Cycling UK Forum

The Hunt 4-season wheels I bought last Autumn had the tyres (Schwalbe G1 30mm) mounted by Hunt, including the sealant. Sealant renewal is recommended about every 3-6 months, depending on the temperature (warmer = sooner). So, I'm about the renew mine. Questions arise .....

1) The sealant in there now is Schwalbe Docblue, which is latex based and dries out over time (hence the need to renew). There's a Fenwick's sealant available, containing Kevlar fibres rather than latex, which is said to last "the lifetime of the tyre". Anyone any experience of this goo? Does it work to seal punctures as well as latex types? Does it really require no renewal?

2) Whatever sealant type I use in renewing it, is it worth dismounting the tyre and removing the old sealant, including the dried-up stuff (assuming I can peel it off) or is this just going to cause difficulties with no real advantage?

Thanks in anticipation of any advice, especially that from experience.

Cugel

Mightme wrote:Life is way too short to wait this long for anything.

This a recipe for getting in debt, as well as other scrapes. Moreover, at near 70, life seems to have been very long indeed now, considering all the stuff that's happened during it. And, despite time accelerating as one gets older, I will never give up the pleasures of delayed gratification, including the pleasure of not being in debt and paying great wodges of "interest" to usurers just so I can "have it now".

But enjoy your impulses if you can. Mind out for the disappointments associated with the unforeseen consequences of your rush to satisfaction!

Of course, the OP is not in debt (quite the opposite) to Mr Goff and has good reason to chivvy a bit. The question is, how to do it effectively?

Cugel, taking 5 years (so far) to decide how, where and when to move house.

I have difficulty in deciding whether to wear high viz or not; or to have the flashing daylights. The arguments agin them hold water (victim-blaming, no effect on those not looking anyway or who don't give a stuff about endangering a cyclist). Why bother then?

It's a mistake to assume everyone is the same as us. ..... However, I personally do notice cyclist in high viz and with flashing lights well before I would if they were without, when traffic or the environment is crowded with many other targets for the eyes. I might well notice them anyway, later but still in plenty of time to accommodate them as another road user. After all, I am ever so careful when driving as I dread hurting someone with a car "by accident" (aka incompetence).

But I imagine a driver who is more distracted than me; a driver who has lesser eyesight; a driver otherwise in a bit of a fugue. Perhaps just a small number of such drivers might notice me in time rather than not-in-time if I am more of an eye-attractor?

Motorists should all be competent, careful and considerate. But they aren't. Is this a reason that high viz and flashers might save me from a poor driver, just once or twice, which gives me three lives rather than one? What do you think?

****

What worries me is the victim-blaming of those without half a ton of often useless "safety aids" as well as the loonies who regard high viz and a flashing light as some sort of goading target for them to drive at. And I must take care not to assume I am generally less vulnerable when vizzing and flashing, as I will (being a stupid human) take more risks even though I know I shouldn't.

Cugel

TrevA wrote:Is this down to there being more cyclists, or the new breed of cyclists whose enthusiasm exceeds their skills and experience?

The modern breed of sporting cyclist hasn't grown up in the club environment, where you learned how to ride in a group on club rides, before you started racing or doing big group rides.

,,,,,,,.

Sadly, many of the new clubs set up for the MAMILs and similar have no tradition of good cycling practice to refer to. Worse, some older clubs are now overrun with hordes of wannabees who eschew such club traditions as the old-fashioned blather of daft old gimmers. They prefer Strava-striving and will often do anything to get some foolish virtual prize.

Many will become very aerobically fit on their turbos, as they go a-zwifting-oh. Sadly this does not inculcate 99% of the other cycling skills required when cycling in the real world. But they can keep up with the club rides albeit they tend to dart of the front, in and out the crocodile and all over the road. No roadcraft. No sense, really. All the sprog sins X ten!

I know of a new cycling club without traditions, of either touring or racing (they do neither) whose members go about in an undisciplined mob, all over the road and committing every cycling sin known to club-kind. Many are Stava strivers desperate for status in the virtual lists. Some will just cheat but others will take desperate risks to climb the greasy prize pole. I know of one such who killed himself going far too fast in order to get back his kom or whatever they are for a well-known dangerous descent. He is an emblem for all the others of his ilk.

There's a lot to be said for old-fashioned club disciplines and the skills they eventually produce, including the skill of pushing one's envelope of ability - down descents, in traffic, in a bunch and in other dangerous places - without paying a high price. But wannabees want to be "a racer" toot sweet ... preferably overnight and by means of buying some expensive technology and clothing that will somehow automatically recreate them as the desired "racer" as they pull on the Sky jersey and cock a leg over the Dogmatic.

Cugel

reohn2 wrote:

Si wrote:Zero tolerance is all very well if you have enough coppers to do it. I believe that 99% of people who break the law do so because they think they will get away with it, and sadly, these days, they are often right for "lesser" offences.

+1 nothing stops(sorry)crime better than the overwhelming chance of being caught.

We can't afford the required number of traffic policemen, even though we should afford more than we do now, given the death and injury rates caused by motorised transport. Personally, I'm for automated policemen such as speed detectors but hope to see others invented to deal with close passes, phone use and so forth. Such technologies are not beyond the bounds of possibility these days.

Of course, Joseph Public and his Clarksonesque mates would object and vote agin any politician making such proposals. Joe would cry that these devices are made only to generate fine-income and to persecute freedom-loving Toads such as hisself. He cares not for the freedom of others, even from death or being paraplegic. He is also incapable of controlling himself and therefore cannot help but speed, answer the phone, pay no attention to the road and so forth. As such, he feels he should be exempt from those difficult traffic laws. "It's not my fault".

******

The fundamental problem is the car/van/lorry and the road infrastructure. They are technologies inviting inept humans (of whom there are droves, perhaps including you & me) to make fatal mistakes, every day, every time we use them. Ban 'em! (Some chance).

Cugel

Would anyone be interested in a discussion examining the safety attributes (and any contrary effects) of high-viz clothing and lights (typically flashing) meant to attract attention during daylight hours? There seem to be studies about that look at these things from a cyclist-safety point of view (including some referenced by Cycling UK) but I confess to being less familiar with them than I've become with studies and analyses concerning helmets and safety effects (or lack of them).

Personally I have the flashing day-lights on during lone rides although I don't use them when out with the club as they tend to be too bright in the eye of those cycling behind. I also tend to wear a high viz windproof because such windproofs are commonly available in yellow or orange. I don't wear a high viz jersey, unless you count those that tend to contrast with the surroundings - white, white/red (club colours) and similar. But I often have a dark jersey on - merino jerseys are not usually of the garish hues.

The studies I have read seem to say that high viz and daylight flashers do improve the attention of 1/3rd of drivers; another 1/3rd also notice but get more aggressive as they see these things as somehow an arrogant claim to greater cyclist-importance; another 1/3rd aren't looking at the road often enough and don't notice anything much, especially when their phone rings.

Anyone care to express their own experiences, opinions, references to studies et al?

Cugel

hujev wrote:Hope this is OK to ask here... I'm having trouble communicating with the framebuilder steve goff.

...........

I find these sort of situations fascinating, from a socio-cultural point of view.

"The British" (a large and amorphous class of folk, granted) have a reputation for generating a significant number of goods & services providers of the inept sort. They can be inept in a variety of ways.

At the extreme end is the criminal-cowboy type, who pretends to be a tradesman but in fact has no skill at it; who in reality uses the label as a front to con we naïve customers out of our hard-earned.

At the other end of the spectrum is the fellow who may be extremely good at the core service (say, bike frame making) but who is not so good at the wider aspects of business, including the implementation of the order-supply chain.

My ladywife can provide you with a long, long list of tradesfolk who have a good reputation for their work but a terrible inability to actually get 'round to doing it for you; and a very short list of trades people who are good at both. I have learnt many a skill via a drive to get something done after waiting a 6-month for the electrician, plumber, roofer, etc.. (Not yet had to learn frame building, though).

This is "a British tradition" - a cultural habit that's arisen because our history and laws have not been good at regulation - imposing high standards for the performance of various claimed professional skills. Other nations have different traditions and standards. It's harder for trades people to get away with poor customer service in, for example, Germany.

I know nothing of Mr Goff. But reading the available public information on him, I suspect he is another who is very good at his core skill but overwhelmed by the need for various wider business skills. If so, he is not alone, in Blighty!

As with all such trades people, he needs to keep his reputation in order to get business. In this day & age, it can be hard to get away with poor service as the irate customer can relate her experiences employing the interwebbed amplifying horn, as you have here.

On the other hand, if the builder is a very good builder (as seems likely in this case) and just needs a chivvy to get on with it, you must yourself learn the skill of interweb chivvying, which needs to be restrained to an irate-hooting volume just enough to induce the correct degree of shame but also an increase in desire-to-please. Hoot too loudly, or with a very strident tone, and you will merely annoy your supplier, so that he gets in a huff and puts your order back to the bottom of the list.

I have a feeling that you will eventually be pleased and relieved in this case, once you're up & riding on your Goff.

Cugel

PS "Delayed gratification" is a necessary process (and mental pleasure) if one is to deal successfully with Blighters. I know that delayed gratification is not a thing widely appreciated or practiced in the USA. :->

There's always been a tension between what's come to be called "open standards" (which all follow and adhere to) and proprietary innovations.

The case for open standards is that it makes maintenance in the form of parts-renewal easy (and usually less expensive because of lack of the copyright & patent scams). It also means you can mix & match parts from different manufacturers, selecting those that have best performance, lowest cost or whatever other factor is important to you. In some cases, open standards are essential if things are to work in a larger system. Think internet communication technical standards, railway signalling/track-width and traffic laws.

Manufacturers often find open standards a nuisance, for two main reasons. The first is that they can stifle innovation - improvements to something often require a non-standard approach or design. The second is that manufacturers are usually also profit seekers and so like to lock-in their customers by making things that only their spares will fit. Often, their income is mostly from spares. Think razor blades and printer ink.

Both varieties of spare parts can be found in cycling. Some bottom bracket innovations have resulted in proprietary standards that are functionally better. There seems little functional reason why chain ring diameter bolt circles should vary quite so much.

Even when open standards are recognised and apparently adhered to, as in wheel & tyre sizes, there are often small differences that effectively limit the choice of spares to those brands they will actually fit.

What drives the plethora of standards in axles, cones et al. Both, I imagine - a desire to improve function via radical innovation but also the manufacturer desire to lock-in their customers to their brand of spares.

Cugel

RickH wrote:The trouble is, in my experience the vast majority of riders on the CTC group rides that I participate in, or see photos of in their linked Facebook groups & webpages, wear helmets. ....... If other member groups & affiliated clubs are similar (I've no idea if we're typical or not) then getting many photos of riders without helmets is going to be an uphill struggle.
.......

The power of those who promote helmets lies now largely in this status quo of helmet-are-normal. Pro-helmet lobbies have very little in the way of evidence-based material to justify cycling helmet use. The weight of evidence, studies, meta-analyses et al seems fairly clear concerning the lack of any real safety improvements offered by helmets in 99% of cycling situations.

The buying and use of spurious stuff is, though, a generalised feature of current modern life. We live in a consumer society where wealth & power, not to mention status, is largely acquired via the production & consumption of stuff. Conspicuous consumption is now a norm; fashion also rules; reasons for using things often have little to do with their utility other than as a fashion/status symbol.

*****
It wouldn't be difficult for Cycling UK/CTC to promote their own viewpoint concerning helmets via imagery, on the website and in the magazine. They do so concerning many other cycling fashions. For example, Cycling UK website and magazine don't show all cyclists as superfit faux-racers, as do the great majority of other cycling magazines and websites. Ordinary folk abound. Perhaps the ordinary folk could be pictured taking ordinary risks with ordinary precautions - no helmet unless you're being a racer, faux or otherwise.

Cugel

LinusR wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:The OP made it very clear what they were quoting, so to suggest they were being "...selective (and simplistic)" seems both inaccurate and unfair.

The answer is to request that the relevant forum introduction should be expanded to prevent further misunderstanding, including my own, or at least to include a link to the policy you quote.

I agree with you that the forum intro should be changed and a link to the policy provided. But the OP did also state "Cycling UK itself references various studies..." which indicated that the OP had looked at CUK policy statements elsewhere besides the forum. So I think my comments on the OP are fair.

The larger point I was making is that which you delineate at length - the CTC recognises many studies that, in general, demonstrate that helmet compulsion and helmet usage do not improve cyclist well-being or reduce head injuries overall. My conclusion was that, this being so, the CTC is being somewhat disingenuous in not opposing helmets in a less ambiguous fashion.

They should be doing so in line with their own stance, which seems to be saying that helmet use, not just compulsion, has at least no benefits and at most actually increases the risk of head injury. Moreover, the brouhaha around helmets obscures and demotes policies that would address and reduce the real risks, from bad driving and the bad laws that allow it to continue in all but the most extreme cases. And it stops people cycling because they see helmets as an indicator that cycling is much more dangerous than it is.

On the other hand, I take the point made in many posts above that it is politic of the CTC to publicly have a policy that is, in practice, merely one of anti-compulsion. Imagine the glee of The Daily Hate Mail and The Daily Frightener should the CTC go full-Boardman! Pitchforks would be waved and bonfires lit!

*****
There is a case for helmet use in some circumstances, I think. If one is cycling in a way that involves lots of falls (e.g. vigorous MTBing or road racing with sprogs) a helmet might reduce painful, albeit not truly dangerous, head-bangs. But there is also a case for helmets (and other protections) for all kinds of human activities, in which such safety aids are never mentioned, proposed, invented or adopted.

Cugel

Cyril Haearn wrote:'The tremendous weight of advertising'
!!
Is anyone here influenced by that?

Personally I know that I'm influenced by advertising of every sort, as well as by newspapers, books and even things I hear in the pub. After all, I'm a human. Our greatest strength and our greatest weakness is to be social and to perform the recommendations of attractively glamourized authorities, or even just those made by them we have a sneaking admiration for. We're copycats, every one. "Fashion" (D Bowie).

So I try to avoid adverts, news and a lot of books. I never go to the pub. But then I'm in "a bubble". And a lot of those Svengali mesmerising messages get through anyway!! I persuade myself that I have "good reasons" to buy those lovely new wheels. Ha! Rationalisation after the impulse.

Anyroadup, it seems self-evident to me that people wear helmets because they're sold as desirable, said to be desirable by various authorities with a variety of motives (few of which have anything to do with cyclist safety) and worn by nearly every cyclist you see out there. They're a fashion, not a choice. When I ask the wearers, "What safety increase does your helmet offer via what functionality" none of them can tell me anything about the testing regime, the reduction in crash-forces or anything much other than "it's obvious" or "a helmet saved my pal's life".

The adverts for helmets rarely, if ever, mention safety functionality. They're all about how the thing looks and whether its aerodynamic (as demo-ed by A Celebrity Cyclist - doesn't he look lovely in it).

******
I would like to see some independent testing of the things. They tell us that such testing is impractical - impossible to devise in any way that will show how a helmet will reduce harm in real cycling crashes. I feel this may be "avoidance", since such tests are likely to illuminate the rather small set of cycling accident types in which that polystyrene hat makes a significant difference to injury.

The profits made from their sale must be tremendous, when you consider the paucity of materials and design your £50-£200 buys. One rather large reason they get "pushed".

****
On the other hand, I could myself invent and push pedestrian helmets, advertise them vigorously (inclusive of induction of parental guilt-trips concerning their children running free on the streets) and so get rich. Happily, I fear being rich more than anything (you get to do what you want - disaster follows).

Cugel, only 58 years cycling without a head bang. Perhaps if I wear one it will "save my life" tomorrow, though but.

Brucey wrote:there are quite a few techniques that (eventually) give you air-free brakes. There is certainly no one way of doing it.

There is a lot of nonsense spoken about bleeding brakes, and you would think it is some kind of magic, not basic plumbing, the way some folk carry on about it. IMHO if you are ever using a syringe connected to the system as a suction device, you are probably doing it wrong.

cheers

Please send me a vial of your perfection juice, as I too wish to be both infallible and certain at the mechanics, like yourself!

On the other hand, there is my experience of brake bleeding, which suggests the syringe is a necessary item as those dang air-bubbles seem disinclined to obey Brucey-law concerning the do's and don'ts of how they must behave,

But once the major bubbles are sucked (as well as squeezed) out, the tiny remaining recalcitrants will, it's true, eventually obey the more simplistic laws of physics, as riding-vibes shake them out of their naughtiness and they rise up a bit towards the brake lever end.

Cugel, who goes with the flow rather than the catechism and dogmas.

In the intro to this helmet forum, the following statement is made to describe the CTC official attitude:

".... the CTC view is not anti-helmet (despite what some would have you believe). It is anti-compulsion. It believes that each individual should have the right to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves and then decide whether or not to use a helmet".

The various helmet debates and referenced data sources studying cycling helmet-improved safety (or lack of it) illustrate that it's very difficult to decide for yourself. In effect, we choose one opinion from a contradictory range offered by experts or (more likely) by fashion. Our "choice" is often a construct of our social situation, including peer pressure and the tremendous weight of advertising. We didn't decide; a mob (mass media)or a syndicate (the manufacturer advertisers) did.

Even the CTC/Cycling UK organisation is ambivalent. It is not for or against helmets ... but the general weight of the photos employed show a huge "choice" by various pictured cyclists "for" helmets. This too is a peer-pressure on others to buy one and wear it in the expectation that it will make them "safe".

Cycling UK itself references various studies and meta-analyses that indicate that helmets (and high viz clothing) seem not to offer any overall safety benefit. If this is so, why does Cycling UK sit on the fence concerning these things? If Cycling UK policy of non-compulsion is based in an agreement with, or acceptance of, those studies that show that helmets (and perhaps high-viz) contribute to a greater number of (head) injuries in the wearers, surely Cycling UK policy should not be just anti-compulsion but anti-helmet (and perhaps anti-high viz).....?

Discuss.

This is worth a look:

https://www.huntbikewheels.com/blogs/ne ... ting-guide

Cugel

NUKe wrote:I need to bleed my Shimano brakes, So I have bought the Shimano bleed Kit (plastic funnel ) As it was labelled as kit but it said Oil not included I assumed it had everything else. Although it appears from the comments section on the Chain reaction Q&A I may need a plastic tube?
Has anybody bought one of these and confirm what is in the kit
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/shim ... -prod34710
I had assumed it would have the Syringe the pipe and the spacer required.

I have an old contaminated pads I can use as spacer not ideal, I can probably get a syringe from the Pharmacy on the way home.
Actually thinking on this I assume I can do it the same way as you would for car so just the tube,

If I do need a pipe what is the bore. ?

You'd be better to buy the full Shimano bleed kit. It has all the bits you need to move the mineral oil both up and down the hoses. And to keep the calliper pistons from coming out too far, or oil getting on the brake pads.

You need to push the oil both ways in the hoses, when installing or renewing it, if you're to get all the air bubbles out. The syringe (with connecting tube) pushes the oil (with any air bubbles) up from the calliper whilst the cup allows you to squidge air bubbles out from the lever cylinder, as well as collecting the excess bubbly oil pushed up by the syringe.

You can also use the syringe to suck oil down the hoses: bubbles sometimes lodge at the calliper end rather than rising up the hoses. Gravity alone (acting on the oil in the cup at the brake lever) won't necessarily put enough pressure on the column of oil in the hose to drive out bubbles at the calliper end, especially for the back brake.

Once you have the oil in and de-bubbled as much as you can, it is necessary to periodically repeat the cup-attach and lever-squidge to get the last few tiny bubbles out as they migrate up the hoses and into the brake lever cylinder. You'll get optimum brake feel after doing a couple more of these cup-only squidges (no syringe at the calliper end) perhaps a week then two weeks (and maybe three) after the initial loading of the oil into the hoses.

It's surprising how little air in the system it takes to make the brakes feel too squidgy at the lever.

After final de-bubbling, the hydraulics should work for a good while before you're tempted to renew the oil or the levers begin to feel less firm in their application of the brakes. Shimano give a recommendation for the renewal period but I can't remember what it is.

Cugel