Cycling UK Forum

I cannot comment on the ferry services themselves, and it may be that the schedule or price of one of them will be the most decisive factor for you. Both places have a range of accommodation, so if you want a night in a basic low cost budget hotel there will be no difference. Both towns can be reached by train if you have an emergency on your way riding down from Heathrow. The ferry terminal in Poole is a little way from the town centre, and reached via a bridge, but the Portsmouth terminal is a similar distance from the town centre (although it would be on your route riding in to Portsmouth).

However, Poole and Portsmouth are quite different, and one might appeal to you more than the other, if you find that you are going to be spending a day there while waiting for the ferry. Portsmouth is an old city with a lot of naval history, e.g. HMS Victory is one tourist attraction. It is quite densely populated (it is technically an island) and it's a bit down at heel in places. Poole is more modern, and a bit more upmarket as a consequence of being a wealthier area.

For me, a key factor would be how pleasant the ride was to either town, and how pleasant it was to ride through the town. On that count, I think Poole wins: because Portsmouth is a densely populated island, and the areas north of the city are also heavily conurbated, it's not a nice place to ride through. The countryside in the Meon Valley north of that would be your logical route, and it is very nice, but thereafter it's busy roads.

As stated above, the ride into Poole is nicer. Not only the route through the New Forest, but also the roads of neighbouring Bournemouth and Christchurch are pleasanter to ride through. Cycling along the Bournemouth seafront esplanade is prohibited between 10am and 6pm in July and August, but it's possible to ride through mostly quiet residential streets close to the seafront instead. Another option would be to swing west and reach Poole by cycling through the Isle of Purbeck (not actually an island) and take the chain ferry from Shell Bay to Sandbanks, then ride round Poole Harbour. If you are feeling very (and I do mean very) flush, there are some very nice hotels where you could stay overnight in Studland in the Isle of Purbeck, before catching the chain ferry the next day.

I'll let you know when I've broken down miles away and could have fixed if I'd had SE crank bolts!

Ison Distribution still have some of the old 'Cool Tool' crank extractor tools if you want to take a very small light(ish) (42g) crank removal tool instead of using self-extracting crank bolts.

Disclaimer: I don't know how good they are, since although I bought one when I originally bought a Cool Tool, I have never used it or felt the need to take it out with me, and it ended up just sat in my toolbox. It requires either an 8mm hex key or 14mm spanner (both the hex socket and the spanner flats are a bit shallow for my liking).

Whereas the two part design of the typical crank extractor allows the tool to be fully screwed into the crank before the bolt part is turned to press against the axle and pull the crank off it, for the Cool Tool crank extractor it is the actual screwing in of the tool into the crank threads that presses the tip of the tool against the axle. I imagine that it would work OK providing the depth of the crank thread was sufficient for the tool to be well engaged before it started to press against the axle, although I would not use it if I had my workshop tool available (especially if it was someone else's bike with cranks that had possibly been over-torqued and/or never removed for many years).

http://www.ison-distribution.com/englis ... rt=2CLTLCE

And again unless you were able to do a side by side test over a long period with same loads, same speeds, same weather conditions and same servicing interval then inspect microscopically the interfaces you could never find out how much if any difference it has in real world use.

You seem to be implying that such a side by side test would be impractical or difficult, or at least that is what I infer from what you have written. And yet arguably the bicycle offers the possibility of performing just such a test, since there are two pedals which will experience very similar (if not identical) loads and conditions, so it would 'simply' be a case of using a different grease in each pedal, and then comparing them after suitably testing use. That is probably the tricky part: riding in sufficiently testing conditions frequently/long enough for any significant difference between the greases' performance to reveal itself, especially since good quality pedals will have seals which will delay the ingress of the water, salt and mud which are needed to put the grease to the test.

I imagine that a comparison of different grease in front and rear hubs might not be quite so valid because of variations in the loads and possibly greater likelihood of contamination entering the rear hub, but it might still be worthwhile. Similarly there are two jockey wheels, which could presumably provide a good test of non semi-fluid greases, since unlike most other bicycle bearings they lack seals. The Chris King external bottom bracket, which can be purged with fresh grease with a dedicated tool, would also allow different greases to be compared (or equally comparison of regular purging of one side with fresh grease vs. no regreasing of the other).

Such testing is something I have been wondering about now for a while. It's the sort of thing that probably no commercial cycling magazine would ever do, despite the interest and possible importance of the subject. It's far easier to write a short puff piece on the benefits of ceramic bearings, than to scientifically determine the most appropriate lubricants and the optimum lubrication regime.

Very long posts whilst great for a small handful makes it less useful for the majority

Perversely I think the opposite is the case. For the small minority who regularly take apart their pedals, hubs etc. and clean and re-grease them (or who have fitted grease ports), I suspect that the frequency with which the old grease and any contaminants etc. in it are removed means that they might see far less benefit from the optimum grease for that application than the majority of lazy so and so's like me who are, to put it mildly, less than scrupulous in maintaining our bikes.

I think that for many of us our interest in this subject lies in better understanding how little maintenance we can get away with. If a one-off strip down of a hack bike and application of grease A in place of grease B used in the factory means that the bike will then last an extra two or three years before it needs new hubs/wheels/pedals etc., then that is useful to know. Similarly some of the reports I have seen of corrosion in hub gears on this forum and elsewhere on the internet indicate that the type and frequency of lubrication of hub gears can make a huge difference to their likely lifespan and trouble-free performance.

In a sense our interest in the subject is the same as the various industries for which the countless different types of grease were developed. Those businesses are concerned with identifying the optimum lubrication for their equipment: changing grease can potentially significantly prolong the lifespan of expensive equipment, as well as reduce costly planned and unplanned downtime. Consequently a lot of research and money have been devoted to improving knowledge and improving the products available. If cyclists can take advantage of that knowledge and those products, I'm all for it.

shipping and handling £4

Still cheaper than buying a pair of TA washers from Wiggle. Spa's minimum order for free postage is £50 which is higher than many other online retailers, but they sell some nice/useful kit which either cannot be bought elsewhere and/or is very competitively priced. So a pair of pedal washers is something which I would simply add to my list of things that I would buy from Spa the next time I order some tyres and/or inner tubes (e.g. 10 Schwalbe inner tubes for £35) or whatever else I needed.

It is somewhat ironic that that you highlight the cost of the pedal washers/P&P. On the thread about plastic pedals and the review in the magazine, you criticised the MKS Esprit pedal as a poor choice of pedal for review and said that the review should have (presumably instead) included the MKS Sylvan pedal:

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=121227&start=15

well the choice on the ops web page was a poor one?

That review was clearly intended to give an overview the various different types of flat pedals, with examples of each which illustrated the various different features that might be found on such pedals, rather than a review which compared multiple pedals of the same general type. Given that, the Esprit was not a poor choice, since it was an example of a good basic cup and cone bearing cage touring pedal which has a full shoulder on the spindle, and one which would not entail the extra cost of pedal washers that the Sylvan pedal would. The fact that you have used Sylvan pedals without washers and have apparently not yet damaged your cranks doesn't mean that it's good practice.

The old TA Cyclotourist cranks had a recess for the washer and were always supposed to be used with pedal washers (and like the current standard and Prime versions of MKS's Sylvan pedals, many pedals of that era and before similarly lacked the shoulders on the spindle, increasing the need for the washers). The very similarly/retro styled René Herse cranks manufactured and sold by Compass Cycles also use washers.



Spa Cycles was/is one of the main retailers of TA components, and although the Cyclotourist cranks themselves are discontinued, they sell not only the TA branded washers for £3.50, but also sell their own version for only £1.50 a pair:

https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s86p3299/SPA-CYCLES-Pedal-Washers-%28pair%29

I think the three-hole spanner came after the short two-hole spanner. Part of my reasoning is that even in the 1980s MKS stuff was branded as 'MKS' but prior to that they were just known as 'Mikashima' (I think as marked on the spanner), hence 'MKS' from MiKaShima.

Brucey, I have just seen your post after being irresistibly drawn to trawl through more of the MKS website. One of the other webpages is this one, also from 2006:

https://www.mkspedal.com/?q=en/news/node/235

which advised that the design of the spanner was being changed. The one on the left in the image below was described as 'Current', and it looks the same as the short two hole spanner of which you posted an image, including the use of the Mikashima name.



So I think this might be one of those very rare occasions when you are incorrect, albeit that the subject is entirely inconsequential.

This one is (I think) the original MKS one

I don't know whether mine pre-dates or post-dates that version, but mine is the same as this one:



The above image is from a MKS webpage* detailing its various different dust caps which was published in 2006, but I bought my tool well over 30 years ago (rather more 'well over' than I care to remember).

* https://www.mkspedal.com/?q=en/news/node/229

well mine just has a large circular hole maybe 7mm diameter, i supposed to hang it from a nail

Brucey wrote "IIRC", and he did recall correctly, but unfortunately the design of the tool has changed. I have a 30+ year old version and it has both 12mm and 8mm spanners at the end opposite the dust cap spanner. They are not great quality spanners, although they are probably adequate for the pedal locknuts.

it is surprising the original review page from the op didnt include the sylvan touring pedal ? why not?

I don't think it's surprising: MKS make many different pedals and they had to pick one for review (or possibly more likely the distributor was asked to supply a pedal for review). Given that the cup and cone bearings appear to be the same across a number of MKS models, including the one reviewed as well as the standard versions of the Sylvan range, it appears to be a case of choosing whichever design you prefer, e.g. some might prefer the one reviewed for its aesthetics, the replaceable cage (although I cannot recall ever hearing of anyone replacing the cage on their pedals, and riveting was good enough for Campagnolo), or the full shoulder on the spindle (q.v. Brucey's comment above regarding the advisability of pedal washers for the Sylvan pedals due to their lack of a full shoulder on the spindle).

One problem seems to be if the patch needs to bridge a seam in the tube.

Even with a traditional patch and glue I think it is important to use the supplied piece of sandpaper to sand down as much as possible such irregularities in the tube surface. I think this is likely to be more critical with glueless patches, since they only have a very thin coating of adhesive, rather than a potentially much thicker layer of vulcanizing solution which may help to reduce the impact of any irregularities in the surface of the tube.

I've even successfully used a Park patch on a puncture right next to the valve stem, despite some irregularity in the surface of the tube where the circular piece of rubber at the base of the valve is bonded to the rest of the tube, but I was careful that time to sand the tube as much as I could to try to reduce the irregularity.

On one occasion when I gave a glueless patch to a cyclist who was stranded without a spare tube, I forgot to offer him as well the small piece of sandpaper that is included with Park patches. He repaired his tube and shot off. Half an hour later I met him again by the roadside with his deflated tyre. I stopped and gave him another patch, but remembered that time to give him the sandpaper first.

I seem to recall reading that they were popular with some mile eating audax riders, partly because their adhesion was good enough for the patch to stick to the tube even if being applied in the pouring rain. Apparently some even cut the patches in half to make them go further, as it were.

However, the same article also said that they were only really suitable for a temporary repair, and that has been my experience as well. I've only used the Park version, which has a uniform thickness, unlike ordinary non-glueless patches which are very thin at the edge. The raised edge of the Park glueless patches seems to be prone to being gradually peeled away from the tube by the movement of the tyre against the patch.

I think they are a great 'get you home fix' if you run out of spare tubes, which has happened to me once. They are also good if you encounter another cyclist who has punctured and does not have a spare tube, which has happened to me more than once. Not only am I disinclined to give a tube to someone who is so foolhardy as to ride without a spare, very often the rider is not using the same wheel/tyre size or valve type as me, and my spare tubes would be useless to them anyway.

If I stop and help another rider by giving them a glueless patch, I always tell them that it's only a temporary fix, and that when they get home they should replace the tube with a new one or replace the patch with a traditional glued patch.

I want to replace it as I think it's had it as there's alot of play in all directions but this is only from thinking it was a sealed one unless these are different?

Have a read of the Park Tool guidance here:

https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/bottom-bracket-service-adjustable-type#article-section-1

Have you removed the adjustable cup, spindle and bearings? It's possible that there is nothing wrong with them than cannot be remedied by cleaning and re-assembling with fresh grease. If the adjustable cup was not sufficiently tightened then of course there would be play.

Warning - the right hand cup (drive side) usually (e.g. unless it's an italian frame) has a reverse left-hand thread, which tightens counter-clockwise and removes clockwise.

It's usually referred to as the fixed cup, because it has no adjustment to set the load on the bearings (you use the adjustable cup on the left hand non-drive side for that).

Why do you want to removed the fixed cup? If you are just cleaning and re-greasing the bearings, you do not need to remove it.

Given that the major concern is catastrophic failure of the fork while riding, how much would it possible to reduce the risk of that occurring by doing a few basic checks at the start of each ride? For example, stand in front of the bike and clamp the front wheel between the legs and see if there is any unexpected movement or give when putting pressure on the bars to turn them, and similarly if there is any unexpected movement when applying the front brake and gently rocking the bike backwards and forwards.

In other words do catastrophic failures of safety critical carbon parts occur often/mostly without any early signs that there is a fault which such basic checks might detect?

Recently Mercian posted a picture of a Campag freehub on their Instagram page. This shows a lubrication hole closed by a grub screw. Apparently these freehubs require lubrication otherwise the inner bearings tend to fail.

I have some 2000 era Record hubs with the lubrication hole and cover in the middle of the hub shell, but I was not aware of the existance of a lubrication hole in the freehub (and cannot recall noticing it when I removed the cassette). I do recall that when I injected some Finishline Teflon grease through the hub shell lubrication port, it evidently entered the freehub, because the noise of the freehub dramatically reduced.

I'll make a point of getting the cassette off my hub at some point soon to check the freehub, and if there is a lubrication hole, I now have some Britpart semi-fluid grease (purchased based on various comments on this forum by Brucey and others) which I can use in it.

It is far more ludicrous to route a NCN route through a pedestrianised shopping precinct.

In fact it is almost as ludicrous as thinking that cyclists should be allowed to ride through a pedestrianised shopping precinct simply because Sustrans (or whoever it was) has decided to include it as part of their route. The council is the body with the legal responsibilities and duties for the safety of people using that precinct, not Sustrans.

Peterborough Council is responsible for assessing whether the precinct is safe and appropriate for cycling, and if not it has a responsibility and legal duty to prohibit it.