Cycling UK Forum

zenzinnia wrote: I use downtube levers (I just prefer them for touring) and I can't imagine that I'll still be able to get them when my present ones give out (of course I don't think they will give out for a long time yet!)

There must be literally millions of down-tube levers about on older bikes and in people's sheds, now made mostly redundant by the move to STIs etc. If I were you I'd buy a couple of pairs from ebay over the next year or so and they'll keep you and your kids going forever.

And if you can get Simplex / Mavic retrofrictions, so much the better!

Bad luck, pioneer, but I'm glad you're still mostly fit to ride.

Another big plus vote for the Buff - a brilliant and versatile bit of cloth, especially at this time of year. Makes an easy hat / balaclava / ear-warmer / snood / saddle-wiper. Well worth a tenner, even though that seems steep for a tube of cloth.

Helmets: in my experience Bell are better for narrow heads, Giro for fat round heads. I can't see any good reason to spend more than about £30 on a hat nowadays.

One thing to definitely look out for is an easy size adjustment - my Bell (I'm a pinhead!) has a dial at the back. Makes it super-easy to adjust for hat / no hat, even while you're riding. Possibly all helmets have this sort of thing now.

Actually that looks about perfect. What you need, of course, are full sprockets, not the sort that are mounted on some form of spider. Those ones look fine in the photo.

Might be worth an ask about on the Moulton forum - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/moultonbicycle/. You have to join, but someone there will have a working memory about these things.

What you need are flint catchers!

Rather old-fashioned, and probably impossible to buy now, but not, I would think, too hard to make.

Not everything from the past has been superseded by something better!

Mick, the word 'davcon' is popping up in my head but I can't quite remember what it actually means!

There is some discussion in Tony Hadland's book The Moulton Bicycle about what used to be called 'hybrid' gear systems - I will try and remember and have a look tonight.

I'm sure there was a thing called a davcon converter - possibly made by a Dave Connolly (?) - which took a few sprockets. Can't remember whether they were shimano splined or something more esoteric like Regina threaded.

No luck from a quick glance at Google.

If you only want two, shimano splined freehub sprockets can be filed 'depressingly easily' (as I once heard it described) into the necessary three-pronged form and then two slipped onto the hub. Is it just coincidence that the two are of the same diameter?

Ferrules too. If you can get the longer ones with a sort of protruding rib or rim at the open end so much the better - you can crimp at that point and it does not pressure or fray the cut end too much.

Or so I think, anyway.

You can often buy bags of 100 ferrules or so at those Cycle Promotions sales - I think that's where I got my last lot.

24x32, fully loaded on my old Kona, from Sault / Chalet Reynard. Very glad of the low gears, and that was at the end of my month in the Alps so I was super-fit.

Weather did everything, including hail, and really strong winds. At one point my cycle computer actually read 0km/h! Am quite proud of that.

Thick fog/cloud at the top, couldn't see a bloody thing.



Excuse the wonkiness of the snap, it has sentimental value!

Mick F wrote:700c and 26inch wheels aren't very different in diameter BTW.

622mm bead seat diameter for a 700c;
559mm bead seat diameter for a 26" (IIRC)

Therefore 63mm difference in rim diameter, or about 10%.

1954mm circumference for a 700c at bead seat;
1756mm circumference for a 26" at bead seat

Therefore 198mm difference in circ, or about ... 10%.

For what it's worth.

Mittens! If you get cold fingers, mittens are excellent. Try Buffalo, about £20. I wear them at work a lot in the winter and for riding when it's right cold. You'd be surprised how dextrous you are in them.

And for riding when it's not quite so grim, Aldi gloves. About £4, can't go wrong really.

stewartpratt wrote:For instance, I've got a Cross Check (CX) and a Long Haul Trucker (tourer). The angles are identical and the top tube lengths are identical. I'd be perfectly happy touring on either (because I'm a couple of panniers and a bar bag kind of guy) and I'd happily use either for CX rides (because I don't race).

Now I'll give you that the Cross-Check is a reasonable compromise - that's because it's really a light touring bike, and certainly not a 'cross racer. In fact it's quite similar to my 1987 Raleigh Randonneur - a light tourer, reasonably competent in a number of areas, on which I've done all sorts including time-trialling, racing cross, and touring with panniers. And it's ok at all these things - a jack of all trades.

The Tricross, however, is no tourer, certainly not with that toe-clip overlap. That's not to suggest that there aren't people riding them round the world with kitchen sinks right now, but there are people touring on Bromptons too. And I accept that it might be an acceptable crossover for people who want a fast road bike but also want to cut through the woods, but it's still not a touring bike.

There's nothing wrong with looking for one bike to do a number of jobs, but, for the reasons I suggested above, I don't think a proper 'cross bike is the place to start, and nor is a heavyweight tourer. And nor is a Tricross. But a Galaxy, or a Cross-check, or, for that matter, my old Randonneur, is not a bad compromise.

ps - in my local Halfords, they sell 'cross bikes, but not tourers. Go figure.

MikeHowarth wrote:Ideally I've got a budget of around £2K for the lot.

No problem then, Mike! For that money you could get a cracking touring bike and a commuter with a Shimano dynohub and a B&M front light.

And as you say, commuter first and on those long boring winter rides you can work out exactly what it is you don't like about those handlebars etc.

Have fun!

rogerzilla wrote: I really, really don't want STI

Go on, I've got to ask - why on earth not? You'll be telling us you don't like indexing next!


If you're worried about reliability while in the far reaches of Tajikistan, why not get a bar-end shifter (or some old down-tube shifters) and pop them in your packing just in case?

Have a look at Intec (which used to be called Fort) at Sonic Cycles. They do a couple of steel frames for 26" and 700c wheels, for derailleur or Rohloff/hub gears. I've got the Rohloff 26" frame with disc mounts. Am very pleased with it except that the disc-specific fork is a bit stiff.

Sonic now build whole bikes too:



£730 with Tubus racks seems quite good, but I haven't compared closely. Flat bars, though, on this bike, but Sonic build them up from frames so I'm sure Helmut Berns (the owner) could build it however you wanted.

Best of luck!

Sorry, Mike, that rant doesn't answer your question at all.

If you do want one bike, you must choose it according to what will place the greatest demand on it. Which, in your case, will be the Karakoram and that. A sturdy tourer should be up to that, and will also be more than capable of getting you to work, although possibly five minutes slower than a fast road bike.

Conversely, a fast road bike will get you to work faster each day, but would be a definite gamble in the Himalayan wilds.

An advantage of one bike is that you will be on it for 2-3 hours a day so you will know exactly how comfortable it is when you come to tour. A disadvantage is that you will wear out the parts quicker.

Much of this depends on your budget. For £700, I'd recommend one good bike rather than two £350 bikes. For £1500, I'd say £1100 on the tourer and £400 on your commuter.

I guess we've been here before but aren't tourers and cyclo-cross bikes almost mutually exclusive? OK there are wide clearances, drop bars and cantilevers on both, but the similarities should end there.

A proper touring bike should have a low bottom bracket for stability, slowish steering, be fairly heavily built for durability, and be designed to be laterally stiff when loaded (hefty seatstays) but comfortable for all-day riding. Think Thorn Nomad.

A proper 'cross bike should have a high bottom bracket for clearance, fast steering for manoeuverability, be light for carrying, be stiff for unladen power transfer (hefty chainstays), and be built for one-hour-long races, therefore with little concern for comfort. Think those spindly Alans.

So where's the crossover? This is why I don't much understand bikes like the Tricross. Fool's gold.