Cycling UK Forum

I’d lay the bike on its side and squirt WD40 into the gap between the rotating and fixed parts. There’s no guarantee of a cure but it’s cheap to do and freewheels locking up for want of oil is far from unheard of. It worked once and might well work again.

pwa wrote: ↑4 Sep 2023, 5:47am That was an interesting bike.

Yes, it certainly was but IMHO it’s an affluent enthusiast’s unique ‘one off’ (on road tourer?) rather than what was typical of rough stuff bikes in common use by ‘ordinary’ cyclists. That aside there’s lots of technical interest and doubtless some things that the designer - and perhaps we too - would change on a future iteration.

Here’s an interesting little article with some photos. I’m amazed at what they successfully pressed into service.
https://suitcasemag.com/articles/the-ro ... cling-club

Jdsk wrote: ↑3 Sep 2023, 7:57pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑3 Sep 2023, 7:52pm ...
I don’t want anything complex, just a front fork dynamo mounting bracket (which appear to be unavailable in the UK but used on the continent).
...

Is it some specific type or model of bracket? Or an unusual fork diameter?

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/dynamos/uni ... e-dynamos/

Jonathan

Thanks for the suggestion, appreciated. The description says different but to my first (visual) impression that part isn’t for (front) forks but rather it’s for mounting on seat stays. I’ve scrolled down the SJS cycles description and note their comments on front fork fitting. The max width of 20mm offered seems to be 5mm plus short of what the forks need. I might email SJS and ask for clarification and preferably a dimensioned drawing.

As before we are where we are so, setting politics and forty plus pages aside, who sells into the UK from Europe?

We are where we are so, setting politics and forty plus pages aside, who sells into the UK from Europe?

I don’t want anything complex, just a front fork dynamo mounting bracket (which appear to be unavailable in the UK but used on the continent).

Thanks in anticipation of your responses.

In avoiding one danger we might either more or too greatly expose ourselves to another; it’s all down to the balancing of risks and to understanding what’s either better or worse for some situations.

Personally I don’t like flashing lights; they might get someone’s attention but, because they disrupt thought, at what overall cost? A steady light has worked for me, though whether it’s ideal or not I do not know. Whatever, I don’t need the safest or best I just need sufficient for my purposes; well that and to manage risk as best I can.

My own method of risk management is first to ask can the journey ever be safely managed on a bike and then, if risky, can it be avoided altogether? If not avoided then what route(s) might be safest? Visibility is important, I think reflectors work and when I drive then I notice pedal reflectors and find them a good and gentle reminder that there’s a cyclist there. That self recognition test actually works quite well for me, I try to model my own behaviour as a cyclist on what I find helpful as a driver - helping the driver helps to avoid an accident.

Moth effect, drawn to the light? Life is full of such unintended consequences. One might wonder why stationary vehicles on the hard shoulder are rear ended, etc. Visibility is one thing, but what goes on in the minds of others (what they do with the information) can be variable .

cyclop wrote: ↑2 Sep 2023, 8:32am Apologies for a "soap box" moment .Do be honest,I,ve never ridden latest generation single ring bikes with 40 teeth and above cassettes so I,ve nothing to base my rant on.....senior moment......

As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing particular to be sorry about, this is a forum and as such people express views and opinions as part of the discussion. It’d be a boring world if we all thought and did exactly the same and contrasting views promote debate from which we might all learn something. It’d be a shame too, I think, if folk felt that what they could say here was overly constrained or that they couldn’t - within reason - speak as they had found or felt. We all benefit from new ideas, having our own ideas (constructively) challenged and seeing the logical defence of alternative points of view,

cycle tramp wrote: ↑2 Sep 2023, 12:13pm And yeah, if I was going back into loaded/camping touring, I'd be using either a double or a triple chainset..

Me too, well if I could easily lay my hands on the bits. It’s pragmatic choice really, there’s times when you need that extra torque at the rear wheel and others when you’ll be fine with the simple option.

cyclop wrote: ↑1 Sep 2023, 7:10pm Three on the full susp,faultless for 17yrs.Had three on my Scott carbon road bike but a total revamp onto flat bars meant I only use two,controlled by a simple thumb lever for fine tuning.No single speeds,ok on older bikes with narrower rear sprockets I suppose.I laugh at the single speed guff e.g. "no complicated gear changing",what are we turning into,children?

We’re all different and, as they say, ‘one man’s meat is another man’s poison’. I’ve tried using triple rings at the front and intend to try them again, but my recollection on them is of them being fiddly in use and dirt traps. A single ring at the front hasn’t been fiddly in use and hasn’t been a dirt trap, but obviously the gear range is reduced … sometimes that matters and sometimes it doesn’t.

Simplicity can be very liberating, or so I find. Less to break, less to clean, less to buy and less to think about - all freeing up time, money and concentration. Of course getting rid of the derailleur altogether and getting a three speed hub is even more liberating, so long as you’re content to proceed at a leisurely pace and walk some of the hills. Child like? As an adult you can make the choices that you enjoy rather than be constrained by limits of the younger and less experienced mind of a child, the choice can be the same but the reasons different.

freiston wrote: ↑1 Sep 2023, 2:51pm
Going back to the photo of the extra long carrier on the RSF bike, there's another photo of the same bike which I've cropped - I think I mistook a background feature or a strap in the previous picture for a really long stay but I can see an extra "parallel" stay in this picture:
Screenshot from 2023-09-01 14-26-30.png

Yes, I noticed that disparity too. However whilst the same bike and rider - or so it seems to me - the pictures are at a different time and place to each other, so the modification is there in one photo but not in the other.

Thank you for the length details of your racks.

Detec52 wrote: ↑1 Sep 2023, 9:27am Hi everyone is it possible to change my crank 3 sprockets to one and just keep the 6 gears as I find I only use the middle crank sprocket no real big hills where I go. Thanks Rob

It’s possible and I’m an advocate of simple bikes. On the other hand you get a (helpfully) better chain-line with multiple rings; a case of what you gain on the swings you loose on the roundabouts.

Lots of different options work, or rather can work. I’ve covered a lot of miles on a single chainring coupled to a wide ratio freewheel and climbed many a hill with that arrangement too. Would I do it again? I’d be happy to but with derailleur gears a compact double chainwheel works quite well and that’s what I’ve now got on my ‘tourer’, for local stuff I use a three speed hub and it gets me about at a surprisingly good pace.

PH wrote: ↑1 Sep 2023, 11:00am

Carlton green wrote: ↑1 Sep 2023, 10:48am Whatever, extensions are an option but I’d rather just have an off the shelf rack that happens to be relatively long.

before you go too far down this road, I'd suggest you extend the current rack and try it. Might be fine, but I can't help feeling there'll be good reason most racks are the length they are.

Racks are the length that they are for practical reasons, I’m just looking to push the envelope a bit - things rack the Thorn Expedition rack * exist but they’re jolly expensive. Does anyone know what the various lengths of racks actually are?

As in an earlier post (extract below) I’m not looking for anything massive, just a few extra inches will make the difference I’m looking for.

The current rack has a load length of 11 & 3/4” and the middle of that load deck sits above the bolts that clamp it to the frame, the rack has twin stays at each side. A couple inches longer - even more could be useful - and sitting slightly further back would be good, three stays per side would be nice too.

* https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/carriers-ra ... owdercoat/

freiston wrote: ↑1 Sep 2023, 6:22am
. . . and a "heavy crop":

Screenshot from 2023-09-01 06-22-07.png

P.S. That looks to me like it could be an extension.

Thanks very much. Yes, I’m suspecting that it was an extension too; we’ll probably never know what was actually fitted.

I see that there are bracing struts going to the back of the rack and think that that’s good practice - if perhaps not absolutely necessary for carrying a sleeping bag or other light item(s) on a rack extension.

Whatever, extensions are an option but I’d rather just have an off the shelf rack that happens to be relatively long.

The first photo in this article has a particularly long rack in it, if anyone can lift the image and drop it into this thread then please do:
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/blas ... fellowship

The last photo looks like the same bike, but the rack in it is not quite as long.

The front rack looks porter style, but that’s a diversion.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 11:47am Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Carlton green wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 3:32pm

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 3:22pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 2:44pm

Yes it is, thank you for posting it. The definition on the original is limited (blurs for me on magnification) but IMHO there’s a lot to see in that photo - along the lines of this is how it used to be done and it worked for them … could work for me and ‘you’ too.

Things that strike me on that photo, besides the rack:
The wide front mudflap.
No rear mudflap.
The front-rear luggage distribution.
The saddle angle.
The lack of socks.
The beret.
The locked gate.

We’ll all see different things, on the other thread (viewtopic.php?t=136311&start=120) I noted:
# a smallish one piece front chain-set, with cotter pins, likely about 44T ‘cause that’s the smallest vintage ones that I ever see on-line.
# pedals with toe-clips
# small arm derailleur gears.
# top loaded racks front and back, the back being very heavily loaded and clearly longer than is now usual - no panniers.
# alloy rims, probably wide ones ‘cause they don’t buckle as easily and give a better ride on rough ground, they look like Weinmann rims to me.
# large flange hubs, looks like forty spoke rear wheel and likely thirty two at the front - as was customary at that time.
# bottle dynamo light running off of the front wheel’s LHS.
# side-pull brakes.
# mudguards with wide front flap.

I suppose that observations should really be added to the other thread rather than this one, please do if you have time .

Copied from the rack thread, where there’s been a bit of thread drift: viewtopic.php?t=157814

?? What of interest do you observe from the photo?

As a random comment I see oil - or rather black marks - on his socks. Always good to oil your chain.
Oh, and ordinary shoes and no fancy Lycra - ‘cause ya don’t need such fancy stuff to ride a bike.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 3:22pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 2:44pm

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 11:47am Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Yes it is, thank you for posting it. The definition on the original is limited (blurs for me on magnification) but IMHO there’s a lot to see in that photo - along the lines of this is how it used to be done and it worked for them … could work for me and ‘you’ too.

Things that strike me on that photo, besides the rack:
The wide front mudflap.
No rear mudflap.
The front-rear luggage distribution.
The saddle angle.
The lack of socks.
The beret.
The locked gate.

We’ll all see different things, on the other thread (viewtopic.php?t=136311&start=120) I noted:
# a smallish one piece front chain-set, with cotter pins, likely about 44T ‘cause that’s the smallest vintage ones that I ever see on-line.
# pedals with toe-clips
# small arm derailleur gears.
# top loaded racks front and back, the back being very heavily loaded and clearly longer than is now usual - no panniers.
# alloy rims, probably wide ones ‘cause they don’t buckle as easily and give a better ride on rough ground, they look like Weinmann rims to me.
# large flange hubs, looks like forty spoke rear wheel and likely thirty two at the front - as was customary at that time.
# bottle dynamo light running off of the front wheel’s LHS.
# side-pull brakes.
# mudguards with wide front flap.

I suppose that observations should really be added to the other thread rather than this one, please do if you have time .

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 11:47am Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Yes it is, thank you for posting it. The definition on the original is limited (blurs for me on magnification) but IMHO there’s a lot to see in that photo - along the lines of this is how it used to be done and it worked for them … could work for me and ‘you’ too.

freiston wrote: ↑31 Aug 2023, 1:08pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 2:42pmI’m not looking for massive but rather am looking for just a few more inches of supported loading deck.

Could you extend the top platform of an existing rack? Bolt/clamp a piece of metal plate or even metal "straps" or pipes/tubes, and brace to the rack stays if required?

Indeed that is possible but (rather than load sharing) one ends up balancing all of the load on the rack on the furthest back supports; in practise I’m getting away with something like that at the moment but it’s pushing my luck and I’d like something that’s better - if that’s reasonably easy to do.

My thanks to everyone for their thoughts.

At the moment I’m considering a Blackburn EX-1 rack from Amazon (good price but I don’t like the company). Their legacy expedition rack is a bit shorter than ideal but longer than I have, sits further back than what I have and is likely stronger than what I have. IIRC and can locate it then I’ve a knock off copy of the EX-1 in my store somewhere (lifted off of a scraped bike). Not ideal but at least some alternative plans.