Ruggedising an old road type bike for rough stuff riding

[Nearholmer]

Yep, my personal take is that a bike up to c20kg loaded weight is sort of not really noticeable, but that by the time it gets to 30kg the whole experience has changed. How people do the sort of genuinely heavy touring that is meat and drink for many here is a bit beyond me, because to me a bike that is >30kg loaded starts to feel like pedalling a small van along, rather than “the nearest you can get to flying”.

Back to the subject of the thread ……..

[jimlews]

Quote "Bimblbzzz"
"That must have been a nervous moment. Still, a self-righting trailer, that's quite an achievement!"

The trailer was a very fine achievement.
But I can't claim it as my own.
It was built by a friend; brazed together
from old steel electrical conduit as I
watched. No drawings, just a sequence
of questions. Load area? Ground clearance?
Wheel size? etc. And a very clever universal joint
on the tow hitch. I wish I still had it. Far superior to
the Bob Yak alike that I use now.

EDIT: This digression relevant only because I also used to tow it across fields.

[pjclinch]

Yep, my personal take is that a bike up to c20kg loaded weight is sort of not really noticeable, but that by the time it gets to 30kg the whole experience has changed. How people do the sort of genuinely heavy touring that is meat and drink for many here is a bit beyond me, because to me a bike that is >30kg loaded starts to feel like pedalling a small van along, rather than “the nearest you can get to flying”.

Depends on the bike to some degree. There will certainly be a "this isn't fun any more" point triggered by a certain weight, but bikes designed for loading push that limit up considerably.
My cargo bike and recumbent tourer are both ~ 20 Kg, but each can take substantially more than 10 Kg extra without becoming drudges to ride. On the other end, if you put 10 Kg of stuff on a light bike with a rack make of cheese everything can become pretty unpleasant as soon as you let the tail swing more than a couple of degrees, and it keeps on swinging in its initial direction while the rest of the bike swings back the other way.*

Pete.

* Don't ask me how I know this...

[Nearholmer]

First time I did a short tour after getting back into proper cycling about ten years ago, after the “commuting years”, I simply used my cyclocross bike, which had short chainstays, and slung biggish panniers on the back, and the handling on that got very interesting, mainly because the front wheel started pawing the air as soon as it hit any bumps!

[Carlton green]

My thanks to everyone who has supported ‘my’ thread. This thread has pretty much run its course, I’ve learnt quite a bit of stuff from others along the way, and some posts have led me to research particular topics to good effect. Some of my recent posts have been updated to reflect what I’ve found out about the (use) everyday day and (go) everywhere bikes used in the early and mid 1900’s (they ran on fat tyres) and similar ‘rugged’ bikes now sell under the class of ‘Dutch’ - heavy, slow, indestructible and comfy.

I won’t summarise the other stuff that I’ve learnt but those doing similar research might well find useful stuff in the thread.

Thanks again, CG .

[jimlews]

My take, for what it is worth, is that one can do roughstuff on pretty much any bike as long as a sympathetic riding style is adopted.
ie.
Its not what you ride; its how you ride it.

[Carlton green]

My take, for what it is worth, is that one can do roughstuff on pretty much any bike as long as a sympathetic riding style is adopted.
ie.
Its not what you ride; its how you ride it.

In this thread I’ve seem conflicting views on that standpoint. From my own perspective fine skills help but the rider might not have them or even be aware what difference they can make - I don’t claim such skills and prior to reading posts on this forum I rode along in relative ignorance. Indeed, as a general comment applicable to many things, one viewpoint doesn’t hold all the answers and the better ways forward hold multiple truths.

Several years back, it must be well over a decade, my thoughts of ruggedisation for greater reliability were prompted by the ‘impression’ that 26 x 1&3/8” inch wheels could go virtually anywhere with impunity. I recalled that scramblers (bikes) of my youth used 26 x 1&3/8 wheels and SA hubs, but whether that build was by design or accident I’m no longer certain. With that ruggedness in mind I set out to fatten up the 27” wheels that I was already using. With sooo many variables I don’t think that there’s a defining point at which wheels start to get reliably tough, but if there was then (imho) 650A / 26 x 1&3/8” would be very close. I think of that size as a slimmed down version of what was previously commonly used (28 and 26 x 1&1/2” / 700 and 650 B) , and that if space and circumstances allowed then I’d consider the - possibility limited - practicalities of going from 650A rims and tyres to 650B (returning to the past to gain a wider margin of resilience).

As a general comment for others:
#See how you get on with what you have and what difference improved build gives.
# Try to gain a better understanding of tyre and rim variations.
# After that the way forward varies; for me (1&3/8”) 35C x 700 works very well and slimmer forms of 27 x 1&1/4” just give unwanted trouble and limitations.
# YMMV.

Tyre and rim data: https://bike.bikegremlin.com/285/bicycl ... imensions/
Tyres available at SJS but not necessarily on your high local high street: https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/tyres-26-27 ... /?sort=594

[jimlews]

^^^^^
Yes.
I have just got back from a ride during which I have had time to mull over what I posted and to repent - in part.

I probably should have added:

BUT CAVEATES APPLY.

[Nearholmer]

If you think about it in systems-engineering terms, it’s all pretty simple.

We have a system composed of a bike and a rider.

Inputs are bike “relevant sophistication” and rider capability (physical fitness, skill, pain threshold etc).

The output is movement across terrain away from paved roads, which can be measured in terms of speed, roughness of terrain, and steepness of terrain.

If the “relevant sophistication” is capped by selecting a 1980s road-type bike, putting decent wheels, and the widest tyres that will fit onto it, and making sure all the bearings are well greased, however fit and skilled the rider, and however high their pain threshold, the outputs achievable before you have to push or carry it to keep
going will be bounded.

Up the “relevant sophistication” and the bounds widen, and it’s really no more than a matter of personal taste how far “relevant sophistication” is taken. Some people go the whole hog, to a full-sus XC MTB. Some don’t, often because that brings penalties in terms of speed on the easy bits, especially on any road links, and/or because they enjoy the challenge of “pushing the bounds”, ‘underbiking’ as it is sometimes called. Some people even go to “super underbiking” by riding a fixie with one giant gear off-road, rather like 1895.

About the only difference between “back in the day” and now is that the range of “relevant sophistication” available at the flick of a debit card is greater than it has ever been.

[pjclinch]

My take, for what it is worth, is that one can do roughstuff on pretty much any bike as long as a sympathetic riding style is adopted.
ie.
Its not what you ride; its how you ride it.

In this thread I’ve seem conflicting views on that standpoint. From my own perspective fine skills help but the rider might not have them or even be aware what difference they can make - I don’t claim such skills and prior to reading posts on this forum I rode along in relative ignorance. Indeed, as a general comment applicable to many things, one viewpoint doesn’t hold all the answers and the better ways forward hold multiple truths.

Several years back, it must be well over a decade, my thoughts of ruggedisation for greater reliability were prompted by the ‘impression’ that 26 x 1&3/8” inch wheels could go virtually anywhere with impunity...

Part of skill and how one rides is in intrinsic knowledge of what one can get away with on a given bike and the ability to just get on and give it a go: "skill" and "riding style" includes elements of bravery and psychology.

One of my beginner MTB group is very risk-averse and tends to fail at easy things for no other reason than he assumes he can't do them. He's been making great strides this past year and now when we persuade him to have a go and he commits he generally succeeds, whereupon he freely admits that it was actually very easy to do.

So, part of "how you ride it" is just having a go, and if you assume you need all sorts of special off-road gubbins to leave the tarmac then it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, while if you assume that your 26 x 1&3/8 hoops will take you along an "interesting" track there's a fair chance they will.

Pete.

[Carlton green]

Part of skill and how one rides is in intrinsic knowledge of what one can get away with on a given bike and the ability to just get on and give it a go: "skill" and "riding style" includes elements of bravery and psychology.

Yes, I don’t doubt that that is true enough. For the rough stuff that I do - with a modified road bike - a mountain bike would be overkill and well outside what I’d intended to be the scope of this thread. In general I’m a traveler on a bike rather than a sportsman, for me riding is to go somewhere rather than do ‘clever things’. Though I sometimes gently push the boundaries bravery and (sports) psychology is for others; as far as I’m concerned significant risks are best avoided and aren’t part of the (established with purpose) paths, trails and tracks that I follow (such purposeful routes needed to to fit for foot travel and likely haulage animal use too).

So, part of "how you ride it" is just having a go, and if you assume you need all sorts of special off-road gubbins to leave the tarmac then it tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, while if you assume that your 26 x 1&3/8 hoops will take you along an "interesting" track there's a fair chance they will.

Having a go is usually a good way of doing things and leads me back to earlier comments along those lines: do it, see what breaks, mend it and repeat that loop until nothing more breaks. Whilst up against the limits of what I’ve found to be practical (YMMV) I’m inclined to think that well built and well shod 650A (26 x 1&3/8”) hoops will - assuming a bit of sensible riding - acceptably take nearly anyone along nearly any (established with transport purpose) track *. Should the track or path ahead get too rough to reasonably ride then simply continue the onward journey on foot for a while and remount when and where appropriate. What I’d say to people is: “don’t go mad but have a go” and “it ain’t what you’ve got that matters, it’s what you do with it”.

* Edit. That’s not intended to be a recommendation and imho 700 x35C is a better way to go, but if I already had a 650A bike then I’d take it off of tarmac and (subject to sensible use) expect it to be adequate for the task - and a sprung saddle with 650A’s would be a good idea.

BUT CAVEATES APPLY.

Yes , they pretty much always do .

[pjclinch]

Though I sometimes gently push the boundaries bravery and (sports) psychology is for others; as far as I’m concerned significant risks are best avoided and aren’t part of the (established with purpose) paths, trails and tracks that I follow (such purposeful routes needed to to fit for foot travel and likely haulage animal use too).

Bravery and psychology, along with the level of risk that is "significant", are relative. My previously mentioned risk-averse pupil actually had issues riding through muddy puddles earlier in his cycling career (this on a good track on a mountain bike), so it's been an interesting journey where (very much by his own admission) he needed pushing, but very gently...
Things like shallow ditches, fords and short, sharp banks just need momentum and attitude, but that's not always available for everyone. Getting off and walking is always an option, but if you spend all day doing it you'd be better off without the bike!

Pete.

[Carlton green]

Bravery and psychology, along with the level of risk that is "significant", are relative. My previously mentioned risk-averse pupil actually had issues riding through muddy puddles earlier in his cycling career (this on a good track on a mountain bike), so it's been an interesting journey where (very much by his own admission) he needed pushing, but very gently...

Things like shallow ditches, fords and short, sharp banks just need momentum and attitude, but that's not always available for everyone. Getting off and walking is always an option, but if you spend all day doing it you'd be better off without the bike!

A bit of thread drift is fine, and this thread has done well so far, There’s always a limit to what can reasonably be expected of any kit and I’m inclined to think that expecting ‘enhanced’ road bikes to ride ditches and short sharp banks is both stretching things and more the domain of purpose built (ie. specialist) off-road bikes. In my original post I defined rough stuff as: “ There'll be some moaning from the group if you go that way without warning, but you don't need a specialist bike”.
The meaning of way is a context sensitive, but in this context it means (section of) route or ‘path’.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/way

Getting off and walking is option and one that I now recommend and use without hesitation. The bike’s purpose is to transport me along (at least) the bulk of my chosen route (the journey) which can include a variety of surfaces, it’s rare that walking with the bike needs to be for more than a few minutes and it’s no hardship.

[pjclinch]

There’s always a limit to what can reasonably be expected of any kit and I’m inclined to think that expecting ‘enhanced’ road bikes to ride ditches and short sharp banks is both stretching things and more the domain of purpose built (ie. specialist) off-road bikes.

Not really. When I was kid we would attack the like on our Raleigh "racers" in the local woods despite a very limited gear range, terrible skinny tyres and Weinman sidepulls on chrome rims that distinctly lacked much in the way of slowing-down effect...

In my original post I defined rough stuff as: “ There'll be some moaning from the group if you go that way without warning, but you don't need a specialist bike”.

Yep, a shallow ditch or a short, sharp bank typically just needs momentum and self belief, and the same is true whether you're on a fancy full-sus MTB or a Raleigh 20.

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

Just seen a posting on another group wherein a chap describes his 99 mile gravel tour around and over the top of the White Horse, including nearly 5000ft of climbing, and an overnight camp, on an old Raleigh 3sp (looks c1940s) fitted with old-type drop handlebars, and traditional luggage, undertaken over the past two days. The pictures honestly look like a 1950s RSF expedition!