Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:The achilles heel of a cotton duck saddlebag can be fraying of the side pockets

That's interesting, I came within a whisker of buying a College - that is, a Nelson without side pockets. Presumably the fraying is a much bigger issue for a College because you'll be wearing into the main compartment?

Thanks everyone, on balance it sounds like the bag can probably cope but I'll take Pete's suggestion and drop Carradice a line to check.

Regarding theft, it's not normally a problem where I am, but I was actually toying with the idea of replacing one of the buckles with a mini padlock.

I recently bought myself a large Carradice saddlebag (the Super C) to see if I prefer it for commuting compared to my usual rack and panniers.

I know there's a number of quick-release options, but I've decided my favourite option if possible is to simply keep it on the bike. Only thing is, the bike lives outdoors. Will the weather (beating sun in the summer, sub-zero in the winter, and of course lashing rain in the.. well, all year round) cause the bag to deteriorate faster over time? I don't mind some cosmetic damage but I don't want repeated downpours to, say, reduce the waterproofing like seems to happen with my fancy Gore-Tex jackets. Hopefully cotton duck doesn't work that way?

I'm slightly exaggerating, the bike is sheltered under a lean-to for the 16 hours a day that it's at home. But for the 8 hours at work, it really is fully exposed to the weather. I've had the bike a few years and you can certainly now tell which parts are stainless steel and which aren't...

I've just noticed the Canvasman saddlebag on Spa Cycles website. Here's the medium-sized version, but there's also small and large:

https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m2b0s73p374 ... -Edition-M

Is this new? I haven't heard of it before, but would love to see a review or at least some more pictures. "3 internal compartments" worries me slightly, as I'd rather have one giant one.

I live in Cambridge and take my bike on the train pretty regularly, either south to King's Cross or north towards King's Lynn. Literally never had any problems, though 90% of the time I travel at weekends and I think bikes are banned for a few hours at rush hour. You don't need to book ahead or inform anyone. There's nowhere special to put the bikes, you just keep them in the gangway. It's all delightfully disorganised

Once you've made your way to Cambridge, you might want to check out the "3 days in 7" East Anglia ticket at https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/tickets ... nglia-plus

Oh, and stop at Shippea Hill if you enjoy disrupting statistics: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... passengers

531colin wrote:You might get as much benefit from using the most flexible tyre you can find, and running as low a pressure as you can without too much tyre "squirming".

Yes, I'd be keener to play around with tyre choice than with the fork, if the payoff might be half-decent. (I've already experimented with tyre pressure and have probably optimised as far as I can there.)

I currently run Schwalbe Marathon 700x32C on one wheelset, and Schwalbe Energizer Plus 650x45B on the other. On the plus side they're very puncture-proof (one flat in 3,000+ miles), but I'd be interested in trying any significantly more compliant alternatives.

Thanks for the replies and pointers to other threads. From reading them, it sounds like there's a lot working against me!

• Firstly, the fat disc fork is evidently not doing me any favours.
• At the most threadbare that I ride it (rack + lock, but no luggage), the bike is 17 kg.
• I have the most puncture-resistant tyres I could find: Schwalbe 650x45B or 700x32C, depending on which wheels I'm using.
• I'm light for my height: 6'0", 61 kg (9 1/2 stone). I'd never thought of this till now, but the thread 531colin mentions seems to say the heavier you are, the more stiffness you need.
• I use my tourer primarily for commuting and day trips - so not much luggage. (Actually, the week or two a year that I do load it fairly heavily, it seems to "settle down" and cope with the potholes/gravel better - so it's clearly built for loads.)

So I guess the question then becomes: if I were to change the fork and any knock-ons (e.g. brakes) but nothing else, then would I be gaining much?

Having already spent £150 on my "650B wheels + fatter tyres" experiment last year, which worked to a point but not as well as I'd expected, I can only really justify further experimentation if I'm smiling noticeably more as I ride... not the most quantifiable metric, I know...

I am curious about the effect of a fork on a bike's ride quality.

I have always been surprised at the similarity in ride quality of my two bikes. One is a 30-year old road bike, made of cheap steel ("18-23 high tensile"), running on 28 mm tyres. The other is a 3-year old tourer, made of Reynolds 520, running initially on 32 mm but then on 45 mm to improve the comfort (which worked, to a point).

I barely ever use the older bike but have recently done so a bit, and it reminded me that I'd expect a world of difference in ride quality - but when riding each bike lightly loaded (or unloaded) the difference is not actually all that big.

So I'm wondering, is this due to the tourer's beefy disc fork? It's 8 cm circumference at the ends, whereas the road bike's is 4.5 cm and also has a friendlier-looking curvature. I've attached some photos to show the difference - I think it's pretty obvious from the photos, but in real 3D life it's even more obvious!

Is this going to make a big difference to ride quality? If I replace my disc fork with a skinnier, non-disc fork (assuming that's even possible?), then will it pay off with a much nicer ride? Maybe I could even go back to my 32 mm rubber, rather than 45. Also, what kind of price would be the "sweet spot"?

I've just treated myself to a pair of Ortlieb Front Roller Classic panniers and am trying to mount them on the front rack (a Tubus Tara) of a bike with disc brakes.

Unfortunately (predictably?), on the side with the brake caliper, I'm having trouble finding somewhere for the bottom hook to fit onto the rack: either the caliper gets in the way (if I position the hook facing forwards) or the fork itself does (if I position the hook facing backwards). For nothing to be in the way, I think I need to have the hook either higher or lower than is permitted by the rail it's mounted on.

That rail is of the QL-1 variety (E176 on this page). From staring at the pictures on that page, it looks to me that a QL-2 rail (E144) has greater curvature, giving a wider range of height for the hook - exactly what (I think) I need.

So, does anyone know if the two systems are interchangeable: i.e. can a QL-2 rail be used in place of a QL-1? I cannot find dimensions for either online, but my QL-1 rail is 168 mm from far edge to far edge.

I'm not sure if this matters, but I am not actually using the usual hook - I'm using a fatter one (E110 via the link above), as the Tubus has wider tubing than most racks. I wonder how many spares I'll need to buy before I get these fitted?!