Cycling UK Forum

I'll merely confirm I'm past my best-before date by noting that before email, CJ used to reply by post. And good stuff it was, too. One of my queries - about the treading of TA cranks - also featured in the mag and the delay for that was longer than the two months between editions because of the publishing deadlines.

But that was a different era: there used to be a club the CTC (short for Christophe Toe Clips or something else sounding equally dated.)

It's now a charity whose aims are to promote cycling rather than serve the narrow needs of its members.

A lot of this has been chewed to death before, especially when the decision was taken to dump CJ.

IIRC, with committed cyclist Kevin Mayne gone, one of the professional charity experts, on the merry-go-round / escalator between kitten rescue and whatever, decided that would-be cyclists were likely to be put off by tedious stuff about pedal reflectors and gears in inches.

Unfortunately, for most of us cycling does involve these things, not least because if you buy a bike in the UK, it's likely to come without lights and if you buy some, the box will have a disclaimer about checking the lighting regulations. Not everybody can afford a new bike every time Shimano et al change the specs with minimal backward compatibility. And if a bike shop sells an inexperienced rider a bike with a bottom gear that would suit an élite TT rider, gear ratios become a big deal.

Let's be grateful for forums like this and youtube, where you can find helpful videos of how to do almost anything.

eg In the last few days I was servicing one of my former bikes which I had given to somebody with even less technical expertise than mine. It has (to me, new-fangled) Vee brakes, which were pulling to one side. I knew the little screws needed a turn but I couldn't remember which way. No need for trial-and-error: watch somebody on youtube. I needed new brake cartridges and a post on here brought a clutch of really helpful replies within minutes.

Once upon a time, the CTC mag used to run classified ads and what a truly useful service it was when there was nothing better.

thirdcrank wrote:In the year 2020, what purpose is served by printing replies to selected technical queries in a mag which appears every two months?

In my time - and I think such a policy is even more appropriate to this time - I picked out those members' questions that raised a subject lots of people seem to have a problem with, or that gave me an opportunity to shine light into a place most people don't think to look. And you've got to remember that lots of people don't 'do' forums like this. I sometimes have a computer problem, and although I'm a techy kind of guy and think I know my way around a PC pretty well, the replies I get on forums blow my mind. I think it's probably the same for a lot of casual cyclists with forums like this.

The rear wheel spokes question was a case in point. It's a problem LOTS of people have when they first use a bike seriously for touring or commuting and THEY SHOULDN'T. They have this problem because the DESIGN of rear derailleur wheels is crap. The 'cyclist in the street' needs educating about this or else Dawes and the like will continue to churn out crap. Yes it would be very nice if automated wheelbuilding machines did stress relieving or a better job of optimising tension versus truth, but they don't. We have to make the best of the world as it is. Mass-produced wheels would at least be up to the job and handbuilt wheels even better if they were designed right in the first place. And differential spoking to match the dish is the immediate way to achieve that. More people need to know that - and demand it - and a printed magazine is exactly the right medium for general consciousness raising. So Richard Hallett missed a great opportunity to make the cycling world a slightly better place, and I cannot forgive him for that.

P.S. Please cut out the personal sniping at Richard. He's a nice guy actually. And I don't think he takes undue advantage of his position to push his own services. I started this thread simply as a place to discuss the quality of his technical advice. So let's stick to that okay?

thirdcrank wrote:...IIRC, with committed cyclist Kevin Mayne gone, one of the professional charity experts, on the merry-go-round / escalator between kitten rescue and whatever, decided that would-be cyclists were likely to be put off by tedious stuff about pedal reflectors and gears in inches....

NB The current CEO is unchanged from then(ie he has stayed much longer than I (and presumably yourself) thought).

SA_SA_SA wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:...IIRC, with committed cyclist Kevin Mayne gone, one of the professional charity experts, on the merry-go-round / escalator between kitten rescue and whatever, decided that would-be cyclists were likely to be put off by tedious stuff about pedal reflectors and gears in inches....

NB The current CEO is unchanged from then(ie he has stayed much longer than I (and presumably yourself) thought).

Ahem viewtopic.php?t=136031
viewtopic.php?t=136862

I'm not a member of the CTC Charity Debate Re-enactment Society if such an organisation exists formally or informally. Conversion was voted through and it's now a fact.

All I was saying, as diplomatically as possible is that after the conversion, somebody who presumably knew more about the organisation of modern charities than they knew about cycling, decided that CJ's thread-to-needle technical and legal stuff was, frankly, boring and by implication likely to deter would-be cyclists. I think they were utterly mistaken, but that's their prerogative. (There was a thread at the time.)

With regard to the present thread, I get the impression that there's still a technical section of sorts because the mag has to be filled with something.

one thing i would like to see in the 'cycle' magazine is a series of articles in which either a bike is built stage by stage or ('repair shop' style) a bike is brought back to life from an un-used or non road worthy state.

the stages would discuss the functions of the bicycle as it went - tyres, wheelbuilding maybe, brakes, cables, headset systems etc until the bike became usuable.

i think that would be more relevant to the average potential or current cyclist, more likely to get people on the road than reviews of mega bucks bikes than commonly feature and spread greater understanding of how a (good) bike works.

maybe if not in print then the powers that be offer a few £s to regular contributors here for an online version if they have the time. patch them out to youtube and it may attract more interest in "Cycling UK."

Paulatic wrote:.....Ahem .....

oops....I only read cycle n months late as a pdf due to associate membership
and anyway he (Mr Tuohy) still stayed longer than I thought

(Diversion Ends. )

CJ wrote:P.S. Please cut out the personal sniping at Richard. He's a nice guy actually. And I don't think he takes undue advantage of his position to push his own services. I started this thread simply as a place to discuss the quality of his technical advice. So let's stick to that okay?

I'd echo this. I don't know Richard but I recognise him as one of the good guys. The major issue to me has always been editorial standards - whatever process the magazine has for peer review, fact checking, validation and proof reading aren't working. The issue of conflict of interest only comes about because CUK doesn't want to fund a full time Technical editor and is no reflection on RH at all.

Cycling in the UK does need a charity to promote it. I regret the passing of the old CTC but that's because it's day had gone - people today aren't so clubbable - It changed because most members weren't that interested in keeping the old set up.

As TC says the technical section is probably only there to fill pages. But if you're going to do it it needs to be right. I can't help but feel that treating CUK as a bog standard campaigning/charity organisation is missing a big part of the point. Setting up a charity to fund donkey sanctuaries is one thing but if you want people to keep them and use them then you've got an intrinsic interest in how they feed, water and care for them. A cycling charity has to recognise and address the technical issues especially in the UK where the utilitarian aspect of cycling has almost disappeared.

I forgot to note earlier that the thread title sounds to me to be something of a personal snipe even though later comment suggests that was not the intention. ie Naming somebody must make it personal and "Howlers" = "a very stupid or glaring mistake, especially an amusing one" reinforced here by the plural.

I must admit I took a second look when I read the advice on shortening a chain beyond being able to cope with the extremities. especially having seen the consequences with one experienced cyclist on tour - his chain was like a bow string and its a wonder the chain-stay didn't collapse.

Cycle UK has taken to decision to dump that sector of the cycling world who created it in favour of promoting cycling to a wider more family orientated audience - for good or for bad - an audience that buys new or takes it back to the shop rather than address the problem themselves, so perhaps they should also dump any pretence of technical knowledge of bikes beyond the advertising blurb that is drooled over by the public.

thirdcrank wrote:I forgot to note earlier that the thread title sounds to me to be something of a personal snipe even though later comment suggests that was not the intention. ie Naming somebody must make it personal and "Howlers" = "a very stupid or glaring mistake, especially an amusing one" reinforced here by the plural.

Yeah but, it trips off the tounge nicely. Never let the story get in the way of a good headline, they say!

Hallett's chain length advice was certainly a howler.

I've repeatedly noticed the penchant for reviews of rather expensive kit where cheaper options have been ignored.

Good to see a CJ review in the latest edition of Cycle.