Cycling UK Forum

ianr1950 wrote:I wasn't asking if anyone else used the term granny, but it is a term that is used very widely.

I didn't think you were, but it is a somewhat derogatory term, coined to imply that anyone who needs a chainring that small must be a feeble old lady. So I'm just doing my little bit to discourage it's use. Inner ring or small ring will do just as well.

And you're right, there are much more important things to worry about: like the stupidly macho "I don't need a gear lower than ..." attitude that pervades road cycling, ensuring that ian's 105 triple didn't come with anything as usefully small as 26T to start with. We have a choice as to whether the language we use either reinforces or helps to change those attitudes.

The reason shopkeepers like Paul are nowadays seldom troubled by having to return frames under warranty is simply that the warranty period has become so short.

Modern bike frames (steel as well as alloy) do most certainly have a shorter lifespan than those slightly heavier frames that were made a decade or two earlier. But during those two decades manufacturers have shortened their frame warranties even more drastically and rapidly than the decline in the life expectancy of their products. Gone are the lifetime (of the purchaser) guarantees once offered by Dawes and Raleigh, now we're down to ten years if your lucky, often five, or sometimes even fewer.

Bikes have come into the modern consumer age, where performance is everything and durability only gets in the way of progress. Modern man is not at all distressd when his toys wear out after a few years, since it demostrates how hard he's played with them and gives him a guilt-free reason to buy the latest "improved" model!

Bike shops have always exaggerated the importance of weight and the tiny geometrical differences between touring and racing bikes. It helps them sell two bikes to someone who needs only one, or more typically these arguments are used to shift a racer they already have in stock or can easily get from a main supplier, rather than order in a one-off tourer (hence at less discount) from the likes of Dawes.

There is a performance difference, but its pretty insignificant, more psychological than real, and not always in favour of the racer. I generally descend faster on my tourer, which is more stable and predictable (mainly thanks to broader tyres) and has longer front centres (hence my c-of-g is further back so I can stop quicker if necessary), than any racer or audax bike I've ridden. John Schubert (a US cat1 racer and bike tester of great experience) observes likewise in a recent issue of Adventure Cycling. Racers are a little bit faster, uphill and in a sprint, but their more jittery ride makes them feel a lot faster all of the time.

It all depends on what turns you on. If you want a bike that'll go almost as fast as a racer whilst feeling safe and secure, choose a tourer. And I'd rate the Hewitt Cheviot SE a bit higher than any of the Galaxy models for your mix of purposes.

One of the reasons those US-designed tourers don't sell so well in UK is they invariably have shorter front centres, so when Brits add the missing front mudguard we find our feet slowly demolish it - or worse, get stuck the wrong side of it, causing a tumble, whilst negotiating one of Sustrans dratted obstacles!

Lack of toe clearance is also the main problem with adapting a cyclo-cross frame for more practical purposes. Check out the front centres dimension. For an average touring set-up of 32-622 tyres, mudguards, size 43 and 170mm you want at least 615mm. Add 5mm for every 3mm increase in tyre section, 2mm per euro shoe size and pro-rata for crank length.

What nonsense. True race machines indeed. Durability has never been the over-riding factor in the design of such machines. It's all about performance. Provided the bike can be relied upon to last for one race, it's good. If a tyre material were to be invented with better grip and less rolling drag, but that inevitably perished in one month, it would surely be used - until the UCI could find a way to ban it at least!

Anyway, the point made by another poster is that certain very expensive true race machines are the only ones that do NOT have an integrated headset. Reason being, it does NOT actually make the bike functionally better in any way whatsoever. It's just an aesthetic fad that also helps to boost the sale of new bikes versus upgrading old frames. That's why the bike manufacturers are driving it, not the component people. Campag have been suckered in, but do Shimano make an integrated headset?

And anyway, expensive is no panacea. I once had an extraordinarily expensive Koga-Miyata carbon fibre bike to test where the integrated headset was already so sloppy, from nearly new (it had probably been tested by a few other mags first), that I had to glue the headset into the head-tube in order to be able to ride it without excessive judder even with light application of the front brake. But I forget, this was not a "true race machine" so obviously it was rubbish anyway.

Speaking, again, of true race machines: I've just been reviewing the Scott Addict. Spotted that things didn't look totally lost in the headset area. Check out the Ritchey Pro Press-fit headset: it goes with a (you guessed it) press fit into any head-tube that has been prepared for a Campag pattern slip-fit integrated headset. Just like any other press-fit headset, there should be no fretting between it and the frame. So there's your answer. Upgrade to a Ritchey Pro Press-fit before your new bike's head tube has become irretrievably worn by the original equipment.

I never use the term "granny" but generally expect the inner chainring to have 24 teeth or fewer, in order to enjoy the fine view that is often afforded by riding up a steep hill.

A great deal more time is devoted to the discussion of aspects of frames and bottom-brackets etc. so as to minimise the amount of undesirable sideways movement, when the same benefit would simply be obtained by placing the pedals nearer to the centreline of the frame.

But do manufacturers do this?

No.

Why?

Because mountain-bikes need fat tyres and are prone to chain suck and we (supposedly) want indexed gears in front also. So it all gets wider.

Tourists do not have (such) fat tyres, but are lumbered with these wider mountain-bike chainsets whether we like it or not since that's the only way nowadays to get the low gears we need and to add insult to injury we cannot use front indexing anyway when dropped bars are also wanted. So please excuse my indignation and determination to find ways of getting low-geared chainsets closer to the frame.

It's not for me. My legs are long enough and my joints still in good enough nick (just about) to tolerate a wide pedal track. But I regularly get letters/emails from people who aren't that fortunate. This is just one of the many ways in which short-legged riders are neglected by the makers of good quality cycling equipment and it's one of my missions to draw attention to all such instances of technical discrimination.

It is correct, but you can still benefit from the reclaim of income tax and NI contributions.

I've signed it. Although I descend faster than most on a cycle, I wouldn't object to keeping below 30 if this were to come in. After all, it's only intended to apply to single-track lanes, on which even I would admit that it's foolish to ride as fast as that.

Single-track lanes don't have any central white line, so there wouldn't even be any need for more signs. It'll be just like the urban situation with street lights. And just like where there's street lights, it would still possible to have a higher limit if the conditions are suitable.

Actually, I don't think this goes far enough. I'd rather see a default 30 limit on all unclassified roads, and 20 on single-track lanes.

As for New Zealand: according to my brother that was indeed the case when he first emigrated, but they do now have a blanket national speed limit (much to his chagrin, like meic he is a motorcyclist). However it's taking a while to wean the Kiwis off their old habits: they're just not used to there being anyone else in the way! As a consequence the per capita incidence of road death in New Zealand road is about double the UK figure.

The efficiency of various cycle transmissions were measured by Dipl. Ing. J Kellner for the firm of Fichtel & Sachs and published in Radmarkt (German cycle trade magazine) in 1983. All these tests were done with a new, clean, optimally lubricated chain, but they give us a base level for comparison, of 97% for a single-speed drive at 100W (the typical long-term power output of the human engine).

Sachs subsequently made some measurements of worn chains, either lubricated or rusty (these were not published but I got them from a contact). Single-speed efficiencies at 100W were 94% to 96% with up to 8000km use, when the chain was adequately lubricated. However with a dry and rusty 7000km chain this fell to 88%.

So wear costs between 1% and 3% of your effort compared to a new chain. Whereas a dry chain can lose as much as 10% compared to one that is well lubricated.

Fork steerers are thicker walled at the bottom, so there's an internal butt and that's probably what the bottom of your stem has encountered.

In small frames, in the era of the threaded headset and quill stem, which is now passing, hence my use of the past tense, it used to be a problem that normal stems could not be inserted much below their maximum height, due to the frame builder having cut down only the top end of the steerer tube. That isn't normally a problem with a middling to large sized frame, but maybe this stem is very tall.

Get a set of Kelly Take-Offs and you can re-locate your existing down-tube shifters to the handlebars, right there where you want them!

I used to clean chains, but I remember it as a horribly messy and slow job, that took a great deal longer than half an hour just for the cleaning, after which it seemed that one of my main acheivements had been to transfer an amount of grit from the outside of the chain, where it wasn't doing any harm, to the inside, where it made the "clean" chain feel rough, even after drying and relubricating!

Maybe I was using the wrong sort of solvent and technique. I daresay I wasn't doing it often enough, so the dirt had become too solid for easy removal. Whatever: the job did not give enough satisfaction to encourage more frequent repetition, when with four people's bikes to look after (three bikes each) I could see my evenings might easily be occupied by chain cleaning and little else!

Nevertheless: in a final attempt to do the "right" thing I got one of those chain cleaning gadgets. Complete disaster. The little brushes were better at losing bristles than removing dirt and the second time I went to use it I found the solvent had half-dissoved the rubber wipers.

I figured I would galdly pay £6 (the price of new Sram PC48, bought in bulk) to avoid spending hours up to my elbows in filth, fiddling at chainlinks with a toothbrush. So I stopped bothering and nowadays just keep dripping on more oil until they're sufficiently worn to throw away. The only drivetrain cleaning I do is to chisel the black gunk off the teeth when it gets thick and dry enough to come away in satisfying chunks!

I nevertheless respect those who have the dedication and patience to clean chains. I just don't think it's realistic to expect most people to do that.

TA make triple adapter chainrings, that fit instead of your existing inner and provide fixings for a third ring. They come in Shimano (130 bcd) or Campag 135mm bolt-circle-diameter. So unless your chainset is the older Campag 144 bcd, that may be your cheapest option.

You'll also need a longer bottom-bracket; and Campag still supply square-taper units for use with their triple chainsets, which is likely to fit your existing crank better than a Shimano unit.

You can perhaps manage with your existing mech if you only use the inner ring with the biggest sprockets, but a longer cage will be better. And although your existing front mech may shift somehow, one designed for a triple will shift better.

It's normal, it's how the rim is made.

Once built into a wheel with all the spokes pulling inwards there's a force of about half a ton keeping that joint shut, so don't worry about it.

Sounds like your middle ring was just as worn as the outer. A mate of mine had this after putting on a new chain and cassette before one of our mountain-biking weekends. For some reason the chainring had worked okay with the old chain, but did not engage sufficiently with the new one. So that on the first hill, when he pressed harder on the pedals, the chain rode up onto the stumpy remains of the worn teeth and his legs just spun around until he fell over.

His inner ring had worn differently. These teeth were slightly hooked, so on that one he got "chain suck"! With only the outer driving properly, his morning's ride was heavy going - until we could divert to a bike shop for a new chainset. Sounds like that's what you could have done with.

On cheap-to-middling bikes, when more than one ring is worn it can cost less to replace the whole set. That's mainly because shops don't stock the exact same (i.e. cheaper) replacement rings for these chainsets, only the more expensive (i.e. profitable) spares for more luxurious chainsets. One may be getting a more hard-wearing chainring than before, but more likely just lighter and prettier. And although chainrings are largely standardised, there's still the risk referred to above, that its teeth don't line up exactly like the old one.

that's a no, is it..? there's an old saying, don't knock it till you've tried it.

My first ever bike was singlespeed, when I lived by the Trent south of Derby, where it's relativley flat, but I was so glad to get a new one with gears.

Later I got some new wheels and noticed the hub had these other threads on the flipside. By then I was in the CTC and had heard people raving about fixed, so yes, I've tried it. And I didn't like it.

But on the general point, I don't think it is necessary to try everything myself in order to make sense of other people's experiences. Having tried fixed didn't make it any easier for me to work out how anyone could like it. But the more I've learnt about different people's cycling motivations, the better I've come to understand that.

Like I said at the top of my first post: it depends on your reasons for riding a bike. If you're a serious bike nut, into the fitness and/or competitive aspects and have aesthetic feelings about your bikes that lead you to remove or avoid adding any bits that don't actually make it go faster (like bells, reflectors, mirrors, mudguards) even when in your heart of hearts you know they might be useful, then you may well enjoy riding fixed, not least because it also lets you get rid of one brake!

Sorry about the waffle though. Can't help that. To paraphrase GBS (or was it Chesterton?): I apologise for the length of this post, but I didn't have time to write a short one.