Ruggedising an old road type bike for rough stuff riding

[PH]

I'm glad the riders have had a mention in a couple of posts. The rider's ability (learnt and inherent), experience, confidence and familiarity, are at least as important as the bike, probably more so. If anyone's doubts that, pop over to youtube and watch Martyn Ashton's road bike party. To some extent a more capable bike compensates for lesser skills, though there's limits to how much it can replace them. That someone can do 3 meter drops on a carbon road bike, with a somersault, does not mean that you might not benefit from a full MTB for a bit of bridleway. Whilst it's often interesting to read what others do, any idea that's a template for all is IMO false. It's less a question of what the bike needs and more what the rider does.

[Carlton green]

'Old road type bike' is fairly broad, and we may be envisaging quite different bikes and components. The OP's bike has a mixte frame, which I associate with the (earlyish) 1980s and before. The Claud Butler Majestic below which is currently in the For Sale ads was from that era, and represents what I, rightly or wrongly, would think of as an old road bike in the context of this discussion.

^^ Credit Slowster.

As the OP I did have bikes similar to the CB in mind but soon found out that others had different perceptions; as far as I’m concerned that difference is fine, educational even.

It’s my habit to question new stuff and to look for the best in the past, so not to re-invent the wheel, as such my bikes are old and capable of delivering large mileages (just as they could and did do decades ago). As a bonus they cost little to buy and not much to run .

Rear wheels were mentioned and part of my reason for going the SA AW hub route was durability (of wheel overall, hub and gearing), my choice has been well rewarded. Standard five speed derailleur set-ups use a freewheel and the axle is compromised (I’ve bent a few solid axles and some solid axles seem to be made of weak material too); quick release axles are more durable than sold ones. My SA AW is and has been great to use ; it’s always good to have a plan ‘b’ (see below ), but - other than variety - I can’t see any good reason to change my utility bikes back from SA AW’s.

Drive side spokes on derailleur gears have a tendency to break and rims buckle more easily (than hub gear wheels), but well built wheels survive. I’ve ridden many miles with a single chainwheel and wide ratio five speed block, the arrangement works rather nicely and - having got less bad / better at wheel building - I’m pretty confident that I could do the same again on a wheel that’d (now) reliably enough manage rough stuff. It’s a pity that wide ratio five speed blocks (eg. 14-32) are so hard to find … and fortunate that I’ve something in my store of old parts.

For those with old five speed derailleur bikes, who want to stay with derailleur, I suggest something along the lines of a 14-28 freewheel driven by a 40T chain wheel. As a bonus (ruggedisation) short arm derailleurs (for a 14-28) seem to be less vulnerable and exposed than long arm (for 14-32) derailleurs. Double chainwheels are useful, but they can also be a source of issues and to get a low(er) gear ratio (via a smaller chainwheel) they put increased chain loads on axles that are already prone to bending .

With respect to 14 - 28 blocks my views on gearing have very much changed over time. Setting aside the weakening effects of fatigue and ‘shame’ within group rides I’m of the view that if you can cycle the steepest of hills and rarely if ever resort to walking then mechanical integrity could be improved (so do this change) by using a larger chain ring. Don’t chase a climb anything gear and instead trade better axle and bearing life (by reducing chain loads) for the occasional walk. With respect to off of road use: in my experience the vast majority of paths and tracks don’t demand a really low gear, and where it’s too steep you can always walk .

With regard to handlebars I prefer to use steel ones (more durable), something set to match my shoulder width (so not narrow) and drops with a bit of extra padding (tape) on them. What the ideal handlebar width for rough stuff would be I don’t know, but I observe that a good ergonomic fit is comfortable and that if lots of leverage is required then it might be time to walk a while.

My idea of rough stuff was defined in the original post. It’s not an issue to me that others imagine more extreme use, as above it’s all opportunities to share knowledge and to learn.

I'm glad the riders have had a mention in a couple of posts. The rider's ability (learnt and inherent), experience, confidence and familiarity, are at least as important as the bike, probably more so.

That’s true enough and some years back I picked up on riding style comments from 531colin. On the other hand having a more capable bike doesn’t harm and actually extends the range of what an able person can manage to do.

[pjclinch]

On the other hand having a more capable bike doesn’t harm and actually extends the range of what an able person can manage to do.

It works from both ends. A more optimal bike will improve performance and better skills will too.

Each will make the more "interesting" stuff more controlled, more fun and less uncomfortable at a given speed, or allow greater speed at a similar level of control.

Thing about skills is they work on just about any bike, while making a bike better suited to rough stuff isn't much use if you're on a different one for some reason...

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, there’s some sort of three or four, or even five, axis plot to be drawn: bike sophistication; rider capability; bumpiness; steepness; and, speed.

If we assume for a moment that rider capability is fixed, it is what a given rider can do today (today’s level of fitness, experience, bravado etc), and that particular rider has a particular bike (ranging from full-sus MTB with e-assist and all gizmos, to 1980s road bike slightly ruggedised), that gives a range of bumpiness-steepness-speed combinations that they can then tackle.

Interestingly, most e-MTBs have a blank-spot in the performance envelope, even with the most capable rider, because they are frankly too heavy to be carried for any distance, even by a burly bloke, so any competitive trial ought to include a really steep mountain goat path, and a knee-deep bog!

The blokes that really amaze me are the ones who had the least sophisticated bikes, way before the RSF was invented, back c1900. Some of them managed quite incredible combinations of speed-bumpiness-steepness, although some of them also ingested liberal quantities of cocaine to enhance rider capability!

[pjclinch]

Yes, there’s some sort of three or four, or even five, axis plot to be drawn: bike sophistication; rider capability; bumpiness; steepness; and, speed.

I'd make that relevant sophistication. A cutting edge TT bike is highly sophisticated but would probably be outdone by a Raleigh 20 on a typical gravel track...

If we assume for a moment that rider capability is fixed, it is what a given rider can do today (today’s level of fitness, experience, bravado etc), and that particular rider has a particular bike (ranging from full-sus MTB with e-assist and all gizmos, to 1980s road bike slightly ruggedised), that gives a range of bumpiness-steepness-speed combinations that they can then tackle.

Worth remembering that one can be over-biked as well as under-biked. A pal was lent "a mountain bike" for a fairly long and mostly technically easy ride, turned out it was a downhill MTB and she suffered quite a bit more than she'd have probably done on a typical hybrid, though there again she was probably better off than she'd have been on her fairly old-school carbon road bike...

Interestingly, most e-MTBs have a blank-spot in the performance envelope, even with the most capable rider, because they are frankly too heavy to be carried for any distance, even by a burly bloke, so any competitive trial ought to include a really steep mountain goat path, and a knee-deep bog!

There's also the aspect that while the 'e' gets you up long/steep drags it's a liability coming down technical descents as the extra weight of the battery and motor make the riding harder (in terms of both skill and effort physical effort required).

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

TBH, I find e-MTBs a bit curious/amusing in cycling terms, because seeing the guys using them in the woods that I cycle through (on bridleways, not the MTB courses), they appear to be far closer to electric scrambles motorcycles than pushbikes. It’s a bit suspicious that when I share a table at the cafe with the e-MTBers, they are mostly big guys wearing armour, many of them roughly my age, who display no signs of great physical exertion, despite me seeing them moments before batting up rough gradients that I know are bloody tough to pedal up at a snail’s pace while lightly clad.

The younger guys on leg-power MTBs are horses of a different colour.

[pjclinch]

TBH, I find e-MTBs a bit curious/amusing in cycling terms, because seeing the guys using them in the woods that I cycle through (on bridleways, not the MTB courses), they appear to be far closer to electric scrambles motorcycles than pushbikes.

It is entirely likely that they are not so much "closer to" electric dirt motorbikes than they are actual electric dirt motorbikes.

e-MTBs don't look much different to MTBs beyond a BB motor and a fatter tube somewhere with the battery in it.





Spot the electric bike... (it's the top one, I think...)

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

Can you tell what they are from this? I reckon they must be at least 500W rated.

Mine is the thin bike on the left!

[jimlews]

Presently using an old '74ish Dawes Galaxy C/W - S/A 5sp hub geared low.

22t sprocket
36t chainwheel

This gives me :
Top...66.27 gear inches...+50%
4th...55.93 gear inches...+26.6%
3rd...44.18 gear inches...Direct drive
2nd..34.85 gear inches...-21.1%
1st ...29.47 gear inches...-33.3%

A good general purpose gear range also suitable for gentle roughstuff.

EDIT

I think that a large part of "ruggedising" a bike has to do with the riders attitude to "rough stuff" riding.
A sympathetic riding style can go a long way to preserving the machinery, but otherwise, well built wheels
would be very near the top of my priority list.

[Carlton green]

Presently using an old '74ish Dawes Galaxy C/W - S/A 5sp hub geared low.

I ran a similar set-up with a Sach five speed hub, it worked well but lack of spares supply caused me to replace the hub with an SA AW; the SA AW serves me well - there’s an awful lot to like about them - but the Sach was better. Memories of an unreliable SA five speed stopped me from going back that way again, but several decades have passed so maybe my luck would be better now than then. The Sach gave me years of trouble free use but bottom gear seemed to lack some efficiency, perhaps your SA will give similar reliability and I hope to hear how long term use works out for you.

EDIT

I think that a large part of "ruggedising" a bike has to do with the riders attitude to "rough stuff" riding.
A sympathetic riding style can go a long way to preserving the machinery, but otherwise, well built wheels
would be very near the top of my priority list.

It’s the changed wheels and tyres that have significantly moved the use-ability for me, the replaced ones were fragile and gave a too uncomfortable ride. Going back decades (to derailleur gears and their weaker wheels) the rear wheel was also too highly geared and the transmission fussy at times - particularly so with multiple chainwheels. I’m now trying to work-out what the next weakest link is, but suspect that sensible and sympathetic riding will now be enough to protect me from other failures. So far so good.

[Bmblbzzz]

C section tyres

MacTyre was from his mother's womb untimely ripped.

Sorry, couldn't resist!

[Bmblbzzz]

But yes, tyres are probably the single most significant improvement you can make, IMO. Both width and quality. I'd place gearing and braking equal second. I'd also think about rider position (is it worth investing in a dropper post for rough stuff? I'd say generally not) and luggage; panniers are best as luggage but might not be so good off road (depends what you want to carry, if anything, of course).

[pjclinch]

I'd also think about rider position (is it worth investing in a dropper post for rough stuff? I'd say generally not)

I'd agree: dropper posts are a Good Idea if you'll frequently be doing "interesting" descents, but if you're doing those a lot off-road on a ruggedised road bike I can think of higher priorities. Droppers typically don't change the riding position to speak of, they're more to get the seat out of the way when you're on your feet.

and luggage; panniers are best as luggage but might not be so good off road (depends what you want to carry, if anything, of course).

The panniers need a good retention system, but if they do then panniers seem to work okay for me. I use Ortliebs, and they've never given me problems. Lightly loaded small ones on up to red routes at MTB places, full rears with overnight camping kit on the off-road tourer.
One thing is that with heavier loads a more serious rack definitely improves things. The Tortec Expedition rack on my off-road tourer definitely does heavy loads better than the cheap Bor-Yueh on my MTB, which tends to start swaying if I've really loaded them (shopping more than touring though!).

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

I've had panniers, especially front ones, catch on woodland undergrowth. Front luggage has also been a problem in deep sand where you want to keep the front light.

[jimlews]

I've had panniers, especially front ones, catch on woodland undergrowth. Front luggage has also been a problem in deep sand where you want to keep the front light.

Yes, and low riders just make matters worse; catching in ruts as well as snagging vegetation.