Cycling UK Forum

Samuel D wrote:The Schwalbe One that I was talking about (and have used for years now in 25-622 and 23-622 sizes) is the HS 448. This is the original, entirely slick model.

......

I remain unhappy with the wet grip. Certainly the Michelin Pro4 Grip is in another league, although that tyre appears to be heavily optimised for this. I am talking about the ease with which the tyre locks up in an emergency stop and how much wheel-spin I get when climbing out of the saddle on familiar wet climbs. I don’t push these tyres around wet corners because I have no faith in them for that. But I have spun the rear wheel many times on accelerating out of a corner, causing it to jump sideways a bit.

....

Can I ask what tyre pressures you use, the width of the tyres and your weight? I've found that these factors make a big difference to grip when varied.

Cugel

Suntour stuff was, in my experience, functionally superior to similar Shimano stuff of the time (late 70s through the 80s). It also had better longevity. Campagnolo of the time was already sinking towards a condition designed more to achieve lower price rather than their previously high standard of engineering and materials. Their hub components wore in no time at all.

I used Suntour VX on the touring bike and it seemed to be more resilient than the similar Shimano stuff used by others. I used Suntour Sprint and later Superbe on the racing bikes. Despite having done many, many miles, I was able to sell both Sprint and Superbe parts on ebay for a goodly sum when I eventually moved to modern bicycles to suit my new non-racing old phart status. I could do this in good conscience as everything except the rubber hoods of the Superbe brake levers looked and performed "as good as new".

When Suntour was no longer available, I gradually moved to Shimano. Some of their stuff in the 90s got quite good - particularly their hubs. Other stuff, particularly the components of the gear train, seemed rather flimsy. I went through a number of the mid-range rear mechs, chainsets and cassettes, at a rate far greater than I did with the Suntour; and despite vigilant maintenance.

More recent Shimano stuff seems a lot more resilient. The early STI levers could go sproing and become unmendable but those of the last 6-7 years seem much better. As with the Suntour, modern Shimano now seems to last tens of thousands of miles if maintained well. I notice in particular that sprockets and chain rings wear at a much lesser rate than those of the 80s and 90s, despite 10-speed et al being skinnier than 7-speed.

I sold my last Campagnolo (classic Record stuff) in the late 80s. Those I know who have Campag now seem to have no end of trouble with it, especially the gear-brake levers and BBs.

Cugel

Grumbleweed wrote:It dries very quickly and wicks sweat away from the body with ease, popular in Europe before it was as ever taken up here.

Merino was popular for racing jerseys for many decades in Britain. In fact, it was the only real choice unless you wanted ordinary wool, which tends to be rather heavyweight and to hold a lot of water. I wore wool cycling clothing for 25 years before trying the man-made cloths. I'm back to merino now as it works better, overall. Well, for the upper body - merino tights and shorts get stretched and bag too easily because of the leg motions.

Wool's greatest virtue is that it's warm when wet. If you get soaked but continue to generate body heat by cycling, you stay warm. I understand that it's the hollow fibre of wool that provides this warmth-retaining functions, as it does for the sheep of course. And it doesn't stink within 30 minutes of getting sweaty (or 3within days) like the artificial cloths.

Cashmere works just as well if not better and is softer on the skin. My wife buys cashmere garments on ebay, where they are sold by rich fashion victims who may have worn them once before "needing" a new one in the latest cut or colour. Some of these items make very good winter base layers. She buys them for as little as the proverbial 99p but even at £9.99 they're a bargain. Cashmere gloves are very nice too.

Cugel

speedsixdave wrote:Thanks for that very comprehensive answer, Cugel. The wet green slime is always a problem for slicks I think.

Rapid tread wear is a price I'm very happy to pay for a fast and grippy tyre, whereas a fragile carcass is not. Chucking knackered tyres away while there is still life in the tread is always galling and doubly so when they're expensive!

I should point out that the Pro Ones are a bit lighter and more flimsy than the ordinary Ones. As I understand it, they're meant for racing and other "performance" styles of riding. I've read elsewhere that this makes them wear out rather quickly; and that they're a bit more vulnerable to punctures ..... but not that they're inclined to slip. in wet or dry. One suspects they use exactly the same rubber compounds as do the Ones - just a bit less of it.

Some fellows are still daft with the tyre pressures and have 110psi even in 28mms. They bounce off the rough roads and perhaps this is what's causing a momentary "slip". Their contact patch is also smaller at higher pressures.

Puncture vulnerability seems to vary a lot with the location you ride in. The south and east of Blighty seems full of flinty sharps that are absent farther north. And roads used heavily by cars (as in Surrey) seem to generate lots of metal and glass shards, presumably detritus shed from these cars, one way and another, including yob bottle-toss. I like the sharp-free back roads, despite the washes of gravel, mud, cowclap, green slime and general degradation of the surface.

Personally I feel that lower pressures with fatter tyres helps not just with comfort, sticking to the road, reducing punctures, rolling resistance and so forth but also tends to increase resistance to the sort of damage you can do when riding rough roads with lots of scabs, pothole and similar tyre-testers. Fatter tyres at lower pressures seem to deform better without the sidewalls or other construction elements being pushed beyond the point at which their integrity suffers. Those higher-end tyres (including the Schwalbe variety) might also manage deformations better because they tend to have more supple carcases with higher thread counts and so forth.....

Cugel

speedsixdave wrote:Does anyone have any experience of Schwalbe Pro One tyres, particularly (a) 28mm, (b) 406, (c) with inner tubes?

I had fancied a pair of 406 Conti Grand Prix for my new Moulton Jubilee but they don't seem to exist, as Mick F has noted in previous threads. The bike has Duranos at the moment which don't seem as terrible as some people have suggested but I would like to try something really fast and modern for the summer.

I am slightly concerned by Samuel D's comment on the Schwalbe One on that thread:

Samuel D wrote:There is a real problem though: wet grip. It’s dire. I’m pretty terrified of barrelling into wet corners on them.

Has anyone else experienced this? It might be a dealbreaker in the UK...

The other issue is using them with an inner tube. My Moulton rims are not tubeless-ready. Are they a ridiculously tight fit?

Thanks as ever.

All my wheels are now shod with Schwalbe tyres as experience of various of their wares in the last eight years has been very good for me. I have 28 & 25mm Ultremos, 28mm Ones, Marathons (including the ice-stud variety) and 32mm G1 tubeless. All have done thousands of miles (as varieties) including the G1 tubeless at just under 2000 miles in the last 8 months.

This isn't to say that other tyre brands are better or worse. I have no experience of modern tyres other than some Continental Supersport, which don't get any significant mileage or hard demands since they're on my wife's classic Audax machine, which rarely goes out these days.

Firstly, I can tell you that Ultremos, Ones and the G1s are all very sticky, in both wet and dry. The Ultremos and Ones are slick but still stick at remarkable lean angles. They will slip in thin wet mud and the green slime on narrow back roads. Part of the reason for getting the G1s (with their multiple tiny rubber studs) is to deal with the wheel spin often suffered with slicks when going up steep back roads of the green slime or liquid cowclap variety. The G1s don't spin so readily on these stuffs as the slicks will do.

The price for the stickiness of the slicks is a higher wear rate on the back tyre. They will still do thousands of miles but the back tyre soon develops that flattish profile in the centre. I have the pressure at 80psi in the back (75psi in the front) with 28mm tubed tyres, which for me gives an ideal compromise between a larger grippy contact patch (& more comfort) agin' the risk of snakebite. (I'm 81 kilos of British beef when nekkid).

I've never had a penetrative puncture in the eight years of using these varieties of tyres, just one snakebite when I was experimenting with lower pressures. I believe modern tyres are less susceptible than those I rode previously because of improved construction, rubbers et al. In addition, riding at lower pressures seems to discourage the spikey or sharp stuff from penetrating. The rubber seems to deform then reject the likes of hawthorn much more readily than was the case 20 or even 10 years ago.

On the other hand, I ride over roads (NW England and West Wales) where sharps (particularly flints) are absent except at hedge-cutting time. I did get hawthorn punctures with tyres 10 or more years ago (all 23mm and even some 21mm, at 100psi+, of various brands) but not with the Schwalbes ... so far.

Cugel

Marcus Aurelius wrote:I’ve done a fair bit of impromptu helmet during accident testing over the years. They’ve certainly stopped me from sustaining serious head injuries. ........

How do you know that?

If the polystyrene taking the impact was crushed absolutely flat from it's expanded state then it may, at best, have absorbed 7 Newtons of bang-force before transmitting the residual to you. If the helmet was merely shattered (easy to do to polystyrene) then it will have absorbed very little force and so not protected you from anything at all.

A 7 Newton head bang will hurt a lot but will rarely cause "serious head injuries". I know, as I've fallen down and banged my head in the fells, in the icerink, in the garden ......... Never on a bike, in 60 years of cycling, mind. (Gremlin, be gone!).

I would like to see far better helmet testing. It's said to be impractical but, as another poster has noted, this is the opinion of the manufacturers, who also do the vast majority of the "testing". It wouldn't be hard, I feel, to arrange test-blows of various kinds, at various angles, at various speeds and with various substances to simulate a far greater range of real-world head bangs other than the falling-slowly-on-to-a-flat-surface "test".

Cugel

Mike Sales wrote:........I think it unlikely this elderly pedestrian darted out into the path of the car whilst blinded. A responsible driver, seeing the confusion ahead, ought to slow down to a 126 speed.

The idea that stuff happens on the road, that accidents happen and nothing can be done about it is not acceptable to me and others.
The fact is, risks are taken, and taken often by those who are well protected from the results if something goes wrong. They are given rules to try to keep them from hurting others. This rule 126, I would say by observation is widely ignored.........

The employment of various safety improvements often provides the user with an increased inclination to take more risks. Because we feel safer, we become less risk-averse. This applies to a surprisingly wide range of vehicle safety technologies.

Volvo, as I recall, first illuminated this take-more-risk phenomena when they began to put always-on sidelights on their cars. They were later surprised to discover that this did not result in less accidents involving lit-up Volvo drivers but more! Eventually, they discovered that the always-on lights encouraged drivers to think they were safer therefore could drive faster and with less care, as others would see them earlier.....

Various studies over the years have purported to find that this effect, in various guises, emerges with the advent of all safety aids, including seat belts, air bags and, it seems, bicycle helmets and high-viz.

In some cases the safety aid does, of itself, decrease the chance of harm to the user, in some degree; but only until the point at which the user's increased appetite for risks increases the chance of harm beyond that amount that the safety aid improved.

Worse, in some cases the increased appetite for risk provided by the safety aid provides no increased safety to those involved in the accident but without the safety aid. Thus pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders suffer a greater rate of involvement in vehicle-caused "accidents" as the drivers take more risks and cause more "accidents". The air bag and seat belt-protected drivers have more accidents but themselves suffer less harm than their victims.

*****

The feeling of increased safety often shades into a feeling of invulnerability, which in turn leads to a chronic lack of attention and skill to the daily driving (and perhaps cycling). If a driver or cyclist also goes about for a significant period without being involved in an accident or near-miss, they sometimes become even more convinced that "it can't happen to me" or even "my helmet will save me". .....

No one is immune to these effects of improved technology. No, not even moi!

I recently put hydraulic brakes on a road bike and the greatly improved control (ability to modulate and brake without hand fatigue) did increase my speed down "fast" hills. I told myself that the extra control meant I was "safer" at these increased speeds. You will read this sentiment all about the cycling webs and mags, concerning the pleasures of the disc brake.

Happily I realised that there's a lot more to the risk than those aspects in which better-modulated brakes will help. Increased speed and momentum increase the chance of a bad event materialising then biting. I still have to think about braking then do so in a highly controlled manner. It became obvious to me that the increased speed severely reduces the already very short period for exerting rapid & highly controlled braking in an emergency.

So, as you recommend, I'm back to "go only as fast as the realistic stopping distance to unforeseen obstacles or events allows minus a margin for my probable error in braking".

****

They do say that a spike in the steering wheels of cars would help. Perhaps cyclists should all have a similar thing in place of the steering column top cap? A new item for Kapz to sell us all!

Cugel

AlaninWales wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

mjr wrote:I am not willing to dismiss this sort of avoidable death off as "sometimes stuff simply does happen" and I'm pretty disappointed that anyone is.

It wasn't a dismissal - I was alluding to s126, as clearly stated, and that requirement to drive within the distance one can see to be clear.

My personal view, based only on supposition, given the paucity of facts, is that the gentleman may have been crossing but was actively masked by the other car's flash, was not present in front of the author's car when he flashed back - or surely he would have been seen in the light of full beam headlights, and stepped in front of the author's car at the last moment. How could s126 rules apply there, I wonder?

I hope that makes the point clear and that your disappointment is diminished somewhat?

How would you prevent this death?

I've told this story here before:
A couple of years ago now, driving to the A484 near Carmarthen on a dark and wet evening, an oncoming bus' headlights dazzled me so that I could not see the road ahead. So I stopped before the point where the road disappeared (and following traffic had to stop too). Once the bus passed, in the road ahead of me was a pedestrian waving her "hi vis" jacket, wearing a white jumper and white gloves. Moments before she had been illuminated by both my headlights and those of the bus and was completely invisible.
As I gave her a lift to her destination, she asked whether the jacket and light coloured clothing has stood out in the darkness. I assured her that it had not.

If only there were some rule that could be followed to consistently ensure I don't drive into somebody in such a situation!

You followed a fine rule for such situations (stopping). Of course, this is an aberration as far as many motorists are concerned since once behind the wheel they are on an important mission, perhaps to catch the next episode of Pobol y Cwm or to get the dinner sausage whilst it's still hot!

Those Welsh roads are particularly difficult in generating the sort of situation you describe. They're often narrow and closely confined between two steep turf-clad walls with nowhere for pedestrians (or cyclists or horse riders) to escape Mr Toad. There are few pathways from A to B in the deeper regions, so folk must often walk on the road if they haven't got access to a car (or a bike). It's very dark at night, with few if any street lights. The bumpiness of the rods can make oncoming headlights glare more as they rise up with the road lumps.

And, sad to say, there are many motorists who travel these roads at too great a speed because they did so for the past 30 days and nothing was coming or in the way. Then day 31 arrives.

Cugel

foxyrider wrote:

pwa wrote:

foxyrider wrote:And now - Campagnolo have just launched their 12 speed groupsets! 12 sprockets in the space of 10/11 and with double chainset so none of the compromises of Sram's 1x set up. For now it's just the top end Record and SR but bet on a flow down in fairly short order.

Who needs a triple at the top end of the groupset ranges?

.....

Thing is, and they make no bones about it, this gear is aimed firmly at the racing end of the market. So okay some of us push the window a bit (my tourer has SR chainset, record rear mech, carbon Athena shifters) but that doesn't mean they are wrong to develope this stuff for racers.

And I actually find another comment about people with expensive bikes all being atgni mamils quite insulting. I have a bike that has full SR on it, I wear lycra but I don't race. ....... Yes there are atgni mamils out there but not everyone with a nice bike falls into that category. End of rant!

Since when was "nice bike" defined by how much it cost or, for that matter, how much it gleams around the special label? May I recommend this aphorism: form follows function.

One function is "value for money". Another, I suppose, is "see my conspicuous consumption". I tend to go for, "Does it work well for a long time to do what I want it to". This somehow tends to exclude both Ikea "furniture" and £12,000 bicycles.

Cugel, waving his pig-bladder on a stick.

RickH wrote:

Cugel wrote:On the other hand, this fine emporium now offers these:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/04/ ... le-cranks/

Cugel

I hope you noted the date of that article.

A joke!? Shurely shome mishtake as I have ordered a 4-ring & a 5-ring and also sent a deposit for the 6-ring that will come any day now.

I'm going to use them with a fixed wheel-mounted 22 sprocket.

Cugel

mikeonabike wrote:The best way of slowing traffic down in this case would be to install a pedestrian crossing next to the bus stop. But probably in the Highways Dept cost-benefit analysis you need 3 or 4 deaths to justify the installation cost.

If the pedestrian crossing is one of those with traffic lights, whereat the pedestrians must huddle for 5 minutes at a time in the pouring rain then scuttle across in the 10 seconds the light goes red for the traffic .... well, these might be allowed by the planners. But, as you will realise, it's very important to keep traffic flowing towards the carparks, where drivers become shoppers. We cannot have mere pedestrians holding up the great car-owning democracy in it's urge to consume!

The planners have not yet realised that the shoppers delivered to the emporiums by their cars are also (having exited their pride&joy) forced to huddle at the crossing as the rain pelts down, since "Gew-gaws R Us" is on the other side of the road from "Alabama Fried Gawdknowswot"....

One gets the impression that the demise of "a jaywalker" from time to time emphasises the need for pedestrians (especially the slower variety) to reconsider this nonsensical walking across the road business. In the USA many downtowns don't have "sidewalks" as the large car-bound wallopers can drive straight up to a consumer-hatch to buy and collect their many plasticky things and gobbling stuffs.

In Blighty we are always approximately 8 years behind the current American modes....

Cugel

foxyrider wrote:And now - Campagnolo have just launched their 12 speed groupsets! 12 sprockets in the space of 10/11 and with double chainset so none of the compromises of Sram's 1x set up. For now it's just the top end Record and SR but bet on a flow down in fairly short order.

Who needs a triple at the top end of the groupset ranges?

This new Campag stuff has but two cassettes: 11-29 and 11-32. A 34 ring is the smallest available on a chainset. For those of us who like to twiddle up cliffs in Lakes or Dales (or even Wolds and Welsh valleys) as well as going downhill in an aero-tuck rather than the 53X11 / 81rpm draggy pedalling style (which is slower) these cassettes are redundant. Where is the 14 or 15-36 and the 28 chain ring?

On the other hand, you are correct concerning top-end groupset triples. No decent MAMIL on his Dogmatic would be seen dead with a triple. In fact, a 32 sprocket is probably something to be scoffed at, although the 29 is probably "professional" and therefore de rigeur. They will only be disappointed that there's no 55 ring to go with the 11 sprocket.

Spa cycles chainsets. Yes. I wouldn't be surprised if they work with 12 speed......

Cugel

iandriver wrote:..... Now the likes of Sora have the same function, such as the paddle for changing gear behind the lever, I'm not convinced about the merits of the higher groups any more.

The Sora range is now ....not glamorous but super reliable, functional and flexible. The dependable unsung hero of the range.

I read an interesting report, a year or so ago, concerning an interview with one of the Shimano bigwigs, in which he remarked that the lower end of the groupset range was always more industrial - heavier and perhaps a little less watch-like than the Dura-Ace & Ultegra - but made to be far more reliable and tough "because those who ride the utility bikes that lower end components tend to have don't do nearly as much maintenance as those with high end bikes even though they cycle in often adverse conditions, so the utility components have to be more resilient and reliable".

Dura-Ace and similar top-end stuff is made for two purposes that are related: for "professional" use, where super-slick action and lightness of weight overshadow reliability, which need only last for a race or two, since the stuff is replaced by the team mechanic if it's ultra lightweight construction results in a crumple; and for the faux "professionals" in MAMIL-land, where there is too much money and not enough sense (aka "all the gear and no idea").

Cugel

mercalia wrote:

Debs wrote:I'd rather have a 9 speed cassette with a triple chainset upfront.

A triple allows a group of cassette gears to be closer together in ratio for smaller increments.

Also; good quality replacement chains
9 speed chain = £10
11 speed chain = £30

Shimano should offer cassettes of 13-25 / 13-28 / 13-32

...all in my opinion of course

says it all?

I'm surprised that a retailer has not popped up to tell us that no one wants triples now so the manufacturers are merely guided by customer preferences - he's told that to 5,903 people coming in the shop and asking for a triple chainset! Advert-driven fashions? No such thing!

Of course, the dozens of "articles" in various cycling magazines and websites extolling the virtue of 12-cog 10-42 cassettes and single chainrings are also just following what the public really wanted all along .......

On the other hand, this fine emporium now offers these:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/04/ ... le-cranks/

Cugel

gxaustin wrote:I prefer a 46t outer chainring with a 34t inner. My old bike has a banded derailer and round seat tube so there is no problem with it. However, I've bought a bike with a braze on derailer mount and with the 46t chainring the gap between the derailer and chainwheel teeth is 7mm instead of the 3mm recommended by Shimano. It changes sprocket alright but will I run the risk of unshipping the chain? or maybe some other irritating malfunction? The solution would be to file the braze on - but there would be a lot less metal around the derailer mount.

They are irritating, aren't they. Mine will descend only far enough to properly accommodate a 50t big ring but will probably ascend far enough to accommodate a 56t ring! Such a dinner plate is an unlikely purchase.

You can operate the front derailleur with a big gap to the big ring but the chain will certainly unship to the outside if the chain line is to the outer (smaller) sprockets. It isn't worth the risk, really.

I solved my "don't want huge gears" issue with two cassettes (11-32 & 14-28) disassembled to make one 14-32, which can be used with a 50/34 or a 52/39/30. In fact I prefer the latter as a 39 chainring with 14-32 (all usable in the middle ring) gives gears for 80% of my time pedalling. 52/14 is high enough for anyone not racing. I use it only to sprint for village signs so that The Pirate doesn't get them (which he often does anyway, despite being 73 years old & 5st 3llbs).

Cugel