Cycling UK Forum

Does anyone know the correct bottom bracket axle length for a Shimano FCM 510 chainset (triple)

If you say that it can't happen with a cassette hub, I defer to your superior mechanical sagacity, Brucey.
Nevertheless, it did happen.
It was the large bolt that holds the freehub body to the hub shell that came undone.
The result as described.

Brucey wrote: ↑24 Aug 2024, 6:06pm IME Sun Race freewheels are OK.

The cheapest shimano freewheels use a design which uses riveting to hold the larger sprockets together, and about three or four of them overhang the LH freewheel bearing. This design is considerably lighter than the conventional one, but unfortunately this also has the effect of reversing the usual precession effects on the LH threaded lockring in the lower gears, which means it sometimes comes undone.

Yes indeed !
It's happened to me. Mine was a freehub. The whole freehub body moved to the right increasing the effective over locknut dimension. Locked everything solid and chewed up the rear fork ends of a rather nice machine.
I'll avoid rivetted freewheels and cassette clusters in future.
Lesson learned !

Insomniac post.

As above, TA Zephyr is 56bcd IIR

Hens teeth; possibly available here

https://www.profileracing.com/product/mtb-chainrings/

Mr Hirose knows what he is talking about !
Anyone considering "twin lats" should view the video and take his advice.

Sport NOT Mixte.

In CTC magazine of August/September 1994 Mr Chris Juden wrote:

"I don't think variations in frame stiffness made any significant difference to comfort scores, except for a more or less springy fork".

531colin wrote: ↑11 Jul 2024, 6:27pm
So my question is, is trail so very significant for bicycle steering? Or are head angle and tyre drag just as important to how a bike handles?

It seems to me that this is relatively easy to determine.
Take a 700c ( 622x...) wheeled bike (or better still a 27" - 630x...) and fit 26" wheels (559x..)
The trail will be reduced. Now, how does it handle with the smaller wheels ?
Better or worse or about the same ?

KM2 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2024, 9:33am If you look down at a good rim braked fork, you’ll see the enormous amount of’chatter’ as it vibrates and absorbs the road buzz. Compare that with the stiffness of a disc fork. Hence more fatter tyres needed. A good rim brake works. You adapt with use.

Yes indeed.
I estimate that there is aprox 1/8" deflection at the fork ends over rough stuff with my 531 fork blades.
Cushy!

l

Something to note about the '90s Galaxy is that the fork crown is a pressing, not a casting.
With even a slight front end bump the crown can and will distort. I have two examples in my scrap frame collection.
To verify whether one has a pressed crown, look underneath between the fork blades. There will be a transverse weld
either side of the steerer tube hole.

OTOH a pressed crown may save the frame in a front ender

Reynolds 708 tubed Randonneurs are larger than the published size by virtue of the oversize top tube.
Raleigh dimensions for the 708 were C-C, so a 57cm will in reality be nearer 58cm (23")

OP, the "Mixte" frame design is very pretty, but it is compromised. It lacks much resistance to twist due to the cyclic loading applied through the frame when you pedal. If you can, find a a design that has a 1" or 1&1/8" single top* tube and additional mid-stays. Such a design is much better if you choose to fit panniers or a loaded saddlebag.

https://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/r ... ight-1953/

The mid stay design braces the seat tube much better than the "Mixte" design and makes for a much better riding experience.

"Carlton Green" wrote.
"My 1980’s Raleigh is a Mixte, it’s not one of their higher end Mixtes. On the one occasion I rode it rather fast down hill the steering became
unstable"

This is significant and illustrates my point about the "Mixte" design.

*Edit to correct my error.

I'm currently riding a Galaxy Circa 1981 - 83. I like it. I like it very much, but it does have it's foibles.
The geometry is a bit strange by 'modern' standards.71deg seat tube & 73deg head tube angles.
Consequently, the top tube is quite long compared to similar bikes. (I also have Raleigh Randonneur &
British Eagle Touristic). I seem to be stretched along the top tube of the Galaxy, despite having the saddle right
forward on it's rails, but that makes for a great "Rough-Stuff" machine and it works well descending stony tracks.

I'd be the first to admit that the frame and forks are not of stellar build quality. I had to shim the fork crown race and the
lower headset race with pieces of coke can to stop them flopping around. This may have been the consequence of hard
use over 43 odd years; steel can creep.
Fork offset is 1&3/4" so there is significant toe-clip overlap and strangely, the front fork dropouts have two threaded eyelets,
but the rear dropouts have only one per dropout. Additionally, the mudguard eyelet on the R/H rear dropout is poorly threaded.
I think this must be the result of a casting defect, because I've come across this problem on other Dawes from the same era.

73deg head tube angle and 1&3/4" fork offset make for a lively front end; not really to my taste, so I've substituted a pair of forks
with a much longer fork offset (2&5/8") This has gotten rid of the toe overlap and gives the bike a lovely loping gait; the steering is
slower (yes, really!) and I can ride it no hands without fear of ending up in the hedge. And finally, it has 27" wheels which, in my
humble opinion are the best wheel size for a touring bike.
Oh, and the brakes are Weinman centre-pull and there is nothing wrong with them at all ! They are very confidence inspiring, actually.

28,6mm is the outside diameter of the seat tube
27.2mm is the inside diameter of the seat tube (more or less)
So the seat tube wall thickness should be 0.7mm

Whether the seat tube clamp or the P clips are better depends on a number of things.
The clamp is probably best used on a machine with a short seat tube.
In the olden days the standard height of the rack top above the drop-out eye was 13.5"
These days ,it seems anything goes; often up to 2" higher.

Cyckelgalen wrote: ↑29 Jun 2024, 1:13pm An ultrasonic dog repellent device would be the perfect solution if they really work, because it does no harm to the dog, unlike pepper spray etc. Something compact that you could have on your handlebar, readily accessible, like a bell.
The question is, do they really work? I've been given a really old bulky one that called Dogchaser, with a 9V battery and I don't think it does much. It has a 5-metre range only to start with, and then, I've tried it on some dogs and many do not react at all. That was always peaceful dogs, no really angry ones.

Something like this, perhaps ?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dog-Dazer-II-U ... B000IBRI2Y

That's very good news.
I wish the new proprietors every success.