Cycling UK Forum

karlt wrote:but because seccades (http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilo ... -cyclists/) misses an oncoming motorcyclist who dies as a result of the collision;

Hmm well either I'm weird or that article is glossing a bit as I quite obviously do process and see the blurred image, regardless it's not really an excuse. Plenty of people do manage to check both ways properly, if someone cannot, even if the reason for that is biologically inbuilt, then why should they be allowed to drive? They certainly would find it a struggle to get a licence to do a range of other equally dangerous tasks.

reohn2 wrote:The stock pads with BB7's are sintered which are harder than organics,I've not found sintered pads to have any problems stopping and they last longer too

Stock pad does vary based on the variant of bb7. The road sl ones come with the alu backed organic pads. Ime these aren't very good. Initial feel/power is reasonable but they fade pretty badly under any serious effort. They do last fairly well and run quietly, even in the wet but longer steep descents were not fun.

In the 5 or so years I've commuted/utilitied on discs I've had to true the front rotor perhaps twice and while storage at work is fairly civilised it does also get regularly locked up in the wilds of crowded outdoor racks in town etc.

While I'm sure the super lightweight skeletal ones might be easier to bend a standard rotor is fairly tough, there are plenty of other bits on a normal bike that are going to get damaged first if a bike is taking that much punishment.

As for hydraulics, water has an ability to get everywhere! fluid changes are generally recommended. The impacts do vary depending on the fluid, mineral oil systems (shimano etc) don't naturally absorb water but any that does get in will typically end up in the calliper effectively reducing the boiling point to 100c and can cause corrosion. Dot 4/5.1 fluid (avid/sram etc) is hygroscopic and will absorb water over time gradually reducing the boiling temperature but there's little risk of old fluid causing corrosion, it will just fade at a lower temp.

Bleed kits are hardly expensive though and in the grand list of bike maintenance tasks a bleed or fluid change is less effort than many.

Brucey wrote:If the UCI bans disc brakes in racing for crash safety reasons, I think it is only a matter of time before someone has a commuting accident where some poor sod is sliced open by a bicycle disc brake, and they sue the bike rider for negligence.

The test is usually that 'if there is something 'reasonable' that you could have done to have reduced risk, then you are automatically assumed to be negligent if you have not done that'. If the UCI have banned disc brakes in racing because they are dangerous, I think the lawyers will be queuing up to argue that in the same way you shouldn't be riding around on the road with unprotected bacon slicers attached to your bike.

If this comes to pass, disc brakes on bikes meant for highway use may have to be fitted with guards.

That seems highly doubtful and at any rate, what about the many people commuting on a MTB. Or simply riding on road to get to somewhere off road to do some MTBing?

Unguarded chainrings are fine and have been for decades, even in the litigious US. Particularly the outer ring in a triple which, when commuting, is frequently exposed given much of the time speeds mean the middle ring is usually in use.

BTW if (say) a bicycle disc brake were attached to the bodywork of a car, would cause automatic MOT failure, because the edges are too sharp by far.

But these are bikes, not cars, plenty of other parts on a bike would fail an MOT for the same reason.

Regardless, as much as I don't really see the point of discs on pure road bikes I find it tricky to believe the injury in question was really the result of a disc rotor, they're not actually all that exposed, particularly in terms of hitting a non sticking out place like the middle of a shin. You don't exactly hear a fuss about rotor injuries in the mtb and cross disciplines. I've fallen off my own mtb more times that I care to count and have in the process hit myself on varied parts of it but never the rotors.

Certainly the newer paddle stis, if not all of them have a double click mechanism on the front downshift allowing you to trim without dropping to the small ring. As you press the paddle in there is first a lighter click which drops to the lower trim position. If you then follow through a second click will drop to the small ring (though always to the bottom trim)

That said, I've never found the trim positions to really be necessary, particularly if not severely cross chaining. I've got 105 5700 2x10 setup on a bike (admittedly with sightly longer 415mm chainstays) with no rub in any combination and only using the lower trim position for each ring.

RideToWorky wrote:2. How do I invoke the trim function? The Diagram talks about "Click" and HITS?!

That manual is a pretty horrendous explanation, I've absolutely no idea what the hits part is on about. Basically what it's saying is that if you're in the shaded gear combinations and the chain is rubbing on the front derailleur then press the shaded lever for a single click.

Labrat wrote:Dangerous argument to make I think, after all, what tests do cyclists have to pass before putting themselves at risk on the roads?

But that's the key difference there, you're largely only a risk to yourself as a cyclist. Generally I'm of the opinion that you can do whatever you want to yourself. As a driver (as indeed is a pilot) you're a significant hazard to others.

Admittedly not 100% the case, there have been incidents of cyclists harming others, but no more so than pedestrians doing so and orders of magnitude less than deaths and injuries caused by incompetent handling of motor vehicles.

Surely part of the responsibility of being allowed to drive is to not squash the squishy road users even if they themselves are being stupid.

My point is that almost every other activity that means you might harm others has far far more rigourous training and a much higher bar of competence to clear to be allowed to do it. Meanwhile, because the right to drive has become embedded into our culture, pretty much everyone is allowed to do it and something like 5 people die every week in the UK as a result.

Regardless of the criminal conviction elements of this. That drivers in such incidents aren't banned as a result of injury 'at fault' accidents as a matter of course is to me a sad reflection of the perverse 'right to drive' that exists in our culture.

It always amazes me that for many things, eg getting a pilot licence, the process is pretty rigourous. Yet to be in command of up to two and a half tons of metal with anywhere from 50 to 300+kW of power at hand and essentially have similar levels of hazards involved requires passing a test that, by comparison is a joke. And getting the HGV part isn't much more.

A fairly easy way of addressing this without having to overcome the whole jury not willing to convict issue would be mandatory ban periods for at fault accidents that result in injuries. Even if there isn't the evidence to secure a criminal conviction, causing such a collision is a clear indication that the individual is not capable of driving such a vehicle safely.

That even if convicted of death by careless driving the minimum ban is just one year is insane, driving is a serious business, if you can't maintain the required concentration you shouldn't be doing it.

Zanda wrote:Certain types of lens suffer from more edge distortion than others. IME, lenses to avoid are ones with very high refractive index (which seem to give lots of paralax distortion) and those designed to be extra flat on the front surface (which create a 'goldfish bowl effect' for the wearer when off centre)

Abbe number is the one to pay attention to for the chromatic aberration, higher values are better. It's not often advertised upfront though as that might put people off getting the thinner and more expensive lenses which are generally worse in this respect. There's not a direct link with refractive index though as it depends on the material as well, polycarbonate is quite bad.

reohn2 wrote:You must be a very strong rider then,33x36 is almost 1to1,there are quite a few roadies who find such a gear too high in hilly terrain.I find myself using a the 22 inner ring quite a bit,but then I'm and oldie and not as goodie as I used to be

Not sure I'm that strong! Saying that, probably can outsprint most others at my fairly low level, longer road rides kill me though, also I'm on old fashioned 26" wheels. I do make some limited use of the 22 but generally if I'm on the mtb it's a couple of hours flat out effort, also, at the risk of using an apparently controversial term, if the climb is fairly technical then I find keeping speed up and gears not too low helps me avoid pedal strikes (I'm pretty crap at step ups if I'm honest). The cassettes on the 1x systems have huge ranges though and I can see a 10-42 with a 30t chainring (ie ratios from 3 down to 0.71) covers everything I use on the trails now.

The final thing to consider is that ditching the front derailleur makes certain elements of full sus design easier.

Though not insurmountable as history testifies

Of course, but it does involve compromises, there are a number of frames designs coming out now that wouldn't have worked with a front derailleur. Whether they are actually of benefit I couldn't comment but it's evidently freed up some room for experimentation.

Drake wrote:So it makes me wonder if on MTB's, the triple is coming to an end.

For dedicated mountain biking I think it perhaps already has. My MTB is a 3x10 arrangement (22-33-44 and 11-36) and if I'm honest I've actually never used the big ring for anything other than getting to or from the trails a little faster than I otherwise would have done. When on the trails I also make very little use of the granny ring, 98% of the time I'm in the middle ring. Were the cassette a little wider ranging I could easily lose the granny as well so I can certainly see why things are heading for a single chainring.

Then there's the issue that big rings on triples are large enough that they can beach on larger obstacles which tends to knacker the teeth to the extent that shifting into them is actually a bit of an effort, hence bash guards, a 10 tooth at the back also allows a smaller chain ring further reducing strikes.

The final thing to consider is that ditching the front derailleur makes certain elements of full sus design easier.

At the lower end I don't think triples will go anywhere any time soon since lower end mtbs mostly tend to get bought for things other than dedicated mtbing and the greater range is needed.

ANTONISH wrote:This is I presume to free the Dartford crossing bottleneck - IMO removing all the restrictions to traffic flow and making it free of charge (as was originally intended once it was paid for) might help.
Lots of flannel about economic benefits - the Dartford crossing doesn't seem to have helped Dartford High Street much.

There are no restrictions regarding payment anymore, it's done on number plate cameras. The northbound restrictions are in place due to the need to manage certain classes of vehicles (I.e. abnormal size and those carrying dangerous stuff) through the tunnels, they're also there to prevent queuing in the tunnels in case of congestion from the north which is quite common at the moment due to the j30/a13 works, there's no easy way to get around the need to have some sort of management northbound.

At any rate the Dartford crossing bottleneck was only slightly lower capacity than several parts of the surrounding network, completely free up Dartford and you'll just move the problem up or down the road a bit.

colin54 wrote:I just bought a pair of these Wellgo V8 copies mentioned in the thread above, need to be re-adjusted before use ( bearings over tight as supplied), but look good value

for money 11 loose ball bearings each end, sealed inboard and a plastic cap outboard, bit of a fiddle to adjust, but do-able, no grease port,come with reflectors.

Not used mine yet but they seem to get some good reviews, these pinned pedals are real shin scrapers though.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/s?q= ... ous-search

I use these on my commuter. As in the reviews the bearings were overloaded but that's easy enough to fix. Grip, as you'd expect from MTB flats is excellent even in the wet. The pins can cause some shin scrapes but they're not half as bad as metal cage pedals are and provide much more wet grip than rubberised pedals (or at least much more consistent across the shoes I wear)

CHAIR: What data? Which data set are you relying on?

Prof. Olivier : The census data of hospitalisations in New South Wales.

Haha, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

pwa wrote:Disc brakes have their uses, but I would not choose them for a bike intended for Audax. The reason is not weight. It is comfort.....Unfortunately disc brakes require less springy forks.

Given the desire for a carbon fork is that an issue? Carbons much more flexible in the way it can be strengthened so there are some very comfortable carbon disc forks around.

I just use an ortlieb roller. It's not exactly the most elegant of fits but it's a 17" 'portable' workstation (nearly 5kg if take the power pack) and it's coped fine so far. If your laptop is company supplied and is from one of the lines of 'enterprise' laptops (eg latitudes, thinkpads etc) then they tend to be built to take a knock or two anyway.