Ruggedising an old road type bike for rough stuff riding

[Bmblbzzz]

Regarding the Cambridge CTC photos from the 1930s, I see one of mending a bent crank. Clearly the bikes weren't always quite up to the rough stuff back then.

[Carlton green]

Regarding the Cambridge CTC photos from the 1930s, I see one of mending a bent crank. Clearly the bikes weren't always quite up to the rough stuff back then.

Ah, that would be if reference to this rather good (imho) post:

This is truly fascinating!

https://ctccambridge.org.uk/ctccambridgein1930s

You can see all sorts of luggage here, some of it I suspect improvised, and you get the impression that people suffered a lot of punctures!

I spent some time looking through the pictures, trying to learn what I could, they must have been a hardy and determined lot. It was great to see folk achieving stuff with little equipment.

[Nearholmer]

Some of the bikes in there must have been “top stuff” at the time, I think I can see long-cage derailleurs for instance, but one or two look as if they’d borrowed their mum’s shopping bike for the weekend.

I’ve got a rod-braked Raleigh Roadster that I recently tidied-up and recommissioned, which I really don’t quite know what to do with now that it’s finished. Maybe I should strip all the “unnecessary” bits off it, and turn it into a faux-1930s rough-stuff tourer, then go camping in a heavy and leaky canvas tent. Or, maybe not.

[Carlton green]

Some of the bikes in there must have been “top stuff” at the time, I think I can see long-cage derailleurs for instance, but one or two look as if they’d borrowed their mum’s shopping bike for the weekend.

I’ve got a rod-braked Raleigh Roadster that I recently tidied-up and recommissioned, which I really don’t quite know what to do with now that it’s finished. Maybe I should strip all the “unnecessary” bits off it, and turn it into a faux-1930s rough-stuff tourer, then go camping in a heavy and leaky canvas tent. Or, maybe not.

Some might have been “top stuff” at the time but only some will have stood the test of time - imho that’s the test that matters most - and the rest is long forgotten and possibly never known to us. I wasn’t sure about details of some of the things seen in the pictures, there’s no guarantee that they’re what we anticipate them to be.

I wouldn’t suggest going camping in a heavy and leaky canvas tent (there are better products available now and sometimes for reasonable prices too) but think that the spirit and tenacity of those that did is admirable. When you look hard a great many things they have, albeit in some closely related form, stood the test of time and progress. When change works for you then adopt it, reject it when it doesn’t.

The Roadster sounds like a nice bike for someone; if you’re now bored with it - you had your fun restoring it - why not let it go and hope that it’s used? The road bikes in the Cambridge pictures seemed very different to an old Raleigh Roadster with rod brakes, if it were even possible then the Raleigh would need a lot of changes to make it into a similar bike for sporting recreation. An old fashioned bike with rod brakes might appeal to someone, perhaps in say a vintage cycling club, and imho bikes should be used.

[Nearholmer]

You mustn’t take everything I say too seriously.

I will find someone to love the Roadster.

[Carlton green]

You mustn’t take everything I say too seriously.

I will find someone to love the Roadster.

Excellent, a big thumbs up from me .

[Bmblbzzz]

Rod brakes are horrendous, so you don't want to ride it downhill. And it almost certainly weighs a ton (Imperial, of course) so you don't want to ride it uphill either. I reckon the rod-braked roadster would make a good bike for canal towpaths or converted railway lines.

[Nearholmer]

I’ve put koolstop pads on it (you can buy them to fit the old holders), and provided you don’t mind trundling along at a sedate pace it’s a very smooth and comfy bike. At 21kg unloaded, I think it smooths out the road as it goes, like a steamroller.

[Carlton green]

Rod brakes are horrendous, so you don't want to ride it downhill. And it almost certainly weighs a ton (Imperial, of course) so you don't want to ride it uphill either. I reckon the rod-braked roadster would make a good bike for canal towpaths or converted railway lines.

I’ve put koolstop pads on it (you can buy them to fit the old holders), and provided you don’t mind trundling along at a sedate pace it’s a very smooth and comfy bike. At 21kg unloaded, I think it smooths out the road as it goes, like a steamroller.

An interesting point about weight but (in practical terms) how much of a burden it is I’m now not so sure. It is my habitat to shift my terrier to walking places by carrying it on my bike, bike plus terrier must weigh upwards of 21kg but I just get on with it - if admittedly with some low gearing on my three speed hub.

Other than not to expect much of them I can’t say that I know anything much of rod brakes. Rod brakes and steel rims were doubtless durable and in some sense useful, but there’ll be good reason why many decades ago cable operated brakes displaced them on other than some utility bikes.

It struck me that the old Raleigh would likely be running on substantial tyres (Westrick rims shod at least 26 x 1 3/8” tyres) that gave a comfy ride, and that in the past bikes would be expected to cope with cobbled roads and other less than ideal surfaces of quality akin to canal towpaths and converted railway lines *. The widespread use of smooth tarmac facilitated a drift away from wider tyres to narrower ones which we now regard as standard. That sort of brings us back to rough stuff riding as described in my original post .

* Edit. Indeed some years back such similar thoughts led me to wonder how I could return tyre widths from the nominal 1&1/4” towards 1&3/8”, when modifications and changes (wider rims and fatter inflating tyres) were completed the resultant additional width gave noticeable benefits. When I moved to 700C (as an insurance to enable me to purchase replacement tyres nearly anywhere at short notice) I’d no idea that those tyres were a taller section (than 27 x 1&1/4”) and that increased section has also given additional improvements in ride quality over rough surfaces.

At one time 28 x 1&1/2” was the tyre used on English bikes, that turns out to be a 700B / iso 40 - 635; before going to easy rolling 27” wheels tyres used to be much more voluminous. This CUK chart makes for some interesting reading and interpretation: https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-libr ... tyre-sizes .

This Raleigh brochure from the 1930’s shows that the standard tyres at that time were 1&1/2” wide in 26 and 28” sizes : https://threespeedhub.com/wp-content/up ... 930_UK.pdf

This article gives a helpful explanation of the various 26” / 650 tyres and the relative height of their carcasses (and hence ability to absorb variations in surface quality) : https://bike.bikegremlin.com/285/bicycl ... imensions/


TLDR: to ruggedise a bike adopt what was used when road conditions were worse than they are (expect to be) today.

[Nearholmer]

21kg isn’t massively heavy, it’s easily exceeded by a modern bike loaded with shopping, and possibly even for “credit card touring”, but there are two things at play: having all that weight as frame/bike seems to make it ride especially smoothly, and the gear range with a SA 3sp isn’t exactly super-wide, lowest c40”, which quickly takes the fun out of pedalling up hill.

Yes, tyres are 1 3/8”, so c35mm, which is ideal for a wide range of surfaces, and I’m sure became standard in the days when many roads in the country weren’t hard paved, and in towns were cobbled, for that very reason.

[Carlton green]

… and the gear range with a SA 3sp isn’t exactly super-wide, lowest c40”, which quickly takes the fun out of pedalling up hill.

My main three speed utility bike runs on a 38T chain wheel and a 24T rear sprocket driving a 700C rear wheel, that’s not high gearing (top is just under 60”) but it gets me about and these days I will successfully tackle inclines in second (slightly over 40”).

It’s a diversion but imho a three speed needs to be (overall) geared such that top will allow you to pedal up a shallow slope and bottom requires the occasional dismount to get up steeper hills. As it’s hard to find suitable cottered cranksets with smaller numbers of teeth changing to one of then isn’t easy, the largest commercially available SA sprocket is a 24T.

TLDR: If you haven’t yet got a 24t rear sprocket fitted then I recommend that you try one.

[pjclinch]

TLDR: If you haven’t yet got a 24t rear sprocket fitted then I recommend that you try one.

Had a 25 sprocket on the Sturmey 8 on my previous Moulton. Sadly standard Brompton chain tensioner setup doesn't allow that sort of sprocket size

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

TLDR: If you haven’t yet got a 24t rear sprocket fitted then I recommend that you try one.

We are well off down a side-path here, which is possibly appropriate, but yes, that’s exactly what it needs to make it more practical for my purposes, but TBH I'm more likely to re-home it than refine it.

[jimlews]

Rod brakes are horrendous, so you don't want to ride it downhill. And it almost certainly weighs a ton (Imperial, of course) so you don't want to ride it uphill either. I reckon the rod-braked roadster would make a good bike for canal towpaths or converted railway lines.

They are indeed "marginal" in braking terms. But adequate for their intended use ie. flat terrain.
In a previous life I used one to tow a logging trailer around the Devon lanes. For that use, I had to
gear it very low. A 22t chainwheel driving a 22t sprocket on an AW. Geared for climbing. Descending
those steep Devon hills was an interesting experience especially as the front "Westward" rim had a
kink in it at the weld. One time, plummeting downhill, I thought the trailer felt weird. Glancing back, I
saw that it was being dragged along on it's side. It had righted itself by the time I'd managed to bring
the whole ensemble to a halt.

[Bmblbzzz]

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

As for weight, of course a lighter bike with a week's shopping, a touring load, a dog or a small child or whatever will easily equal or exceed 21kg. Say 12kg for the bike plus 10kg or 15 or even 25kg is easily achievable, if not always easily movable, so giving a total up to 37kg. But that's not a valid comparison, because the roadster would then weigh 31kg or 36 or even 46kg.