I do hope you've got lights, bell, high-vis jacket, insurance, helmet, a dislike of cycling on pavements and through red lights.
You don't want to upset anyone here ;>)
|
The question is - is Nothants very hilly ? I bought one of those Dutch bikes on eBay last year for £50, I used it once on what is called the camel trail in Cornwall which I highly recommend to any holday makers - it comes out at Padstow so you can pop in to Rick's plaice for cod & chips and leave with a black hole in your wallet where your money once was, which is why I had the idea of going Dutch.
Cornwall is too hilly really for biking (IMO) most of it anyway (what goes down, must come up)
|
|
|
Oh dear, I am a naughty boy then - only a rear light, no bell, high-vis jacket nor even a helmet. I should point out that I only did about 1 1/2 miles on road, half through a village and half on an A-road, the rest was off public highways.
I know, I know, helmets are for my safety etc etc, but I loath them and if a truck runs over my head, no amount of reformed plastic is going to save me.
Lucky for me, the mid part of the journey was a delightful gravelled bridleway through the fields with lovely views - id forgotten how much more you see when on a bike, even if my legs went to cramp when I tried walking when I got home :-)
Just need to do it more often now. I even plan to collect my car the same way.
Northants has a fair few hills yes, its not the desolate flat landscape many who havent been here think it will be. Even my rather lightweight bike found me several good hills to stretch the lung capacity!
I dont cycle on pavements nor do I run red lights - if I wouldnt do it in a car, I dont do it on a bike. Now all I have to do is try and raise my top gear somehow because its too low and will only do 18 mph on the flat whereas my older custom bike I buily used to do an easy 25-28.
|
try and raise my top gear somehow <<
put a bigger wheel on the back or a larger chainwheel!
years ago I owned a "Claude Butler" racing bike that i found dilapilated in a hedge, carried it home and tarted it up with bits found here and there, only problem was that it was "fixed Wheel" so you couldn't stop pedalling! great for building muscle and stamina, but impossible to ride downhill unless you took your feet off the pedals and stuck them out sideways - schoolboy fashion! great fun! ;-)
Billy
|
>>>Northants has a fair few hills yes, its not the desolate flat landscape many who havent been here think it will be. Even my rather lightweight bike found me several good hills to stretch the lung capacity!<<<
Its not your lungs that concern me - its your knees! I did my cartilage in when I lived at Hastings in the 90's and it still gives me gyp even now.
|
|
|
>> try and raise my top gear somehow <<
put a bigger wheel on the back or a larger chainwheel!
Shouldn't that be a smaller wheel on the back, Billy? Or do you actually mean the wheel, not just the gearwheel?
The Beests are just back from two weeks in France, where we did some very leisurely cycling on those wonderfully deserted (yes, even in August) French backroads and green lanes. We're already looking at ways to take our own (four) bikes to France next summer and do it properly.
|
If you put a larger sized diameter road wheel on the back (driven wheel) you will travel further per revolution and therby slightly increase your speed over ground, or, put a larger chainwheel (the one with pedals attached) on , this will pull the smallest cog (usually the top-gear) on the rear wheel round more times per revolution of the pedals, and also increase your speed over ground, do both, and you should be able to cycle half an hour in 25 mins!
Billy
|
|
|
We're just back from France with our 4 bikes. Cycling out there was a truly wonderful experience. Drivers give you plenty of space and are far more courteous to bikes than pedestrians (whenever I stop the car at a French zebra crossing for a pedestrian they look at me as though I'm crazy....). The roads are empty too - I suppose they have got 4 times as much space as us. Cycling over there is highly recommended by me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do hope you've got lights bell high-vis jacket insurance helmet a dislike of cycling on pavements and through red lights. You don't want to upset anyone here ;>)
I ride regularily, and have disposed of the bell... a rescue whistle is so much more effective, cars are so well insulated against sound that it's one of the few things that will penetrate the bubble that most drivers drive in... although a rap on someone's window or panel will normally alert the driver to your presence.
I do stop at Red Lights and use the road (even when the cycle path cuts on the pavement) as I hate riding on the cycle paths that are ineffectual on the pavement
|
Stu, you seem a sensible rationale guy who thinks things through to the nth degree, maybe more than you should do.
But whatever you do, get a cycle helmet, they are comfortable and not the eggshell shape of the old ones.
I personally know two people who were informed bny the hospital surgeons that their helmet saved their life.
Go on, it makes sense.
|
But whatever you do get a cycle helmet Go on it makes sense.
Not according to some - worth a Google. (I agree with you though.)
|
|
|
|
I probably am wrong! but i thought a bell was a legal requirement?
must go google now to find out!!
Billy
|
If I start riding on-road more then I will consider the helmet, but its already cost me £50 reconditioning my bike after 6 years standing still and it looks like another £25 to get a better spread of gears ( currently Im running a 48 front with 28-14 rear, upgrading to 32-12 ).
I get the feeling that it will become increasingly common practice. It would be nice to have some cycle paths shortcutting between places like bridleways do.
|
Stu, my brother got knocked off his bike on a council maintained cycle path. Council had put a barrier across the road to prevent cars going down it. The council painted it an orangey colour whith an orangey streetlight above it which, to all intents and purposes, made it invisible at night.
Brother hit barrier with his helmet. Surgeon said it saved his life. Council paid out compensation and changed the design of all the barriers.
Friend was going along a cycle path and hit a pothole, thrown off bike, head hit a rock at side but helmet again saved her.
Both these on "cycle paths". Don't want to put fear of into you but I would certainly not go out without helmet. Even down to the paper shop.
Its the old scenario that some people never wear seat belts, some put them on as soon as they get into car, others only put them on if going further than local shop.
|
|
|
stunorthants26
Don't make the common error of assuming that higher gear ratios will make you cycle faster, it is all about cadence / leg speed. The optimum cadence is between 65 - 85 crank revolutions per minute , spin and you will go / become faster. I would say that your current gear ratios are fine....
Cycling guru Richard Ballantine once said " ..most people gear too high and pedal too slowly... this increases fatigue...it is much better to pedal briskly against relatively little resistance"
I can easily ride at 20mph (evens in cycling parlance) on my road bike with a 39 tooth front inner chainring and 15 tooth rear sprocket, spinning comfortably at 80/90 rpm.
My top gear is 52 x 12 - I only use this down long hills at speeds of 45mph+.
As for helmets, Halfords usually have good offers on and have a good choice so you can find one that fits well.
Enjoy the biking!
|
|
I know about cadence, I also know that on the flat, im running out of gears quite alot which is indicative of the need for a higher one. I used to cycle a 20 mile commute 5 days a week in my teens, im well versed in gear ratios or lack of them!
|
I know about cadence
I don't - thanks, I'll try to measure mine tomorrow morning and see if it's too low. I suspect it is.
F
|
|
|
|
|
yep! close but no coconut!
At the point of sale (ie shops) bikes now have to come fitted with bells but there's no legal requirement for them to be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display.
|
|
I love cycling and use my bike on local trips. This is for fitness reasons though and not because i am bowing to left wing "green" (how i hate that trite term) brainwashing.
|
I love cycling and use my bike on local trips. This is for fitness reasons though and not because i am bowing to left wing "green" (how i hate that trite term) brainwashing.
Glad that's clear. Anyone know why Cameron cycles then? Maybe he's bowing to right wing green. LOL!
|
|
I while back I posted how a cycle helmet saved my son's life some years ago. Well just recently another family relation was saved by his helmet. My cousin's husband has recently been made redundant from a very well paid job. No new job yet been found so they've been doing some major downsizing, including selling one of the cars and taking up using a bike for local trips. Going fairly quickly down a hill he came off the bike (I don't know the exact circumstances, but it must have been nasty). Result was broken collar bone, broken arm and some nasty cuts to the face. Helmet bashed up a bit but skull intact. Its a 'no brainer' to me! Mind you I've long since given up cycling, the roads are a bit to busy in my part of the world. I did think about taking up motorcycling again and went on a refresher course with a local motorbike club using a loaned bike. It put me off a bit, I had a close shave with a VW Golf (not my fault, honest) and halfway through the afternoon we got caught in a major storm. So ended up wet, aching and shaken. Four wheels definitely best!.
|
I live about 2.5 miles from my nearest bank/shops. It's as quick to cycle as it is to drive, as the car parks are all 5 mins walks from the town centre. It's not the town I visit for a major supermarket shop, just to go to bank, small shops, and my quarterly blood donation. The journey is almoat dead flat, and there are no narrow/dangerous sections.
We have about 15 bikes dating from 1920 to the present day, and most of us bike every day. SWMBO quite likes an outing on our tandem...
|
I have two bikes, each worth more than my car.
And I never wear a helmet, unless event rules force me to. There are huge debates on helmet wearing on cycling forums, but no-one has ever been able to produce any statistics to show they have cut head injuries. The medical profession claim they do, but while they know their job they know nothing about falling off bicycles.
|
|
From experience, i know when you fall off your bike, you tend to shield your head, its a natural instinct. Ive fallen off many times, sometimes at speed.
|
|
A brightly coloured helmet also provides a bit of visibility without you having to think about wearing something brightly coloured to provide a bit of visibility.
|
|
The only documented research says you are more likely to have an accident wearing a helmet and more likely to be injured apparently it gives the rider a false feeling of security and the driver gives less space when overtaking.I personnally don't like them have to wear one for road racing makes your head sweat and I don't see a by product of the packaging industry stopping a bus.
|
The interesting fact is that both pedestrians and drivers are statistically more likely to incur head injuries in an accident than cyclists. Those who feel unsafe without a helmet whilst cycling should logically also feel the same about about walking and driving without a helmet.
Wearing a cycle helmet is more about perception of risk than the actual risk.
Edited by CGNorwich on 27/08/2008 at 13:58
|
Too true. You're far more likely to break your wrists or a collar bone if you come off. If a car hits you then maybe a broken leg too and internal injuries. Head injuries are few and far between. There's a few freak injuries from heads impacting kerbs, but then there are also injuries from wearing helmets, like rotational brain stem injuries.
Personally, I wear one sometimes but only to stop the tutting and head shaking from the ignorant!
|
Wearing a cycle helmet is more about perception of risk than the actual risk.
Hmm. Interesting comment. When my son had his bike accident he went over the front of a car and head first onto the road. According to witnesses and the medical staff that treated him, his helmet saved him from a serious head injury. The the helmet outer was broken up and the polystyrene body of the helmet was crushed to about half its original thickness where he hit the road. His skull would have had to absorb that energy if it weren't for the helmet. Incidentally, the helmet was so light I can't imagine it causing 'rotational injuries'.
Now my cousin's husband has had a bike accident and has bad cuts to his face etc., he seems to think it saved him from a worse injury. OK, he's got a broken arm and collar bone, but even a minor head injury could be more severe in the long term.
I don't cycle and my kids have now 'outgrown' bikes so I don't usually take much interest in whether people wear a helmet or not, but what about helmets for motorcyclists? Presumably the 'no-helmet' supporters think they are ineffective for the same reason? And what about horse riders?
|
|
There is a slight difference in construction methods and materials.
|
Sorry to hear about your son's accident, but I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything.
How can you be so sure that without the helmet there would have been worse injuries? You can't. Skulls are very strong and will take surprising knocks without fracturing. True, in that specific accident it will have done no harm, but he probably would have still survived without it.
It reminds me of the common anecdote used by traffic officers - "Good job they were in a Volvo, they would have been dead otherwise" or something similar. And then when someone does survive a nasty smash in a supposedly less safe car the spiel turns into - "They were very lucky, how could anyone survive that I don't know." Worthless talk.
That's not exactly a substitute for the EuroNCAP testing is it? Shame there isn't an equivalent for cycling!
And trust me, rotational injuries occur even with the lightest of cycle helmets.
As for motorbikes, helmet use there is a different matter entirely. You can't seriously compare riding motorbike at 70mph+ to riding a cycle at 15-30mph. The forces involved in a crash are of an order of magnitude in difference.
|
Sorry to hear about your son's accident but I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything. How can you be so sure that without the helmet there would have been worse injuries? You can't. Skulls are very strong and will take surprising knocks without fracturing. True in that specific accident it will have done no harm but he probably would have still survived without it.
Maybe, maybe not. But I was damn glad he was wearing I can tell you that. He dropped 2-3 feet head first onto a solid concrete road surface with his body weight on top. It slightly crushed a couple of vertebrae in his neck, but thankfully there don't seem to be any lasting effects from that. I know if I was to start riding a bike again (unlikely!) a helmet would be on my shopping list.
|
I know if I was to start riding a bike again (unlikely!) a helmet would be on my shopping list.
see www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html
and www.cyclehelmets.org/1045.html
Edited by jbif on 27/08/2008 at 15:58
|
I like this line:
"Life years gained through cycling outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. Encouraging helmets leads to fewer people cycling and a net health loss."
That's why I'm glad we still have a choice in this country, whether or not helmets actually help.
If people stop cycling through fear of injury then they lose out far more.
If you do want to wear one then knock yourself out, so to speak! ;)
I would also make the point that I only wear a helmet when I know I'm doing something more dangerous. If I riding with my son on the back at low speeds I won't bother. If I'm on my own going down steep hills at silly speeds then I do wear a helmet. All of which only goes to prove (in a sense) that I may be more at risk of injury with the helmet than without!
|
I think another point is worth making here too, a large number of car drivers and passengers lives could be saved if helmet wearing was compulsory in cars. That's a fact.
Other than on a track day (and the like) nobody ever wears helmets in cars, how very reckless of us!! ;)
Come on, hands up if you honestly believe helmets should be worn when driving to work! Maybe neck braces too??
|
Crikey! bike helmets never even existed when my generation were kids! and still enough of us survived to make the present population of UK 65million! There were less cars around, but when you heard of a "cyclists" death back then, it was never through falling off and hitting thier heads!, it was through injuries sustained to the body/legs in collision with other objects eg, cars, walls, and being impaled on spikes.
Weighing up the percentages, your head is only one-fifth of your body size and contains only one vital organ, the other four-fiths of your body are a lerger target area, and contains all the rest of your vital organs, which are less well naturally protected than the brain, and so more vunerable to serious trauma.
It would make more sense to wear some sort of body armour as opposed to a helmet, better still legislation will soon make it mandatory for cyclists to be wrapped up in Cotton-wool.
Billy
|
Clearly if we argue from absurdity then nobody should be allowed to leave the house without a full motorbike helmet, neck brace, flame proof clothing and the ubiquitous hi-vis jacket!! :)
Finally, a safe Britain!
Edit: oh and whatever you do, don't buy fish and chips on the way home, 1 in 5 of us will die from heart disease, compared to 1 in 5,000 on cycles...
Edited by TheOilBurner on 27/08/2008 at 16:43
|
Weighing up the percentages your head is only one-fifth of your body size and contains only one vital organ the other four-fiths of your body are a lerger target area and contains all the rest of your vital organs which are less well naturally protected than the brain and so more vunerable to serious trauma.
Most of my bodily vital organs are fairly well padded (!) and also have a ribcage wrapped around them. I can survive if I lose an arm or a leg, not so my head. The brain is probably the most fragile part of the body and any damage to the skull is bad news.
|
I certainly wouldn't want to make helmet wearing compulsory, although I would (and did) require my own children to wear them and I'm glad that I did.
As regards the wearing of helmets in cars I wonder if they have adjusted the data for the the relative numbers of cars and bikes? i.e. there are vastly more cars than bikes on the road, and (presumably) more accidents involving cars than bikes.
In any case surely to a great extent the issue is accepted and addressed in cars by the trend to fit side and 'curtain' airbags which are presumably designed to offer some protection to the head and so fulfil the same function as a helmet? Neck bracing is provided by headrestraints (or should be if they are properly designed).
I have always tended to be a bit of a risk taker myself (having ridden motorbikes at very high speeds in the past, done parachuting, bungee jumping, rock climbing etc) but when it comes to my wife and kids I tend to be rather more conservative, checking out the NCAP rating of cars and wanting my wife to drive a car with airbags etc etc.
|
Same here, I drive far more sedately when the family are in the car and yet I would happily drive around recklessly in any old heap on my own, but insist on top notch safety for the family hacks!
I assume my family wouldn't be happy to lose me(!!!) but I guess it's human nature to want to take risks and feel the adrenalin rush, but look after your own too.
Personally, I don't force my kids to wear helmets. I see 2 year old kids buried in bike seats with huge helmets on their heads making them look miserable as anything. A bit daft really when the seat itself offers a large degree of protection against head injuries for little ones, but so many of us have blindly bought into this helmet hysteria. Maybe I'll come to regret these words one day, but statistics are very much on my side.
Edited by TheOilBurner on 27/08/2008 at 16:59
|
|
A slight deviation from the discussion but has anyone else noticed that people who drive quite decent cars are more likely than not to have really rubbish bikes attached to their bike carriers? Makes me chuckle every time......
|
>>really rubbish bikes
As with cars; a £100 bike does 99% of what a £500 bike does, and that does 99% of what a £5,000 bike does.
A £100 car does 99% of what a £500 car does, which in turn does £99% of what a £5,000 car does.
Oh yes... but you get a nicer badge.
|
|
I spent, proportionately, more on my bike than my car if you think of the max-min that you spend on each item. Still, when your powering a bike yourself, it is personally more important to have a lightweight bike like mine as it directly affects you physically! Steel bikes are ever so heavy.
|
I think cheap bikes remove the fun from cycling, sure they work and all the components are present but it all adds up to a crap riding experience.
By this I mean that the gears will be imprecise, the wheels package heavy, the saddle uncomfortable, the brakes juddery - I could go on. In short you are more likely to ride a decent bike, that cheap £100 bike will usually end up abandoned in the shed.
I used to work in a bike shop and the cheap bikes are nasty to work on, cheapo nuts and bolts round off, brakes / gears are impossible to adjust with any accuracy. I reckon you need to spend upwards of £400 on a bike these days to get something decent.
Cheap bikes do have a role, I have one for coasting into town and I do not worry about it getting stolen!
|
Cheap bikes (or Bicycle Shaped Objects) in the sub £100 catagory have a useful service life of around 75 miles, by which times they need major refurbishment to get them to run properly. Even a single speed bike has over 1000 seperate componants, many of them requiring precision machining to work smoothly and safely. Anyone who welds a frame together, builds a pair of spoked wheels onto hubs with four sets of bearings, shods them with tyres and innertubes, adds brakes, front and rear gears, handlebars and a saddle, and provides precision ground bearings and races for the steering system plus numerous other bits and bobs and makes a profit on £100 retail sale is cutting some dangerous corners.
|
I wouldn't say dangerous, but certainly cheap. I made the mistake of buying a sub-£200 racing bike once, several components failed (toe clips, rear derailler and gear shifter) in the first 5 miles. On the second ride I suffered a puncture due to the spoke ends (within the wheels) catching the inner tubes! I got through 4 inner tubes before realising what was causing the problem...
Needless to say, the frame was awful and felt like it was cut from solid lead or something.
Never again!
I dread to think what a sub-£100 mountain bike with full suspension would be like, probably bad enough to put someone off cycling for life. :(
IMO, this is how it works with bikes:
£300 gets you a good bike with no suspension (difficult to find now though) and V brakes
£600 gets you a good bike with front suspension and disc brakes
£1200 gets you a good bike with full suspension and disc brakes
Anything more than that is just buying lighter and higher precision components which only the most ardent cyclist will find worth the money.
Anything less than that for one of those categories is just buying rubbish that will take the fun out of riding and cause lots of hassle.
|
It is true that you get what you pay for with bikes. About 15 years ago I parted with what was then a month's net pay for a bike. Still have it, everything original and in good condition. I use it a lot.
Are you not supposed to use the same ratio for engagement rings I seem to recall ? Never stumped that much. Could have asked for a bulk discount though on reflection.
Actually, a month's pay is probably the sensible amount for most people to pay for a car these days whatever they might earn. Following that formula would keep a few folk out of unnecessary debt.
|
The OilBurner wrote:
£300 gets you a good bike with no suspension (difficult to find now though) and V brakes
£600 gets you a good bike with front suspension and disc brakes
£1200 gets you a good bike with full suspension and disc brakes
------------
Why on earth would you want suspension on a road bike?
It just aids lots of weight and in the case of rear suspension, makes pedalling less efficient.
Great off-road, of course.
And why would you want disc brakes on a road bike? Disc brakes act near the hub, which puts a terrible strain on the spokes, which therefore need to be heavier.
Again, I agree that they make sense off road as they are more efficient.
But for a road bike, you want a rigid, light frame with as little extraneous weight as possible.
|
But for a road bike you want a rigid light frame with as little extraneous weight as possible.
...unless you favor comfort over speed, given the state of many roads.
|
|
I find a sprung saddle does the comfort bit, without being nearly as heavy as suspension.
|
I find a sprung saddle does the comfort bit without being nearly as heavy as suspension.
Got one of those, but I don't feel it helps much compared to previous bikes that haven't had one. Then again I've never ridden a suspension bike for a significant length of time.
|
Why on earth would you want suspension on a road bike?
I didn't say you would! :) You just don't get much choice these days if you buy anything other than a racing bike, front suspension is standard equipment on almost everything.
I have two MTBs. An old cheap bike with no suspension but a reasonable alloy frame and a modern bike with front suspension and a high quality frame. There's not much weight difference between them but the old bike has much better feel through the handlebars and the new one is better off road.
I looked for a rigid front fork bike when I was buying the new one, but I just couldn't find one that fitted the bill - there was only 1 I could find on sale anywhere! In any case, I lock the front suspension up on the bike when on-road to prevent losses in pedalling efficiency. So the only actual drawback is a small increase in weight compared to a standard front fork.
And why would you want disc brakes on a road bike?
Ah, but that is a different matter. It doesn't really add much weight, however braking (especially in the wet) is *massively* improved with discs. The only real downside IMO is increased maintenance (in terms of costs and skill required) compared to V brakes.
I can't see why the spokes would be any heavier, the braking forces have just been moved from the outside of the rim to the inside, which is already very strong thanks to the hubs. If anything this will mean lighter spokes and lighter, smaller wheel rims because there is no large rim edge needed to make contact with a pad and the rims don't need to dissipate heat.
That's certainly the case with my disc equipped bike vs. the v-brake old bike.
The disc, pads and callipers certainly don't weigh much more than V-brakes with pads.
Saying all that, I still enjoy riding my old tech MTB with none of that trickery, but the new fangled stuff does what it does very well with little compromise.
|
|
In my experience of riding and maintaining tandems hub-mounted brakes stretch and snap spokes a lot more regularly than rim brakes. Good tandems have always had an auxiliary drum brake on the back wheel--usually a cable-operated Arai drum or more recently a disk if the bike doesn't have hydraulic disks anyway--and they are very hard on wheels if you live somewhere hilly and use them a lot. Tandem-specific wheels are built to cope with more weight and a lot more stress at the hub of course--for one thing they have 48 spokes rather than the usual 36--but the principle will still apply to a lesser degree on a solo, especially if ridden hard, or with a heavy rider. Having said that tandems get through rims a lot quicker than a solo too, so you can't win.
|
I didn't say you would! :) You just don't get much choice these days if you buy anything other than a racing bike, front suspension is standard equipment on almost everything.
--------------
The Dawes commuter bike I bought about 3 years ago has no suspension, nor do most hybrid bikes I've seen, including the folding ones like Bromptons.
I can't see why the spokes would be any heavier, the braking forces have just been moved from the outside of the rim to the inside, which is already very strong thanks to the hubs. If anything this will mean lighter spokes and lighter, smaller wheel rims because there is no large rim edge needed to make contact with a pad and the rims don't need to dissipate heat.
---------------
Remember ultimately it's not the brakes which stop you, it's the bit of tyre in contact with the road. If that were not so, cars and bikes would not skid when the brakes are applied hard.
When you apply the brakes near the hub, the only way to transfer the force to the rim is via the spokes - hence increased stress on spokes. Disc brakes also increase the likelihood of you skidding when applied in the wet, whereas rim brakes just increased your stopping distance.
|
I can't see why the spokes would be any heavier the braking forces have just been moved from the outside of the rim to the inside which is already very strong thanks to the hubs.
I take it you've never seen a rear hub fail under load then, or taken the spokes out of a rear wheel and looked at the gouges they make in their sockets. I wouldn't re-use one for anything serious anyway.
Actually when you build a wheel you need to decide how much force will be applied at the hub, in what direction, and for how long (a race wheel may only have to be strong enough for a single day before retensioning, a touring bike might go for months with lots of luggage on board and very low gearing). This determines the 'cross' number--basically how many other spokes each one crosses, or how far they are from the radial position. The further from the radial position they are, the more twisting force they can take at the hub, so on a good 48 spoke tandem wheel which might have to carry two people plus luggage and cope with the strength of two people twiddling a 2:1 pedal to wheel rev ratio, they are 5-cross. On a standard 36 spoke wheel they are usually 3-cross or sometimes 4-cross. Race wheels are often close to radial with very few spokes, but also use unconventional stringing patterns in order to look good.
Anyway, very low gearing requires a more tangential spoke arrangement to cope with the leverage at the hub. The same applies to a disk brake, with the added complication that a disk brake on a rear hub pulls the opposite way to the chain and sprocket so the pulling spokes have to be set up accordingly. Rear wheels of this type are often reverse strung on the disk side. In any case the wheel has to be able to withstand quite remarkable forces in either direction, especially on a large wheel. The best wheels have butted spokes for added strength at each end. Of course rim brakes cannot apply the kinds of forces possible with a disk.
|
Of course rim brakes cannot apply the kinds of forces possible with a disk.
Just to make sure I understand - they don't need to, because they effectively have greater leverage, being closer to the rim/ground?
|
|
Theoretically I think you're right, but they are not strong enough to take advantage of that extra leverage. The braking surface on a rim is absolutely tiny, it gets wet easily, it gets hot more quickly, causing brake fade, and it wears away over time, weakening the rim itself. The more powerful the brake, the quicker the rim deteriorates. On a steel wheel, rare these days I'll grant you, wear isn't a problem, but braking performance in the wet is non-existent. Cable operation means that the braking force is uneven and limited by the stretchiness of the cable and the strength of the hand. Hydraulic rim brakes are better than cable V-brakes, but still not as good as disks, and they can actually bend the forks outwards permanently, or even crush the rim if it's a bit thin. Then there is the heat issue, which on a tandem can quite easily blow off a tyre. None of this is to say that V-brakes are bad. I like them and use them, but they are poor compared with disks.
|
None of this is to say that V-brakes are bad. I like them and use them but they are poor compared with disks.
Thanks for that- I've never had a bike with discs, but I'd like to give them a go.
F
|
|
I've only ridden one solo bike with hydraulic disk brakes and the first few times I used them I came very near to going over the handlebars even at walking pace. It didn't take long to get used to it though. Not a problem on a tandem of course.
|
Is this why I've had to replace almost half the (36 triple crossed) spokes on my back wheel, and none on the front?
Or is it something to do with the sixteen stone on the saddle?
|
Is this why I've had to replace almost half the (36 triple crossed) spokes on my back wheel and none on the front? Or is it something to do with the sixteen stone on the saddle?
The rear spokes on one of my previous bikes started going, so I got a local bike shop to replace all of them with thicker ones which were ok. I didn't have disks, and I'm nearer 10 than 11 stone, but the bike was cheap-ish (£200) and I used to use paniers.
|
|
Yes. Sixteen stone on the saddle won't help, but it's not simply to do with vertical load. You'll need to apply more pressure to the pedals, and use lower gearing more often, to get moving and stay moving. That's what breaks spokes. Front wheels are always less trouble than rear wheels. If you can find a rear wheel with a hub narrow enough you might be better off with a tandem-specific wheel on the back.
Edited by Baskerville on 28/08/2008 at 18:25
|
|
And once the spokes start breaking it generally means the others are stretched anyway.
|
And once the spokes start breaking it generally means the others are stretched anyway.
Do spokes break because they've been stretched, or because of some sort of fatigue?
|
|
Not sure of the exact answer to that one, but all the spokes I've broken have gone at the hub, where they bend over to go through the eye. It will be fatigue of course, but they break there because it's an obvious weakspot. I have seen them broken at the other end, but it's less common in my experience and more likely to be down to impact I would think. It's not usually worth replacing more than one or two broken spokes; better to rebuild the wheel with new ones.
|
I stand corrected! :)
As regards front suspension point further above, I hope I made it clear I was talking about MTBs and not folders or other specialist bikes! ;) If you want an MTB, it's *very* hard to get one without front suspension at all. For me, a Brompton just wouldn't cut it on the genuine off road stuff I regularly use. And after all, the _vast_ majority of bikes sold are MTBs, often sub-£150 from Halfords, etc.
Edited by TheOilBurner on 28/08/2008 at 18:17
|
As regards front suspension point further above, I hope I made it clear I was talking about MTBs and not folders or other specialist bikes! ;) If you want an MTB, it's *very* hard to get one without front suspension at all. For me, a Brompton just wouldn't cut it on the genuine off road stuff I regularly use. And after all, the _vast_ majority of bikes sold are MTBs, often sub-£150 from Halfords, etc.
--------------
Which is something I find curious.
A mountain bike is heavier than a commuter bike (has to be more robust to go off road), has fatter tyres, and doesn't usually come with mudguards or a rear carrier.
I use my bike for commuting (when the weather is fine) and also for shopping - so I have a basket on the front as well as a rear carrier. It also has a chain guard so trousers don't get damaged.
Yet most mountain bikes never seem to get used off road, so people are pedalling a heavier bike with higher rolling resistance which will splatter them with mud, ruin their trousers and can't be used to carry anything.
There's nowt so strange as folks.
|
They probably also own 'chelsea tractors'.
I take perverse pleasure in letting youngsters on mountain bikes overtake me, and then going a little faster so I'm just behind 'em. They see sixteen stone grandad on a road bike keeping up and make sure they stay in front. Fair puffs me out sometimes!
|
|
Mines a GT but its now 8 years old. Nice enough bike, not overly expensive, but not dirt cheap either. Was £400ish when I got it all those years ago.
|
Cheap bikes (or Bicycle Shaped Objects) in the sub £100 catagory have a useful service life of around 75 miles by which times they need major refurbishment to get them to run properly.
I used to commute about 20 miles a day, 5 days a week, on an £80 mountain style bike (fixed suspension) I got from Smiths the car bits shop in the high street. I'm quite competitive and don't hang around, and although IIRC something did break after a month or 2, it was fixed free of charge and was fine thereafter.
My current machine is a luxurious £160 Carrera Subway from Halfords, which is great. Currently only doing about 8 miles 3 times a week, but very much enjoying it. Fairly light and looks good IMHO, although most other riders only get to see the back of it :-)
F
|
My current machine is a luxurious £160 Carrera Subway from Halfords which is great. Currently only doing about 8 miles 3 times a week
...for 7 months = >600 miles; so far only needed to adjust the brakes to allow for wear.
|
A slight deviation from the discussion but has anyone else noticed that people who drive quite decent cars are more likely than not to have really rubbish bikes attached to their bike carriers? Makes me chuckle every time......
I'd seen the opposite the other day up at Wheelbase in Staveley; I reckon that there were at least 3 cars in the car park where the 2 bikes on the roof were worth more than the car the bikes were on...
Mind you my car is a close fought thing when it's loaded with gear; the potential list for holiday next year is going to be £1200-1600 of Kayaks, £1000-1200 of mountain bikes... that's before the paddles and any other gear is included... the joys of old Volvo estate cars (which still looks like it's worth £4-6k rather than the £1800 that it's really worth because of the 200,000miles on it!!!)
|
|
|
I ride regularily and have disposed of the bell... a rescue whistle is so much more effective
Clearly courtesy to pedestrians doesn't enter into it.
|
>> I ride regularily and have disposed of the bell... a rescue whistle is so much >> more effective Clearly courtesy to pedestrians doesn't enter into it.
If I didn't want to be courteous I'd shout at them; a bell doesn't always travel through town traffic, and it can also be heard in a car/van occasionally. My brother is the same; he had a bell in London but found it made sweet fairy adams difference to the average pedestrian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
