pain as full over shoes. I quite liked the neoprene toe covers I got but they didn't last very long before the elastic going under the shoe broke

I did go up 1 EU size with my MW5s as I have with other Shimano shoes. Some say the winter boots fit to size but I expect that's with thin socks. With thicker winter socks they're perfect for me.
Shoe sizes really could do with a standard last across manufacturers.

This sounds superficially like a great idea, but in reality it probably isn't. Standardised sizing would only really work if everyone's feet were the same shape, but they're not. If I fit a "standard 43 last" then someone with feet just as long as mine but with a much narrower forefoot would find their feet sliding around all over the place. If I used a "standard 43 last" that fit someone beautifully with the same length and width feet as me, but who didn't have my relatively high arches, then there probably wouldn't be enough upper volume for me. And so on.

While it's quite annoying having to go on a bit of a quest to find what's right at least with the current state of things it's entirely likely that at least someone is making something suitable (how I wish Scarpa and/or Saucony made cycling shoes...)

Pete.

AndyB1 wrote: ↑8 Feb 2025, 1:20pm Also very happy with my OBW Expedition bike - which with full mudguards, Rohloff and Chainglider is very low maintenance.

I have a Shand Tam in the pipeline which is designed for similar use, and also has a Rohloff. But while I personally think a Rohloff is a Great Idea in a reliable tourer they're not really in llne with a "3K budget"

Having said that, if it's "forever" could be worth justifying a splurge! (in my case, retirement isn't too far over the horizon)

Pete.

PAB855 wrote: ↑9 Feb 2025, 8:13pm I'm grateful for all these comments based on personal experiences sofar now we will resort to clipping in .

I did wonder if GetCycling in York would have any wonder cures, but the brilliant way clip ins can be released and yet be so secure while pedalling is hard to beat

Any further advice?

There are quite a few flavours of clip-in pedals, some of them suit some riders more than others, so if the ones currently in use aren't quite right it may be worth exploring others. Experimenting with cleat position can also be beneficial.
I have relatively wide feet too, and find Specialized 2FO Roost are wide enough (bit wider than I'd like at the back tbh, but at least my forefeet aren't getting squished). I've not found walking around in them as Normal Shoes to be much different from, errr, normal shoes.

I personally like Time ATAC pedals which engage very positively even with very worn cleats and don't need any faffing about with tension adjustment. They also have quite a lot of float (so one's foot can move around a fair bit with disengaging, but on the other hand you may need to move them a bit further than is comfortable to actually disengage) and they engage along a line rather than at a point. Other folk will have their favourites based on their perceived advantages, so maybe try a few alternatives?

Pete.

There are problems here from the frankly very confusing terminology of foot retention methods: can you clarify please?

Typically, a toe clip is a basket on the front of a pedal, usually with a strap to tighten it in to the foot. On a 'bent these will be at the top of the pedal.

"Clipless pedals" are pedals you clip in with, they're "clipless" dating from when they weren't the toe clips described above.

"Mountain bike pedals" could mean a number of things... Many MTB riders use "clipless" pedals, and the two-bolt SPD and similar systems can be considered "mountain bike pedals". Many others use "flats", which are wide platform pedals with grip studs around them. Those are often paired with MTB "flat shoes" that have a soft rubber sole for the studs to grip better.

The flats work well on an MTB, but mainly on the basis that on technical terrain the rider is usually stood with all their weight on them. They wouldn't hold a foot on a recumbent's pedals nearly as effectively as a click-in "clipless" pedal. I would think one could far more easily disengage accidentally from flats than a click-in.

Pete.

pete75 wrote: ↑7 Feb 2025, 1:01pm It's a sporting event which must cost millions to organise and pay for. Why do people expect to watch it free of charge?

Partly because we always have, which isn't a reason in itself, but there again the reason we always have is that there's no shortage of folk still making a tidy sum by letting us watch it free of charge. So when the rationale becomes "some of us want an even tidier sum and we think we can screw it out of folks" rather than "this event will die if they don't pay a lot to watch" then it grates a bit...

Pete.

Paulatic wrote: ↑7 Feb 2025, 8:23am Is that EE deal limited to only watching on a phone?

If you have a Casting facility on whatever the player is that's not really an issue, as long as your TV is modern enough to take a Chromecast input (be it physically from a Chromecast or directly by signal).

Pete.

Carlton green wrote: ↑7 Feb 2025, 9:11am You could commission someone to either repair or replicate the original basket but I can’t think that you’d get what I call value for money.

I think typical "value for money" in terms of functional bang per buck doesn't really come into restoring vintage 60s bikes in quite the same way as, say, selecting a bag for a daily commute...

Pete.

PT1029 wrote: ↑7 Feb 2025, 6:55am You could ask a local basket maker to make a replica - you are in Somerset, no doubt plenty of basket makers near the levels!

This.
I've seen several custom wicker constructions for bike luggage over the years.

Dutch cycle infra blogger David Hembrow has done some particularly good ones, e.g....


Pete.