Cycling UK Forum

I've set mine up without toe-in, but then that bike has never squealed much!

Note that the plough-tip wears down eventually, so you might get different behaviour then.

I think the stuff above about balancing the leg muscles is good, and also that you really need expert guidance before doing big weights (e.g. squats).

More generally ...
any exercise is better than nothing if you're not riding. Aerobic stuff gives the most benefits. Personally I detest gym bikes (never tried the "proper spinning" bikes), so I head for the rowing machine, which in muscle use terms is very close indeed to cycling. Keep the cadence high (minimises injury chances) and learn a little tehnique - ideally find a friendly rower to show you, but there are videos on the web (it's not rocket science).

*** Don't neglect the stretching afterwards! ***

Bump losses <-> Rolling resistance?

The issue of rolling resistance has been discussed a lot on YACF. The consensus (very roughly) is that on perfect smooth roads, 20mm tyre might be quicker (and are better at high speeds due to drag).
But on most british roads, fatter tyres regain some ground, and 28mm starts to look very good indeed. "Bump losses" is probably a good term for this effect. Over the years the peloton has moved from 20mm to mostly 23mm (wider for Paris-Roubaix).

This is a good post that explains things better:
http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic ... 0#msg44480

The Buffalo gets great reviews (and is cheaper than Assos ! Not sure if Rapha do any proper winter-wear?)

They descibe it as "PERTEX 6 SHELL WITH 'AQUATHERM' PILE LINING". Now I've been happy with my Pertex jackets in the rain (and they're cheap at £30-50), so I'm wondering how the Buffalo is better than wearing a cheap Pertex jacket over one's favourite non-waterproofed mid-layer?

I can see how in the winter it is nice to have just one, grab-it-every-day, do-it-all jacket.

rualexander wrote:The only thing that will stop you slipping on ice is studded tyres which probably won't be available in a size to fit your bike, what are you riding? Otherwise it's a case of waiting 'til about March I would guess.

This is pretty much right, IMHO, if you want to be completely safe.

There will be days that are OK, cos we will get warm spells, and dry spells (when the Big Freeze arrived a few weeks ago, all our roads here were bone dry, so I had many days of safe but flippin freezin rides!).
Other days, on certain routes, the grit will look after you. Mostly. Consider walking to the roads that have been gritted.

A cheap MTB (not with slicks on!) is some help - they sometimes find grip on areas with just patchy ice, but won't save you if you cross a proper sheet of the stuff. You can also ride off-road, which can be quite pleasant on frozen ground!

Of course this all depends on where you live, what your normal routes are ...etc ...

As well as route info, we need more info about the fitness of the cyclist.

A "reasonable" commute for Bradley Wiggins would be .... less so for me!

MartinC wrote:There are many opinions and received wisdom about this. What is true is that your knees are a large and simple joint that gets a lot of wind chill when riding a bike. The blood supply to your knees is poor. On the face of it, therefore, they could be at more risk of the damage caused by over exerting a cold joint.

Too right. Another factor is that knee problems are often related to cold muscles and tendons such as quads and ITB. So knee-warmers and/or tights are having a double benefit.

Shorts-over-tights:
Definitely looks better than under. however, my shorts usually have tried-n-tested pads that agree with my nether regions*, so they seem like the best thing to have next to delicate skin.

*Who knew ar-se was censored?

I'm another 32-hole, traditional wheel Audaxer. However, I've seen plenty of low-spoke count Mavics at finish controls. They work well - if there is a difference in comfort it is probably masked by tyre choice/pressure, frame geometry etc.

HOWEVER note meic's point about spoke failures. If this happens, you are most likely stuffed, so you need to decide whether the risk is worth it. (with 32/36 spokes you can usually finish the ride, even without a bike shop).

At least 1 rider DNFed on LEL'09 for this reason. It's your choice!

It's really no problem with the shorts and tights I have owned.

Just reach under the collar of your upper layers and "unhitch" your shoulder straps (2 or 4!) just over your shoulders a couple of inches.

This creates plenty of slack in the waist area (not waste!), allowing you to tug your shorts/tights down just as you would with waist tights.

( I think the Lussos you mention have a high front with a zip - this goes down plenty far enough to avoid any problems. )

I'm guilty of running close-clearance full-length guards and often get mud clods stuck - but the results have never been "dangerous". Have I been lucky? What's the worse that can happen?

[I also thought that the "snap-out" fittings for front guards avoided most possible problems. Not that I've had cause to test this yet ... ]

I'd rather have more clearance, but it really cuts down your choice of frames, especially 2nd-hand.

Flinders wrote:Re blame for accidents . . . . What is wrong with writing 'in a collision between'? Why is it always '..bike collided with'?

The active construction is always better/clearer/more readable english than the nasty passive. "collides with" does not indicate blame, or even which party were moving faster; anything else is inferred by the reader.

e.g. "Having parked up, I thrust my garden rake out of the window, and the hapless cyclist collided with it": it's clear what happened - do you think the author is blaming the cyclist?

[but I know that once people have decided on a new meaning for an english phrase, they can never be persuaded otherwise ]

Tonyf33 wrote:

mattheus wrote: That seems a very strange view. Very simple physics shows how heavier vehicles do more damage. Then there are the studies; there is one quoted on this very page that shows an increase with mass, but noone has any figures to show otherwise. If you don't like numbers, try common sense; even though bikes have no safety features built in for pedestrians, I would still much rather be struck by a 30mph cyclist than motorist.
What analytical technique are you using?

Too much discrepancy in vehicle weights across the range of types of vehicle. For sure some SUV types are heavier than a large portion of normal cars but at the bigger end of the car class that isn't so obvious.

Sure, there is a range of vehicle weights. But let's get real: the weight distribution of cars on the highway tails off very quickly - the %age that are heavier than the median weight for SUVs is teeny-tiny. Likewise, the %age of SUVs that are lighter than the median car weight is teeny-tiny. What kind of 4x4s do you use/buy? Are they lighter than many cars?

So in practice, this is a redundant argument. Look at the vehicles around you on the road; are the SUVs heavier? Easy answer.

However, if you want to pursue this to it's logical conclusion, I'm all for it:
If you will support a campaign against vehicles above the current median weight, then I will support your thesis that only bad drivers are a problem, and vehicle-type is irrelevant. Your choice

reohn2 wrote:If this country's government(and previous governments) was serious about its population's health (polution,heart disease,obesity,etc)and short journey efficiency it would implement sweeping changes to include decent cycle parking,strict liability for colisions,real punishments for those who are responsible for negligent/dangerous driving,and a host of other measures that I'm too bored to go into but which everone who cycles regularly knows are needed.
We have had decades of cycling promises of jam tomorrow (which now include buying off the CTC by funding it through charity status)by various governments but lets face it in this country the cars rules and its subsidised to that end.
I could go on, but you get the picture.

Completely agree.

One sad facet of this is that for relatively little effort/cash, much of the above could be implemented resulting in huge transfer of journeys to bikes, and thus ...
LESS CONGESTION!

So actually the diehard motorists would be better off anyway. They just don't see it that way ...

Here's my offer MrToad; i can halve your commute time, but you have to accept strict liability for colisions, triple penalties if you speed, and a less stretched NHS. What'll it be?

I've only been to hospital (or had time off work) following an RTA once:
crashed my car (via black ice), couldn't walk for 2 months. Can't remember when I actually got back to work.

I was wearing no hi-viz, nor wearing a helmet. Put that in your stats.

Tonyf33 wrote:I'm still not sure one way or the other which vehicle type is going to do most damage if it hit me in any given like for like situation.

That seems a very strange view. Very simple physics shows how heavier vehicles do more damage. Then there are the studies; there is one quoted on this very page that shows an increase with mass, but noone has any figures to show otherwise. If you don't like numbers, try common sense; even though bikes have no safety features built in for pedestrians, I would still much rather be struck by a 30mph cyclist than motorist.
What analytical technique are you using?

Frankly it isn't something I'm losing sleep about which by some accounts it does others.

May I advise you that by saying you do not care a jot about the safety of others, you are certainly not improving the reputation of your chosen demographic.

Lobby for better driving standards and harsher punishments for transgressors, forget what actual vehicle people are driving.

It seems pretty sensible to encourage safer vehicles on the roads; we have MOTs to enforce it, motor vehicles are often banned from pedestrian areas (sometimes even bikes are, sometimes a bit of an overreaction ... )
Try a thought experiment; your regular commute is on a dual-carriageway where every other vehicle is a poorly-maintained fully-loaded HGV. Would you choose that over another similar road with a more typical vehicle mix?

Hopefully that covers all the main points ...