Cycling UK Forum

LittleGreyCat wrote:I've just cleaned my drive train thoroughly for the first time (which makes me a bad person).

I took the chain off, removed the rear wheel.

Cleaned the front cogs in situ with an Evans special brush and citrus degreaser, then gently rinsed. This took a while.
Leaned the rear wheel at an angle over a bowl and cleaned the cogs with the Evans brush then gently rinsed off. This also took a while.

An alternative would be to take off the outer and middle front rings and dunk them in cleaning fluid, and take the rear cluster off and dunk that.

The second option looks like less effort in that the components can be soaked, and potentially vibrated in a cleaning bath, making the cleaning easier and removing the issue of getting cleaning fluid on the bike and the wheel in places it shouldn't be.

I am, however, wary of little unexpected extra things which pop up when you don't use the simplest method.

I’ve never used fancy oil on my chain or any other part of the bike. For a long time standard 3 in 1 served my needs well for literally thousands of miles. Now any oil that’s in the workshop for say a mower is a fine general purpose lubricant, IMHO it’s a bike not some finely tuned high performance rocket vehicle.

Any downside to a partial strip down for cleaning?

Yes there is a downside to partial strip down for cleaning. It takes ages and it risks disturbing things that might not go back together as intended (bits get damaged, parts get lost and somethings just get put back together incorrectly).

My day to day ride is a hub gear bike and one of the reasons for that is the ease of maintenance, however I have derailleur bikes too and recently dusted them off plus cleaned the transmission up. I use the thin blade of a wall paper / paint scrapper tool (eg. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amtech-G0665-2 ... Cdiy%2C180 ) to move hard muck off of the chainwheels and between the rear sprockets followed up with rags. Turn the cranks, position scraper and off comes the bulk of the crud. The chain is cleaned with oil and rag, sometimes an old paint brush comes in handy too to brush off and poke out crud. The jockey wheels might need removing and greasing, I didn’t bother last time but I should have done - probably best to do one jockey wheel at a time.

Though I aim to it isn’t actually necessary to remove every last bit of grime and crud, just try to keep things oiled and the working/wearing surfaces of parts clean.

Cyril Haearn wrote:Cugel is exemplary in many ways but he chose to live where he 'has to drive' a lot, what happens in 30 years when he is old and weak?
I put a big value on avoiding driving, for many reasons. I plan to live on the edge of a small town when I retire, and I shall cycle a lot

Carlton green wrote:..
I’ve long wanted to do less driving and more cycling but, outside of leisure purposes, it just is impractical. Our local country roads to the nearest towns have too much traffic
..

Less driving, as little as possible, is possible
I have lived in a middle-sized town without a vehicle for many years, had a car again for a while, just handed it in to be re-cycled
Have been lucky/unlucky, made choices too
The plan is to never own an infernal combustion engine ever again

Less driving is possible and to an extent that's what I choose to do; if it’s only a little more difficult to cycle than drive then I cycle and my bike is used more often than my car.

Where you live does dictate a lot of choices and, of course, where you live is often a decision made with many and varied compromises. As and when we move house again I’d by far prefer to be able to manage without a car for say nine out of ten journeys. However, whilst all things are ‘possible’ some arrangements are only a sufficiently workable choice for some people for some of the time.

What do you actually want a new rim or a new wheel?

If you have a reasonable bike shop near by or have the skills then you could simply have any suitable rim laced to your existing hub. That would be the route that I would take.

Someone else will, no doubt, give you a more detailed answer shortly.

LittleGreyCat wrote:What I have noticed is that if I try to push on, even in the lowest gear, I can run out of steam.

However if I just pootle up (for instance when accompanying an even slower rider) it seems completely effortless.

So perhaps you just need to accept that a very gently approach to steep hills and occasionally being overtaken by energetic snails may be the way to go.

I have noticed something similar in that over spinning the pedals tires out the legs, taking it steadier seems to be a better trade-off or balance - in terms of endurance there is an optimum cadence.

Mikeymo’s training steps 1 - 4 seem logical to me. These days I just do local rides but have noticed a few things:

1) The more I cycle the more able I am to tackle hills and the less I have to walk up some. Of those hills I still resort to walking up I’m able to cycle further up them before having to dismount.
2) There will always be somewhere that for one reason or another I can’t ride up, I accept it and enjoy what I can do.
(There’s a practical limit on both how perfect my bike can be and on how much more ‘athletic’ I can become).
3) Cycling with a 12kg training load sat on the back rack helps me build ability and tests my bike too.
4) Removing the 12 kg training load see’s me now climbing hills in a higher gear than was previously the case.
5) Pacing yourself makes sense whilst pushing yourself will just see you burnt out with empty legs and/or worse.

skyhawk wrote:Or not whatever the case.

Having just returned to cycling my main fear is coming off, at 61 I am not old but not a teenager.

We are using the Swansea (will find more) coast path, nice cafe and sun, oh also Anglesea by the coast LOVELY places, so clean and tidy.

However already I have had a bust up with a tourist from Devon who without warning allowed her dog full run of the 30' lead, her reply was, bloody cyclists how dare you endanger my dog.

She was walking in the direction I was travelling so had no idea of cyclist coming from behind. Thankfully as with driving I missed it as anyone knows you are always ready for the other person to do something stupid, but it was close.

"We have no trouble on Devon cycle paths where I live, cyclists show more care and consideration"

From today camera on helmet, are there any rules on cycle paths, I have emailed the Council to ask but these days you never ever see dog wardens etc.

Some people who are startled or feel that one of their dependants (child, dog, etc) is at risk get aggressive, they shouldn’t do it automatically but they do. I think that when things go wrong or badly the most useful thing to do later is to reflect on how I could have managed the situation better. In this case making people aware has already been mentioned, and being friendly is almost always better than being argumentative. Please learn not to worry about who is right or wrong because what’s actually important is for you to be safely on your way and to do so without making enemies.

Dogs are dogs, most folk love them and typically all that Dogs want is a pat and some kind words. Yes Dogs can be a hazard to cyclists but there are much worse hazards to look out for, give yourself a treat: learn to love dogs - but obviously do it with care.

More of some general comments than an answer to the original post.

In my experience what ever my lowest gear now is I could still do with a lower one.

There comes a point at which the wise accept defeat, and then get off and push.

One of the main attributes of very small chainrings is their ability to inflict very large forces on chains, bearings and axles. Even with moderately sized inner rings I’ve managed to bend numerous axles on derailleur geared bikes and who knows what damage I’ve inflicted on cones but I’ve worn out many of those too. Reliability and component life have a value, why make damage quicker and more certain by using ever smaller rings?

Just because you can do something, or it’s theoretically possible to do, doesn’t mean that you should do it. Sometimes it’s best to leave things as they are and just work with what you have.

TrevA wrote:Winter far worse. There are days when it is dangerous to ride due to ice/snow. It’s usually wet, the roads are wet even if it’s not currently raining. You have to dress up in multiple layers and I’ve yet to find a pair of gloves that keep your hands toasty warm when it’s really cold.

Summer brings its own problems - over heating, excessive sweating, sunburn, but I still much prefer summer cycling. Autumn is probably my favourite time, before it gets too cold you can get some really nice autumn days that are ideal for riding a bike.

That’s just about my view too if tempered a little. Winter can be horrid but mostly it is not, however if you have to ride in the cold, dark and wet then you’re in a difficult and unpleasant situation. Summer brings its own challenges too in that sunburn is no fun and certainly something to be considered - likewise melanoma which just took a cycling friend. Now I would choose not to risk it and avoid cycling around noon on a sunny ‘summer’ day - find some shade and continue later, there’s usually plenty of daylight time left. Dehydration can be another issue in the summer too. I suppose it’s all a case of taking note of how we interact with the weather and acting accordingly, perhaps it’s easier to do that in the summer.

Arkunm wrote:Hi Everyone,

I want to buy a city/hybrid bike to use it for my rides in the city and countryside, planning to go as far as 15-20 km in some occasions.

Some of the city/hybrid bikes come with 6-7 gear and I am not sure as to whether this kind of speed and power is enough for the distances I mentioned above.

Could you give me some advice regarding what the most convenient gear is in a hybrid bike for at least 20 km riding?


Thanks in advance.

As others have said it’s the overall range of the gears rather than the number that matters, but more gears is a sort of help. At one time I rode a bike with just a wide ratio five speed freewheel (single ring chain-set) and covered 60 plus miles a day with it. Now I ride a five speed hub gear and it would be fine for the distances that you’re talking about - I get off and push if the hills are too steep.

Hybrid bikes are a good idea (stay away from Mountain bikes) and something with a rack and mudguards is heading in the right direction. I prefer drop handlebars but that can mean narrow tyres too (on that type of bike) which IMHO give a poor/comfort less ride - Edit. Subject to frame and brake clearances it might be possible to change them to 700 x 35 and if the rims are wider than normal (say 19 mm seating) and if the tyres are wider than normal (varies by tyre brand and model) then 700 x 32 might possibly be ok too. Simplistically it’s the inflated width that matters.

Many places have Bike recycling schemes, I bought a good Hybrid bike at such a place and my Son used it for years before it got nicked. Be aware that second hand bikes often have faults. I’m careful on eBay and usually do well on it, however I bought a local bargain through eBay (to replace the nicked bike) and it turned out to be a right lemon - there’s a surprising amount of bodgery done to bikes.

I see two questions really, the first being “How important is familiarity in choosing equipment?”

In my experience it’s very important to make informed decisions and being familiar with something usually does mean that you’re ‘informed’. It is also important to understand the uses that you intend to put an item to and might reasonable extend to put an item to. If you’re not well informed how will you know whether or not an item will match your purposes?

“So my question is: should I value familiarity over innovation? And is my inertia holding me back or making life easier?”

This is rather a hard question to give a good answer to, it’s almost which is the best of four possible states: familiarity/holding me back; familiarity/making life easier; innovation/holding me back; innovation/making life easier. To my mind the purpose of innovation is to make life easier, but if the new stuff does’t work or is too complex for me then it holds me back. Familiarity is good in that I know what to expect and how to deal with issues but in being unwilling to change I potentially miss out on things that could make life easier.

To a small extent I incrementally progress from one solution to another slightly better one, but I’m of the view that familiarity is best and that in practice I’m usually little - if at all - held back by not adopting some perceived ‘perfect’ solution. It’s all about getting the best from what you have and can afford, and a big part of that is reliability and understanding how to work with what you have.

An interesting thread, my thanks to the OP.

I’ve never really thought a lot about riding in these terms before, it’s been more of a case of aiming for one bike to do it all. That aim is perhaps a mistake on my part if also a reflection on a mindset formed in past ‘hard times’ (affording one Bike was something and who can afford two). If someone is restricted to one bike then it’s a case of which bike will do all things tolerably well - or what will you accept not doing - and to my mind you can easily enough commute on a touring bike but it verges on impossible to tour/haul heavy loads on a commuting bike. There is also some question as to what touring means to different people, to some it’s a month away from home with loads of camping gear, to others it’s a day ride in the countryside and then there’s everything in between. A commute in some relatively level city also poses different demands to say a rural commute in (hilly) Devon.

I no longer commute but if doing so now I’d be inclined to think about how my do it all bike might be changed to suit different needs. If one bike is all you have then perhaps having some fatter/heavier wheels and a change of transmission (wider range and lower gears) for touring is a way forward. For what it’s worth I concur with ‘the snail’ above, but I (now) wonder whether with a few simple changes it’s possible to make things a bit easier for yourself.

mjr wrote:

Carlton green wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:Sounds like some sort of two-wheeled snobbery to me.

That’s disappointing as my comments are not intended as snobbery in any way. If you’re happy not to differentiate between people who ride responsibly and with respect to others and those that do then that’s your right.

What do people mean by riding "with respect"? Before answering, please read bez's excellent https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/201 ... c-respect/

To my mind accepting the common use of the term Cyclists to include those that ride in clearly irresponsible, illegal or antisocial ways isn’t helpful. That’s not some snobbish us and them attitude at all as it judges exhibited attitudes and behaviours rather than individuals.

And yet, people here argue for using motorist to include those that drive in clearly irresponsible, illegal or antisocial ways instead of using a term ("moton") to distinguish them.

I'm completely against cyclists who ride irresponsibly. I don't much care about whether it's illegal or antisocial if it's not irresponsible - legal has been decided by non-cyclists for decades and social is going the same sad way.

Let's face it, no amount of language pandering will help, so we might as well stand together.

Interesting article and it is precisely the downgrading of attitudes towards cyclists/PoB’s that I think we need to be aware of. Just because someone on a bike has behaved badly isn’t a reason to treat other PoB’s badly but we should also be saying that their bad behaviour is not representative too. An idiot is one regardless of their means of transport.

Point taken on illegal and antisocial as their definition is open to manipulation, but whether we are happy with it or not we still have to work broadly within legal and social norms or accept the consequences of not doing so. I’m imperfect, so long as you use a bit of sense then the line from Pirates of The Caribbean works for me: ‘more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules’.

mjr wrote:

Carlton green wrote:However what I see in the media from time to time is that very argument being made and we need to be ready to respond to it well.

Becoming a cyclist Uncle Tom would not be a good response!

Carlton green wrote:A distracted pedestrian might be called a ‘J’ walker rather than a pedestrian.

Jaywalking is another notorious attack on active transport by the motoring lobby. Why join in like that?
[youtube]-AFn7MiJz_s[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s

Interesting video, thanks. One learns something new every day.

I should have been surprised that the Motor Industry was behind the term ‘J Walker’, but to suite their agenda commercial interests have repeatedly altered the way society works.

For what it’s worth a couple of pedestrians walked out in front of my bike today, sharing road space does mean looking out for other users and when a pedestrian I expect to play my part in that too. How road space is now shared is defined by laws and the Highway Code, those things are decided by our elected representatives and influenced by lobbyists - I believe the CTC is and should be lobbying hard for bike riders.

I don’t know what you mean by a Cyclist Uncle Tom but wonder what response you think is best and how it is being promoted to influence Government.

Vorpal wrote:

Carlton green wrote:

mjr wrote:Yes, it's another attempt to divide and conquer the remaining cyclists.

Please would you expand on your point above.

To my mind the best ammunition that the anti-cycling ‘lobby’ have is that which some people on bikes give them. I’ve cycled for years but when driving a car I too often see bad behaviours that put the person on the bike at risk and me at risk of being unwillingly involved in an accident due to their inappropriate actions. But maybe I’m completely wrong and riding your bike at night without lights on and on the wrong side of the road is perfectly reasonable....... and ditto for pulling across or into traffic without a care or look for what might be coming.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept that as any kind of an argument against cyclists. Does one distracted pedestrian give them all a bad name? How about the motorists who amber-gamble, stop over the line, speed, or even run pedestrians over on the pavement? Do they give motorists a bad name?

Why should I be held responsible because another cyclist exhibits 'bad behaviour'?

I think that you’re right not to accept it as an argument against ‘Cyclists’ and strongly believe that neither you or I should be held responsible because another ‘Cyclist’ exhibits ‘bad behaviour’. However what I see in the media from time to time is that very argument being made and we need to be ready to respond to it well.

A distracted pedestrian might be called a ‘J’ walker rather than a pedestrian. The inadequate skills and antisocial acts of some motorists do not seem give other motorists too bad name, but eventually it does result in legislation and the removal of privileges e.g. new drivers now having to take a test to tow a caravan.

mjr wrote:

Carlton green wrote:Would it be a case of all Cyclists are (also) PoB’s but all PoB’s are not Cyclists? If so then I believe that some PoB’s get the rest of us a bad name, or at least tarnish our reputation, and that in doing so they both encourage and generate anti-cycling sentiment.

Yes, it's another attempt to divide and conquer the remaining cyclists.

Please would you expand on your point above.

To my mind the best ammunition that the anti-cycling ‘lobby’ have is that which some people on bikes give them. I’ve cycled for years but when driving a car I too often see bad behaviours that put the person on the bike at risk and me at risk of being unwillingly involved in an accident due to their inappropriate actions. But maybe I’m completely wrong and riding your bike at night without lights on and on the wrong side of the road is perfectly reasonable....... and ditto for pulling across or into traffic without a care or look for what might be coming.

Oldjohnw wrote:Sounds like some sort of two-wheeled snobbery to me.

That’s disappointing as my comments are not intended as snobbery in any way. If you’re happy not to differentiate between people who ride responsibly and with respect to others and those that do then that’s your right. To my mind accepting the common use of the term Cyclists to include those that ride in clearly irresponsible, illegal or antisocial ways isn’t helpful. That’s not some snobbish us and them attitude at all as it judges exhibited attitudes and behaviours rather than individuals.