How much stiffer are 23c tires over 28c? I now have some Kenda 28c tires on my bike, and i got a pair of continental gp 4000 in 23c. I want to swap them because of the superior quality of the continentals, but I'm afraid that they could be a little too stiff. What do you think ?

I assume by "stiffness" we are referring to comfort, and that the Kenda will have a cheaper tire construction. In that case which tire is more comfortable depends on how you set up the tire and your riding conditions. If you are riding on very smooth roads, then a properly set up 23 mm GP 4000 may actually be more comfortable due to the combination of a  higher quality carcass construction and the smooth roads not requiring large pressures to avoid bottoming out the rim.  If you ride on very rough roads or mixed terrain then the 28mm Kenda's may be more comfortable, as you can run a lower pressure than the GP 4000, which will better absorb impacts therefore feeling more comfortable and less "stiff."

Background

"Stiffness" relates to tire construction and casing tension (i.e., tire pressure).  Cheaper tire construction tends to result in a stiffer casing and therefore will feel "stiffer" for a given volume.  The continental GP 4000 will have a higher quality construction than the Kenda, therefore if all things were equal (e.g., size and pressure) the Continental would actually  be less "stiff."  The Kenda is also larger, and a larger volume tire will actually have more casing tension and therefore be "stiffer" for the same tire pressure, but these two tires shouldn't be run at the same pressure, which makes the comparison more nuanced.

So Why Do Larger Tires Have a Reputation for Being More Comfortable?

The key issue is that all things are not equal, including pressure.  The main advantage of larger volume tires is that you can typically run them at a lower pressure than smaller volume tires without risking issues such as bottoming out the rim. If the roads are rough enough, the comfort gains from being able to run a lower pressure  can out weigh any differences in carcass construction.

As such, we need to consider the environment you will be riding in.

If you are on rough roads you may not be able to lower the pressure enough in a smaller volume tire (e.g., 23 mm) to achieve the same level of comfort as with a larger volume of tire (e.g., 28 mm) which can be run a lower pressure for the same level of rim protection.  Because you will need to maintain a relatively higher pressure in the smaller tire to avoid pinch flats or damaging your rim, the tire can often ride more harshly (i.e., feel "stiffer") under these conditions.

If you ride on very smooth roads then a 23 mm tire can be run at relatively lower pressure, which will provide more comfort in addition to there being smaller bumps to absorb. In this scenario it will therefore not feel as "stiff,"  in fact it may even feel more comfortable than the larger Kenda as the casing will be more compliant than the Kenda tire casing adding to the ride quality.

Interplay Between Tire Pressure, Tire Size, Road Conditions and Comfort

The real key is whether or not the tire volume is sufficient for the the road conditions.  If the volume is too small, you are likely to hit what has been termed the pressure "break point", where suddenly more vibrations will be transmitted to you, which can be measured as an increase in real world rolling resistance (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Real world example break point pressure measured by Tom Anhalt from Part 4b Rolling Resistance and Impedance. Red arrows and text were added to the original figure for the purpose of clarity.

Tom Anhalt nicely demonstrated that an increase in tire pressure lead to less rolling resistance (as predicted by theory), until suddenly it didn't, because the pressure was too high for the tire to effectively absorb road imperfections. This resulted in increased vibrations transmitted to the rider, moving the rider up and down, which absorbed forward momentum, which was measured as higher real world rolling resistance.

From a comfort stand point the rider would likely interpret the extra vibrations as a lack of comfort from the tire being too "stiff."

Lowering the pressure below the "break point" will return comfort and the tire feeling "less stiff."  This assumes however you can safely do so.  If the roads are too rough, then you will start bottoming out the rim and risk pinch flats.  As such you will need again raise the pressure to keep things safe, if this increase in pressure sends you over the "break point," then suddenly the tire will feel too "stiff" due to the extra vibrations begin transmitted to the rider.

Predicting where the break point lies in real life is difficult.  Tire construction and size that will work best for your application will likely involve trial and error.  That said, experimenting with pressure can be an important first step. Your loading weight (i.e., rider + bike + load) also is an important consideration as a higher load weight requires a higher pressure to ensure the rim doesn't bottom out.


The bolt of my pedal's crank arm broke, what could be the causes? It broke while as I started pedaling when a redlight turned green.

In the pics it is possible to see that basically the metal broke! Was it just a poorly constructed product or are there some common causes that explain why this happened (like i should have unmounted it and cleaned the dirt out of the screwing lines sometimes or else..).

I wouldn't want this to happen to my other pedal.

Original pictures: https://m.imgur.com/a/awW3NgK

Thx

The "bolt" that broke is not a part of the crank. Your bike has a so-called square-taper bottom bracket and one side of the axle broke off. This axle is a solid metal part that runs from one crank arm through the bottom bracket shell to the other crank arm. It cannot be serviced and should not break. The most likely reason is metal fatigue.

You'll have to buy a new bottom bracket if it is a cartridge type or at least a new axle if is the cup-and-cone type.


Tightening steerer expander/compressor and spacer positions with a carbon fork I had ugly clicking noises coming from the headset before and after a warranty exchange of a fork (the reason for the exchange was on the other end). I have identified the clicking as coming from the interface of the top cap and the stem. I tried screwing the top cap more and less before tightening the stem but it did not help.

Then, after long searching, I found out at some forum that it could be the loose expander plug. Indeed, when I opened the top cap the bolt below was completely loose. Tightening it very slightly removed the ugly noise. As you can see in the picture the the sides of the stem are still touching at the upper pinch bolt.

Now the question if it is the compressor bolt (no. 6 in the manual) that should be tightened to 6-9 Nm according to https://shop.fullspeedahead.com/en/files/index/download/id/90c31726193366031700722438038db1319/ , how is it possible that it was completely loose? Is it prone to get undone or was it an assembly mistake? Could it damage the carbon steerer when the stem is tightened on an uncompressed steerer? Is it safe for me now to just tighten the bolt, install the cap and mount the stem? I am not sure I trust the bike shop with this anymore, although it is a large company that publishes their own maintenance videos.

Another point is that the referenced manual recommends a 2 mm spacer above the stem. There is no such spacer in my setup, nor there is one in other pictures of bikes of the same manufacturer. There is a 4 mm spacer below the stem. Should I move it above the stem? Is it connected with the fact that the there is no gap now at the upper pinch bolt?

A secondary issue: The photograph of a higher end model shows a rubber dust cover over the top cap. I do not remember having such a piece on my bike, I only remember the cap was very loose once soon after the purchase. Is it important for keeping the dust out of the headset? Under which name can it be bought? If it cannot, I would just put a tape over the opening.

how is it possible that it was completely loose?

It's impossible to tell.  Since the compression plug really doesn't do anything other than hold the stem in place until the stem's pinch bolts are tightened (it's the stem's pinch bolts that hold a bicycle's fork in place), it's likely that the compression plug wasn't assembled with sufficient torque to remain tight.  Given you stated, "I only remember the cap was very loose once soon after the purchase."  I'd say that's a very likely cause, although it's really impossible to know for sure.

  Another point is that the referenced manual recommends a 2 mm spacer above the stem. There is no such spacer in my setup, nor there is one in other pictures of bikes of the same manufacturer. There is a 4 mm spacer below the stem. Should I move it above the stem? Is it connected with the fact that the there is no gap now at the upper pinch bolt?

That's almost certainly direction from the manufacturer intended to ensure the steer tube isn't cut too short.  A spacer above the stem allows the steer tube to extend above the stem, ensuring the steer tube/stem interface is strong and stable.  If the steer tube is too short, the stem might not have enough length of steer tube to grip to.  If the steer tube is too short, the top portion of the stem's clamp won't have anything underneath supporting it, making the stem clamp prone to failure through distortion and cracking.

From the looks of your stem, if the steer tube has been cut so that it's only a mm or two short of the top of your stem, you should be fine.

But take the cap off and look, because it seems as if whoever assembled your bike didn't properly torque the stem cap and may not have put the dust cap in place.

If the steer tube is cut so the it ends below the level of the top bolt, I'd definitely say you need to remove the spacer from underneath the stem and lower the stem.  I personally would lower the stem if the steer tube doesn't clearly extend past the level of the top edge of the top pinch bolt so that it's very close to the top edge of the stem clamp itself. A steer tube that long means the pressure from the top pinch bolt can't collapse the stem's clamp. (Well, without the pressure being enough to collapse the steer tube too - don't overtorque it!) But I've seen steer tubes cut a bit shorter than that and not present any problems.

You may have to loosen the stem's pinch bolts to get the stem cap off to look.

  Is [the dust cap] important for keeping the dust out of the headset?

No.  It just keeps debris/dirt out of the hex head.  The cap and bolt will keep dust out of the headset.  (Or not - the gaps necessary to allow the fork to rotate will allow dust/dirt in to some degree in any case.)


What bike do I have? I have recently purchased a bicycle from a second hand shop. It seems to have all sorts of different parts. The frame however has a badge and markings of 'Kontroll' made in West Germany. Doing some research I can't find anything about this make, is anyone familiar with this brand?

As it says West Germany this may date it to the 80's. It's a large frame which is handy as I am 6ft 6.

That bike is a Swabian brand from Konrad Kotter (who had until 1982 and again in 1987 the professional racing team Kotter's Racing Team) that later went over to Albuch

The Albuch Kotter logo now looks like this:


What is a good rear wheel for a heavy load? I'm a heavy man, and I find I'm breaking spokes on my rear wheel fairly often.  Is there a particular wheel I can buy or anything I can do to prevent this?

Edit: I was having the problem with a hybrid with 700c wheels, but I gave up and sold that bike in preparation for my move to LA.  I'll be looking to purchase a new bike to use for commuting once I get out there, but I'm open as to style.  I gather we'll have Surly dealers out there, so I'll definitely be checking those out.

I had the same issues riding on pre-built 26" mountain bike wheels.  I'm 6'5" and weigh ~400lbs, so I break stuff left and right (including frame welds).  I have found two things that broke my wheel-breaking streak.

The first thing I found was the Surly Pugsley and the Endomorph (or Larry) tires that fit on it.  The 26"x4" tires are massive, and absorb any blow without threat to the wheels.  At the same time, I also went with wheels based around Large Marge rims, which have never needed to be trued (even through the frame break!).

The other thing I found was beefy, hand built, wheels.  My second bike is a Surly Karate Monkey (a 29er) which I had wheels built for using 36 hole hubs (again a Surly product).  This wheel shows a bit more wear and tear (after 5 months of riding), but it hasn't broken anything.  I also run higher volume (but nowhere near the Endomorph) tires on this bike, with a pair of Schwalbe Big Apples.

Bottom line:  If your current equipment can't work for you, go big.  It will cost you a lot up front, but save a ton in the long run.

(I swear I don't work for Surly, though my bikes make it sound like I do.)


Comparing different year group-sets I'm in the market for a new bike - don't worry I am not looking for a recommendation.  What I am trying to find out is how do I know what groupset I am looking at? for example, I know Shimano 105 has been around for a while, but my understanding is that the 2017 105 is probably more advanced than a 2005 Ultegra.

So, when looking at bikes that both purport to have Shimano 105 or Tiagra or Sora or whatever, how do I know what year the groupset is and how do I know whether the 2017/2018 of a lower end model is better than a few years old higher end groupset?

Shimano groupsets don't get upgraded every year. Each line gets major upgrades every four years or so. Have a look at the Shimano Wikipedia page, road groupsets section for a good overview of generations and when they became available.

You should be able to ask any bike store staff what generation of groupset is fitted to any bike they offer and get an honest and accurate answer.

If you want to check if a bike is fitted with the current generation, take pictures of the read derailleur, cranks/rings and shifters. Compare them to the pictures of the current generation on the Shimano web site. Each generation is fairly visually distinct.

Older generations can be identified by Google image search for specific component identifiers, e.g. Shimano RD-5700 for the previous gen 105 rear derailleur. The number of speeds in the cassette can help identify the generation too.


What are the disadvantages of wearing an aero helmet? During the Olympic Final of the Men's Keirin one competitor (Chris Hoy) was wearing an aero helmet (red helmet in the picture below), the other competitors wore normal helmets:

The advantages of wearing an aero helmet seem pretty obvious - less drag so you go quicker (Chris Hoy won the gold medal).

However, most of the competitors did not wear an aero helmet so I can only assume that there are some disadvantages to wearing an aero helmet, what are they?

They're heavier, hotter (vents would do the opposite of what you're trying to do with an aero helmet, which is to route air up and over the helmet), and it's more difficult to turn your head (it doesn't completely prohibit turning your head but you lose the benefit of the shape as you turn it off-axis) so you have to depend on peripheral vision more.

Plus, if you wear one on a bike path while towing a kiddie stroller federal law requires all other riders (including small children riding Huffys) to treat you with "derision and scorn".


Is there a certain size tube for my tyres? When it comes to fixing bikes, i'm not to crash-hot. I can clean grime, oil the chain and put it back on if it falls off. However, when it comes to the inner tubes I usually rely on someone else to get me another tube and put it on for me (I can put them on, but in that sense I'm too lazy). So, today, when I went to pump up the tyres I found they had a puncture and I would prefer to change them as I haven't ridden this bike in a LONG time, only I'm not sure if there has to be a certain size tube. Help? Please? :)

Each tube reference size fits a certain number of tire sizes.
For example, I ride 700x23c tires and my tubes are 700-18-23c.

So just find out the size of your tire (should be written on the sidewall) and go out for a tube that will hav this tire size in its fitting range.

Be careful about the valve specification too. get a tube with the same valve type as your previous tube/as your wheel supports : http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_u-v.html#valve


Will a SLX fit on a Shimano deore 2x10 rear triangle? Ok so I'm thinking about upgrading to a SLX drivetrain, and I currently have a Shimano Deore Xt 2x10 on my Devinci Troy. The question is whether it is even worth it cause the cassette may be too wide for my chain/seat stay triangle. Definitely need the upgrade as I do enduro riding and the 2x10 is a hassle. Never done this before. I can also just get a new chainring up front and a bigger range 10 cog cassette in the back, but I would like to go to something a lot nicer.

With 11 speed cassettes the compatibility issue is not the width of the dropouts or rear hub, it's will the cassette fit on the freehub body. Some 11 speed systems require a slightly longer freehub body to fit onto.

Shimano MTB 11 speed cassettes will fit onto the same freehub body as a 10 speed (which is actually the Shimano 'Hyperglide' freehub standard that has been in use for decades). It manages this by having closer sprocket spacing and overhanging the back of the freehub body somewhat. The overhang is possible because the large low gear sprockets required on 11 speed systems can clear the spokes.


Internal hub gear suddenly stopped shifting I have never had an internal hub gear bike before, so I don't know much about them.

My issue is that all of the gears stopped working suddenly when I was just riding the bike. The bike has 5 gears, everything was working fine, but one time when I was riding, the gears suddenly just broke. Now, when I change gears on the handlebar, nothing happens with the actual gears, it just stays in the same gear.

What could be the issue, and how to fix it?

Almost certainly the gear cable has come off the hub at the point where it's adjustable. Without knowing which make and model of hub you have I can't be more specific than that. If the bike is new take it back and get them to show you how to fix it, or at the very least fix it for you.

If not, work out what hub you have (the manufacturer plus five speed will probably be enough) and search for a diagram of how it's supposed to be set up - probably if you find a photo of the rear wheel/hub area from the right hand side that will be enough, as you'll be able to see how the shifter mechanism attaches.

If you can edit your question to have more details, or include a photo showing that area, we will probably be able to make more suggestions.


Turbo trainer maintenance I've just bought a second-hand Cycle Ops turbo trainer and was wondering how I can clean it and whether or not I need to get it serviced.

I would start by downloading the manual for your model of trainer from https://www.cycleops.com/support/product-manuals

If its the sort of trainer with a cassette and you remove the bike's rear wheel to train, then you'd clean it like a normal wheel/cassette.

If its roller-based and presses on your rear tyre, then there's probably very little that can be done to clean it.

Either way, soapy carwash, a soft brush/sponge, and a gentle shower of water is probably fine.   Don't use high pressure on any bearings or seals.

As for servicing, probably only useful if its got a problem like squeaks or graunching under use.


MTB Wheel Building (asymmetrical vs symmetrical) I have a Velocity Dyad (26” symmetrical) and a Shimano XT hub (T780) that I’m about to buy spokes for after using the Sapim spoke calculator. The frame is a 1995 Ritchey Comp. Leonard Zinn doesn’t specifically say not to use a symmetrical rim to build a rear wheel. I don’t ride trails anymore, just county roads with potholes and gravel. Will I be wishing for asymmetry on my back end soon?

I have built MTB rear wheels with both asymmetric and symmetric rims. As long as you do a reasonable job and pick the right components, both will stand up well over time. I am not sure of the axle dimensions of that era MTB, but generally MTB have a wider rear axle which reduces the dish and thus the need for an asymmetric rim.

Asymmetric rims are at best a marginal gain. However the heavier the load and the lighter and narrower you're building your rear wheel, the more that marginal gain helps extend the life of the wheel. Dyads are already pretty durable rims, with the appropriate spoke choice and count they should build up to very reliable wheels.

Unless you have a history of breaking spokes on non-drive side of the back wheel, I would not focus much on asymmetric rims for a general purpose rear wheel build. They do make getting the dish correct during the build easier, ( especially for narrower road wheels), but like a lot of bike things they only matter when you are pushing the edge of performance.


Yukon giant mountain bike I have a Yukon Giant mountain bike, serial number GN2L7542. I would like to know the year it was manufactured and how much it is worth.

Sorry - we don't do valuations here.  Its worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it.

Google suggests the model existed from 2005 through to present day.

The serial number is generally useless for figuring out anything, other than warranty tracking.  You might get some info from Giant directly, using their contact information at https://www.giant-bicycles.com/contact/


Can i stop my frame scratching my seatpost? I have an On-One Scandal aluminium frame, into which i have put a carbon seatpost. I have been adjusting it to find the right height, and i have noticed that it is getting seriously scratched - see a terrible photo. The scratching isn't deep enough to weaken the seatpost, but it looks ugly.

I have tracked some of the scratching down to the sharp edge around the top of the seat tube, and around the clamp notch (or whatever you call that). I have filed those so that they are smoothly chamfered, and now they don't scratch the seatpost.

However, further down the seat tube, the top tube and seatstay trunk (or whatever you call that - on this frame, the seatstays don't join the seat tube directly, they join on to a short piece of fat tube which then joins the seat tube) join on. Where each joins, there is a small hole in the wall of the seat tube (i suppose these are to ventilate the insides of their respective tubes). These holes have sharp edges, and i believe it is these which are scratching the seatpost.

Has anyone else come across this problem?

The holes are too far down to be able to get a file at them. I've applied some carbon assembly paste around them, and that helps a little (it seems to act as a lubricant when not clamped).

How can i stop my seatpost getting scratched?

Possible solutions:
  - Let a bike mechanic ream the seat tube slightly
  - Wrap some sanding paper around a broomstick or similar an grind the sharp edges


Garminn GSc10 reset problem How do you reset the GSC10 sensor on Garmin edge 510?  I want to be able to re-pair it to my device.  Any ideas?

In the menu that shows the paired sensors delete the sensor you want to remove. 510 will ask for a confirmation. Then re-pair the sensor. It may help to remove the battery from the sensor and putting it back after a minute.


Should I worry about a chipped carbon mountain bike frame? The other day while I was racing my Specialized Stumpjumper I noticed a chip on the frame. It's on the rear support bar right behind the seat post between the rear tire.

My teammate who is a mechanic said its just outer damage, they tapped along the frame without hearing a change in pitch. Others agreed. I brought it into the bike shop the next day and they said that I shouldn't ride the bike and were willing to sell me a new frame. Are they just trying to get money out of me or is it really cracked?

The problem is liability.  Any shop is likely to tell replace as they don't want the liability of it breaking and you getting hurt.  Plus they want to sell you new frame.

I would go with your team mate the mechanic.

See if it grows. Even if it does fracture and you fall I bet it will not be your first fall nor fatal.


Giant conduct compatible stem Does anyone have any experience with the Giant conduct system (semi hydraulic breaks) and compatible stems?
My partner bought a bike which came with a conduct 100mm stem. She feels that the reach is too long for her purpose (long distance road/gravel touring).
When holding an other stem next to it I can see that the bolt spacing is off just by a few milimeters.
Is the stem proprietary or is this a metric to imperial measurement difference?
Any advice is appreciated
I'd also consider a 80mm MTB stem if the bolt pattern is the same, but I can not find any dimensional drawings for stems on the Giant website.

Giant's page on the Conduct semi-hydraulic brake system says that, emphasis mine:

There's no need to replace your mechanical brake lever or handlebar tape - simply shorten your current cable housing, then mount the new master cylinder on your Giant Contact SL or Contact stem.

It appears that the lowest-end Contact stem is $53 in the US. This is more expensive than other low-end stems. However, if this stem fits (as Giant's page indicates it should), then it's going to be less expensive than buying and installing hydraulic shifters and brakes (or, alternatively, getting a good cable-actuated brake, probably a cable-actuated hydraulic one like the TRP Hy-Rd, plus good compressionless housing).
Stems in general do not have interchangeable face plates, i.e. there's no industry standard for the spacing between bolts. In most cases, riders won't need to interchange face plates.
I agree with juhist that we almost never want to interfere with a rider's freedom to choose their stem. Newer riders need some time to figure out their desired stem length. Even established riders may see their needs change over time and they may need to change stem length and orientation. Fortunately, the solution in this case does not appear to be terribly onerous.


How old is this Kenlight bike? Kenlight Mountain bike that has Kenlight decals and a red white and blue metal Kenlight badge on the head tube. I was told it was may be from the 1980's.

Early 90s would be my guess.   Do note that a 30+ years old bike and could have had a series of changes over time.

The steel spoke protector grabs my attention - they were a feature of 80s or earlier bikes.  Later ones were plastic.

The head tube is quite short - that has only been possible since the 90s and is still not that common.

The handlebars are neat - the top brace looks like BMX designs, and also brings an 80's style.

Friction shifting and cantilever brakes also strongly imply 80s and early 90s.

The bike looks like its a ROPA - ridden minimally and then put away for years.  So check the tyres and brake pads for hardening or oxidation, and replace if required.  There's some rust on the handbars, which is getting under the chrome.  This can be wire-wheeled off and then treated with rust inhibitor, then painted.  Generally the mirror chrome effect is damaged - personally I remove it completely before treating and painting.

Your original message referenced "ken light" but the painted decal shows "kenlight" without a space, and that appears to be an Australian bike company who made road bikes and BMXs as well.   Started in 1972,   it appears to now be based in Taiwan as the "kenlight trading corp"


Old bike compatibility with direct train bike trainer? I'd like to get a direct train bike trainer (wahoo kickr) to exercise on. My current road bike is a Schwinn le Tour circa 1980, and does not have the 10 or 11 speed required to run on most direct train bike trainers. Would it be most cost effective to buy a new gear setup for this old bike (if it's even possible), or just to find a 10 speed on Craigslist? Thank you in advance ;)

The trainer has a standard Shimano freehub body. It is not advertised, but it is entirely possible to install a 7-speed cassette and use spacers to compensate for the cassette width difference. For even lower number of cogs, you use cogs from a cassette and install the cogs with extra spacers to match the spacing on your current cassette or freewheel.

The other problem is axle width. Modern road bikes have 130mm real axle, and older ones 126mm. You have to either spread your frame a bit or ask Wahoo if the axle width can be adjusted.


How to shoulder a bike? In a previous question it was explained to me that no cables pass under the top tube of my Specialized Hardrock, so that the bike is easy to shoulder.

Well, it isn't. The top tube is quite thin (V-shaped) and the only way I can pull this off for more than a couple of minutes is to place the bike exactly over the shoulder strap of my backpack. But maybe I am doing it wrong.

How to shoulder an MTB? Should the bike be parallel to the ground or vertical, or tilted? Are there some bike designs that are aimed to be carried (besides all light bikes) - maybe the cyclo-cross bikes?  Are there any suitable preparations before leaving to a journey in the high mountains, where one will be passing very difficult terrain with the bike on the back?*

Very difficult for someone carrying a bulky bicycle and a backpack with food, at least. Summer weather, maybe muddy.  About 2000 meters height. Crags and plenty of options to trip and fall.

I ride a lot of trails where it is almost impossible to ride up and sometimes not even practical to push the bike up, and it is easier to carry. I've got a full suspension mountain bike with no space inside of the triangle, so it is not possible to shoulder it. And carry a bike on my back, rather than on a shoulder. Bottom tube is resting on my shoulders with rear wheel on right from my head and front wheel on left from my head.

Like that:

It helps if you have a backpack, as the bottom tube rests on it. After some practice you can have both of your hands free, while bike comfortably sits on pack. This way bike does not get in your way and you can hike quite a big distances.

UPD: This position is not the quickest to put the bike up, but I find it the most comfortable when climbing. To get the bike up, stand on non-chain side of a bike, place left pedal (closes to you) in the lowest position, grab with one hand the left crank and fork stantion with the other hand. Lift the bike over your head and on your shoulder/backpack.


Bike transport while touring - would a folding bike be better? So I’m thinking of touring with my  lovely self made diamond bike with 28” wheels that I built from used bike parts. I love to ride on something that I built but I wanted to be able to tour a lot and I had some doubts when it came to traveling with a regular bike because of in-between modes of transport such as putting the bike  on plane, bus, train or car, but I’ve never actually done a prolonged tour via bike.
My question for any experienced tourer is: since in-between transport for me is a must, does a folding bike like Brompton really make a difference compared to maybe disassembling a diamond shaped bike every time you want to go on train/bus/hotel?

I don't think there is a simple answer.  It depends on the touring you want to do and your tradeoff between transport trouble and riding trouble.  My wife and I went on a guided tour in Spain where we rented bikes from the operator but one couple brought their own DF (diamond frame) bikes.  They had a fair amount of trouble transporting the bikes-on the airline they were oversized cargo, they couldn't take the high speed trains, and getting taxis from arrival to the hotel was a challenge.  On the other hand, they had bikes they love.  The same operator does more challenging tours where the majority of clients bring their bikes.  This wasn't even touring as the operator moved all the luggage once you were on the tour.
I suspect once you have decided to bring a DF bike, the rest of the gear is big and heavy but doesn't make it too much harder to manage.  You need somebody to help you with luggage and once you have transport for the bike and a helper for luggage you can bring what you are willing to ride with.
If you get a bike that is easier to transport than a DF you are trading bike performance for ease of transport.  Depending on the tour you are doing I suspect the ease of transport is elusive.  If you carry 20kg of gear when riding, can you carry the same 20kg plus the bike when you are going through airports, taking trains, etc.?  If not, you may save the oversize baggage handling but you still need someone to help you.
I don't think a more transportable bike is silly, but I think you need to consider the whole transport approach.  If you get a smaller bike, the consistent thing may be to pack much lighter to get the ease of transport.  Do you want to do that?  How many changes of clothes does that allow?  Are you camping?  I suspect it is hard to justify a smaller bike if you are camping.  On the other hand, with a light load you might make the transport easier.


Rear derailleur not in line with cassette I have just installed a new rear derailleur (Shimano Acera - RD-M360-SGS), and I feel like that the pulley has a weird angle (image below). It does shift but not sure if it's healthy. Any idea what could've gone wrong? Is it just a faulty item?
Edit (reason for installing new derailleur):
The derailleur hanger got bent, shifted down to 1 on the way home and the derailleur got pushed into the spokes: derailleur was beyond repair, but spokes survived. My local shop straightened out the hanger for me

Often a bent derailleur will kick the bottom of the cage inwards. In your case the derailleur is twisted around the vertical axis so the 'front' edge of the cage is pointing outwards.
The first thing I'd check is that you do not have the mounting bolt cross-threaded.
I'd also take the derailleur of the frame and check that that it is not bent.
The hanger may not have been properly straightened, and it might still have a  vertical axis twist. Did the shop use a proper hanger alignment tool? Using a proper tool with ensure the threaded bolt hold is parallel to the wheel axle.


Does a highly visible frame colour improve safety significantly? Studies have shown that wearing hi-viz colours, particularly on moving extremities such as one's feet, coupled with hi-viz helmets and cycling shirts, increases the chance of been seen by a driver from a safe distance. The same principle also applies for reflective clothing at night. Flashing lights, also dramatically increase the chances of being seen by the driver of an approaching vehicle.
Does having a bicycle frame in a bright colour also dramatically reduce the probability of being hit by a vehicle?
(To provide a bit of context I am contemplating buying a new road bike and the model I am eyeing comes standard in black. For an additional fee I can have a custom paint job done, but I am questioning whether it is worth it. Given that I will be using the bicycle mainly in the country side, and not in cities, I am expecting fast moving, but not very dense traffic, and few intersections. I am most worried about the cars over-taking me from the rear.)

It wouldn’t make much difference from the rear. All a driver could see from the rear is the top of your seat stays, which aren’t very large. Same goes for the front. From the side, it would make more of a difference, but I wouldn’t say it’s significant enough to justify the fancy paint job.
Of course, if you like the way the fancy paint looks as well, that might make it justifiable.


Are all DUB cranks compatible? I have a dub crankset with arm length 175 (https://www.sram.com/en/truvativ/models/fc-styl-7k-b1)
I want to change the crank arm length to 167.5
There's no 167.5 crank arm for SRAM MTB line (I think SX/NX/GX/XX1/X01 are MTBs?)
I found Red and Force 167.5 arms which are also DUB (I think these Red and Force are for road?)
So can I mix the Red or Force crank arm (https://www.amazon.com/SRAM-Force-AXS-Crank-Assembly/dp/B07WCRY3BY) with my existing MTB crankset ?

Road cranks are not going to work on your MTB.
The crank arms include the crank axle - one of the arms is permanently attached to the axle. The axle length is important. Road bikes use narrower bottom bracket shells than MTBs and hence have shorter axles.


Aluminum frame quality - how much variation can there be and how to tell? Take a look at these two aluminum frames. The first one is a $1k bike, and the second one is a $200 bike.

Is there a significant quality difference between these frames? And if so, how can I appraise the quality of an aluminum frame (other than weighing it)?.

I can see that the more expensive frame has smoother welds with larger, curved tubes, but it's a completely unscientific observation.

You actually point out two important characteristics in your photos: welds and hydroforming.

The more expensive frame (looks like specialized bikes) has shaped tubes and very clean welds, while the second frame has straight tubes and messy welds.

The shaping of tubes (hydroforming) isn't just for looks.  By shaping the tubes (in addition to butting) the bike designer can tune the ride characteristics. This can make aluminum behave stiffer or more supple depending on the application (e.g., stiff for a criterium bike or supple for an endurance bike). Shaping can also be used to get a mixture compliancy in one direction and stiffer in another. Because of the time and money involved in shaping the tubes, aluminum frames with highly shaped frames tend to come on higher end bikes.

Welds are also a good indicator of quality.  Cheaper frames will use less experienced labor and will care less about the fit and finish and more about hitting a particular bottom line.

Of course neither of these characteristics are an absolute guarantee of quality, but welds and hydroforming  do tend to be associated with better build quality.

Finally, you also mention weight.  The biggest weight difference will come from the components used to build the frame rather than the frame itself.  When comparing two aluminum frames the weight difference will be less than 500g. Even if you knew the weight I personally don't think this is a good metric and the optimal weight also depends on the application and the typical forces that are expected to act on the frame.


Adjust handlebar position/height (damaged screw?) I was trying to adjust the position of my handle bar...but might have turned the screw too hard in the wrong direction or perhaps it was like this earlier...not sure....

Is there anything that can be done or its too late ?

Thanks

Update 3 - Thank you All for the help !! This is now resolved, I was messing with the wrong screws...there was one underneath and that was the one I had to loosen to change the position of the handlebar - here is what had to be done

and thx to the immediate response from Pacific Cycles (Schwinn) letting me know what had to be done !!
Update 2 - I removed the other side screw and am attaching some photos, and a video which might give some more ideas.

Update 1 - thanks for all the great suggestions folks ! I will try out the options and report back !!

The Bad screw (you might see that it is almost gone round)

The Good screw on the other side

If you find that it can't be fixed, then try to go with a solid stem that's already at the correct angle. I had an adjustable one before and after adjusting it, I could never get it to be tightened properly and it would always wobble.

A bike co-op or bike dump is a good place to look for parts like this as solid stems don't usually wear out and many of them are salvaged from old bikes that may no longer be usable.

Now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure the nut was rounded off similar to yours after many tries to remove the wobble. The adjustable  ones are usually low quality because they are heavier than solid stems, and people who buy more expensive bikes don't mind spending a few extra dollars to get a good fit.


Cheap MTB with future upgrades v/s costly fully ready MTB Since my budget isn't that great, and I wish to get a full suspension MTB(due to local road conditions, which are rocky trail like for kilometers together).  Would you recommend buying a mid range full suspension MTB, and then upgrading some components over time as funds become available?

For example, in India, the GT Verb Elite(https://www.trackandtrail.in/cycles/gt/verb-elite-27-5/) is available here for INR 84K, while the Firefox Raptor(http://www.firefoxbikes.com/BikeDetails.aspx?BikeId=177) costs INR 26.6K. The GTVE has a great frame, great suspension and forks, and also a good drive train. The FFR has extremely basic suspension and forks, but has Tourney front derailleur and Acera at the rear. The rear shock is a fairly basic KS-261, and SR Suntour 75mm travel front forks. Would it be OK to buy a good enough platform such as the FFR and then after a while, upgrade the shocks and fork, and then the drive train? I understand that a very upgraded FFR will never equal a bike like the GTVE.

These bikes are only mentioned as an example, and this not a question about merits of buying one of these bikes over the other.

Edit: I go for 20-30 kms rides on weekends. There is a main road (state highway) going through my town, with lots of car traffic, and no marked divider or lanes, which makes cycling a hazard. So, the rides are on back roads which run through rural areas, and the roads are atrocious. Many places, there is no tarmac, and dust and rocks mark the path. Which makes hardtails a bit of a PITA, literally.

The basic issue is that with most any new bike, if you were to add up what it costs to buy all the components and a comparable frame individually, you get a total much higher than the bike's price tag, even without including costs associated with getting those parts installed. Parts bought at retail get a whole different level of markup. That makes it hard to recommend buying a bike with the plan to upgrade it as you go. People usually get better value by buying in at a level of bike that's well-matched to their actual needs.

The other thing with full suspension bikes in particular is that the suspension designs are far from all being created equal, and the cheapest forks and shocks are extremely mediocre to actually ride. There are a lot of bikes out there where you're more buying the idea and look of full suspension than anything else - watch out for those, because no amount of upgrading really makes sense on such bikes.


Can 700x28c wheels and tires fit in my MTB frame? I have an old Giant MTB frame. It's got typical oversized aluminum tubing but with roadbike-esque triangle shapes. It's disc-brake compatible and I want to turn it into a commuter bike.
The rear end has a radius limit of 343 mm. I currently don't have the resources nor the opportunity to test-fit. The theoretical tire radius seems to fit just fine, but actual tires may deviate or vary slightly, hence my crowd-sourcing question.

An old MTB will have used 26" wheels (559mm rims), you want to put 700c (662mm) rims on it with smaller tires.
We can work out wheel approximate diameters. Assuming tire height above the rim is about the same as its nominal width and the MTB frame will take a 50mm tire.
559/2 + 50 = 329mm
622/2 + 28 = 339mm (+10mm)
The 700c tire might fit but bear in mind you are also raising your bottom bracket 10mm, which will raise your position on the bike and affect handling to some extent. The larger diameter wheel will also effectively increase the gear ratios.
Note that a 27.5" / 650b (584mm rim) with a 32mm tire comes out to the same diameter as the 559 with a 50mm tire.
584/2 + 32 = 320mm
Finding 27.5" wheels with rims narrow enough to take a 32mm tire make be tricky though.


Bottom bracket upgrade I want to upgrade the components on my bike.  I want to start with the crankset.  I'm just sourcing parts/tools at the moment. It originally came with 113mm spindle sealed cartridge. The bottom bracket shell is 68mm English.  Can I upgrade to Shimano, Campagnolo, or Sram components?  I know it would most likely be cheaper buying a new bike but I can't do that at this time.  Thanks.

Forget Campagnolo if you are on a budget. SRAM and Shimano both still make cranks/bottom brackets that are compatible with threaded bottom bracket shells, as do other component manufacturers like FSA.

Presumably you have a square taper bottom bracket axle. You can get a cranks that fit that, but you can run into chainline problems because different cranks require a different axle length. Replacing both the crank and bracket at the same time often makes more sense.

I'd recommend looking at the whole drivetrain an asking yourself if you want to upgrade it as a whole, to get more gear ratios perhaps. That may require replacing many components at once. Just swapping a single component such as the crank may not bring any benefit.


Puddle of oil when left up side down The other day I left my mountain bike upside down overnight as I was changing a tyre. The next morning i had a puddle of what seem to be oil next to the handle bar. Does anyone have an idea where is this coming from? As far as I am aware my disk brakes are not hydraulic would it be from my front shocks? If so how do you replace, and is it safe to ride it now before putting some oil in?

This is my bike:

http://www.performancebike.com/reviews/performance/power/pwr/product-reviews/Specials/Spin-Doctor-Pro-Bike-Build/MONGOOSE/p/30__1446-2009-Mongoose-Canaan-Comp-Mountain-Bike-U-S-Exclusive.html

Presuming it came out of the bike, probably oil from Hydraulic brakes. Although the link does not specify things in detail - A 2009 bike with Tora Rock shox and Deore components would almost certainly have had hydraulic brakes.

Check the brakes are working and not spongy. If in any doubt take it to the LBS for a check over - a leak from the shocks needs fixing but would not be the same seriousness as a leak from brakes.


Cleaning Contaminated Disc Rotors I've had an eternal struggle with my current bike over brake contamination. The levers and calipers are shimano ultegra r8000, so the latest and (almost) greatest.

I first noticed it when I took it to a repair shop (i no longer use) for a bleed, it came back and the front brake would squeal like crazy and at low speeds had little to no braking force. You can stop from speed but then struggle to come to a halt without using your foot.

At around 2000 miles I tried to replace the brake pads, when I took them out they were black with grime on both sets (front & back), not to mention worn down to the metal. I replaced them with the L04C sintered pads, gave the callipers a good cleaning with a towel (no chemicals) and fitted the new set.

Annoyingly all of my braking issues are back, now I probably should have cleaned the rotors, I simply used some muc off disc brake cleaner on them. I would like to know the best way to clean the rotors, I've inspected the pads and they are looking fairly black now, with plenty of tread left. I'm going to abandon these pads and fit a new set. For the rotors I plan to completely remove them from the wheels (they are center lock fitted) and try and treat them off the bike, what is the best way to fully clean them? They have plenty of wear left in them but you can see these black grooves in them, and plenty of muck on the back that I struggle to get off.

Below are images of the rotors after soaking them in disc brake cleaners, waiting and then wiping them down with a clean, microfiber towel.

Front Wheel Outside Rotor

Front Wheel Inside Rotor - note the increased dirt on this side

Looking at ways people clean their disc rotors, I've seen plenty of suggestions that I would need to burn the contaminants off the discs. Would the best approach be to remove them and use a blowtorch, should I soak them in some nasty chemicals overnight before I try to heat them? Do I try baking them in the oven?

And finally, what is the best way to prevent the brakes from becoming contaminated in the future? it's really off putting when they squeal and don't perform how I'd expect because it means I'm more reserved whilst out riding on the bike, leading to reduced time riding around outside. I commute on this bike (50 miles a week) and then ride about 50 on the weekends also, so it see's it's fair share of road use. I tend to wash it once after my big ride on saturdays and will rinse it off if it's been raining, any day that occurs (since I live in north east england, the acid rain..). I've owned disc brake bikes before and never had half the issues I've had with this, I had a cheap trek with tektro brakes and the brakes were sharper and never had any issues with contamination whatsoever (i did around 500 miles on that bike before a motorist happened).

Thanks for any and all advice :)

Isopropyl alcohol and/or brake cleaner from the car trade. Avoid washing up liquid in the cleaning water as it may leave a film of water dispersant. Don't forget the pads or replace the pads if they're too badly contaminated. Heating is a bad idea, it could damage the discs irreversibly.

To avoid contamination cover the rear disc when lubricating the chain and wipe off the excess of lubricant before the ride. Another source for contamination may be slightly leaking seals in the brake callipers.

But then concerning the lack of stopping power after new parts were fitted, did you break-in the pads and the rotors properly?


Will disc brakes aggravate the problem with spokes pulling through the rim? I am hoping that a mechanical engineer can give an educated answer to my question here. I am concerned about this because I have always had some trouble with spokes pulling through the rim on the rear wheel of my touring bike. (I use a 36 spoke wheel.)

Consider this: In general, a rear tire will wear at least 3 times faster than the front because of the forces applied to the rear wheel from pedaling. And for this same reason, we have far more problems with rims and spokes on the rear wheel than the front.

I am trying to make the point that the relatively small forces associated with pedaling, all of which are transmitted through the spokes, already cause the rear wheel and tire to fail much faster the front wheel and tire.

Now consider that the rear brake alone can cause the bike to decelerate at a rate of about 5 times that which we can accelerate with the pedals, implying about 5 times the force to the wheel.

When a traditional brake is applied, the forces are transmitted from the brake to the ground, primarily through the circumference of the rim. While there will certainly be some additional forces on the spokes, I don't believe it is substantial.

With a disc brake however, all the braking forces must be transmitted through the spokes. Isn't it logical then to assume that disc brakes will cause even more problems with the rear wheel and spokes than a traditional braking system?

I asked a bike dealer about this, and he insisted that this wasn't a problem. He then went on to show me the new Surly Disc Long Haul Trucker. Curiously, this bike has mounting brackets for carrying 2 spare spokes.

I would suggest that this is either a really dumb marketing gimick, or Surly has a significant amount of trouble with broken spokes on this bike and does this to assuage customer complaints. In my mind, one is just as likely as the other.

To repeat, do disc brakes aggravate the problem with broken spokes or spokes pulling through the rim?

Edit:
After reading the comments, I would like to explain that I am trying to understand the differences between a disc brake and a traditional braking system in the way the braking forces are transmitted from the ground to the bike frame.

I tried to analyze the problem myself using force vectors, but lack the ability to reason through the problem. I suspect that disc brakes cause a great deal of additional stress on the spokes and rim, but simply do not know. That is why why I posted the question.

2nd Edit
I didn't intend to imply that I have a significant amount of wheel problems. I've been riding for over 30 years and at one time or another, I have been stranded at the side of the road for busting virtually every part on the bike, except the wheels. (Seat rails twice, seat post, frame, rear axle, bottom bracket, chain, pedals twice). I was only asking whether disc brakes aggravate wheel problems, of which we all have some degree of trouble with.

The rear wheel doesn't see more abuse solely due to forces from pedaling. It also supports much more weight, and they are dished (except single-speed wheels), so spokes on one side bear significantly more load than the other.
As Sheldon Brown says: "If you have the same number of spokes front and rear, either the front wheel is heavier than it needs to be, or the rear wheel is weaker than it should be. "

Surprisingly, a disc wheel can actually be stronger than a non-disc wheel, because it will have less dish.

Disc braking does create some forces that require some consideration when building a wheel, but that is solved by proper selection of spoke gauges.

Disc brakes can offer a significant advantage over rim brakes for touring, as you can have a pretty badly damaged, out of true wheel, but still be able to brake reasonably well, as the wobbly wheel won't affect your braking, which can be the difference between riding vs walking to the next town.

There are many ways wheels can fail in the wild, but spokes pulling through the rim on high-quality rims should not be one of them. What kind of rim does your touring bike have?

So ultimately the answer is no, not necessarily. Like all bike part selections, they have upsides and downsides, and whether it's a net positive or negative depends on application.

Lastly, spoke holders on bikes have been around for far longer than disc brakes.


Spokes both too long and too short on same side of wheel I'm attempting my second wheel build. My first build went pretty smoothly, but this time I've messed something up badly.

I calculated that both drive and non drive side could take 300mm spokes ( slightly too long on one side, too short the other but both within < 1mm).

It looks like I mismeasured/ miscalculated something as I have spokes that are both too long and too short.

Some start to tighten with threads still showing, others protrude from the hole and would only tighten with spoke sticking past the nipple.

What I don't understand is how I have spokes on the same side that are both too short and too long.

I'd expect to be consistently over or under length on one side.

How can this happen?

When I rechecking my calcs I'm not sure if I should expect higher or lower numbers.

It turned out that the problem here was grossly over long spokes. I'd managed to miscalculate so they were 4mm overlong.

It appears that this allows the hub to move further than it should so that some spokes cannot reach while others protrude past the rim.

Although mislacing the wheel may cause the same symptoms this was not the cause in this case.


Disk brakes don't work well after taking out pads and putting them back I checked my disk brakes for the first time last night (i've never had disk brakes before).  The front ones were definitely worn out, and I replaced them.  They work great, now.

With the rear ones, I decided that they still had quite a bit of life left in them, and put them back in, rather than replacing them.  Now, they hardly work at all.  They were working fine before.

I think that I was careful not to get them dirty while I took them out and looked at them, but I guess that it's possible that I got some dirt on them while I took them apart and inspected them.

The other possibility is that maybe the pistons which push the brake pad onto the rotor got pushed back too far out, when I was putting the pads back in, and so now they're not pushing the pad onto the rotor with much force.

Is this a known gotcha?

If you set back the pistons (which is actually unnecessary if you are just inspecting the pads), pump the brake lever to move the pads back onto the rotor.

You can also clean the rotor with some solvent to make sure it is not contaminated with any grease or oil.

Update:

You can also check to see if you have a sticky piston in one side of the caliper that is not advancing properly. Unsticking them is easy, and guides on how to do so are easily found.


Installing a new Shimano compact crank on an older bottom bracket? I would like to know if I could install a new Shimano compact crank on an older bottom bracket that has a center bolt extraction system? Do I need to change the spindle in the bottom bracket? Do I need a new crank extraction tool for the new crank system?
Thanks Mark

This assumes you mean the BB is square taper (one of many examples). Most crank pullers will do square taper, but you often need to use the tool slightly differently, such as by removing a cap. You probably can't change the spindle anyway, but you should be able to buy square taper cranks to suit you, and if not a new BB isn't too expensive.

The process is essentially the same for all vaguely modern cranks.


Brake housing end cap size I'm replacing my rear brake housing on a Giant Defy (2010) but finding that the new end cap/ferrule does not fit. The old end cap was fused to the frame so while I still have it, it's not in great condition to be reused.
If I look for replacements they all seem to be 5mm, and if I compare the new and old end cap they look almost the same size, with the old end cap maybe just slightly smaller. Is it possible Giant used a non-standard part?

Edit: after looking into this a bit further it seems the replacement cable housing is using the Shimano M-System, which uses 6mm ferrules. So the existing housing probably uses the standard 5mm.

It appears that is some kind of fancy CNC'd aluminum ferrule. If so it might be a little chunkier than a regular one and randomly be able to encounter fit issues. If that is the case, assuming you're using normal spiral housing, all you have to do is get a normal plated brake ferrule like the one you had and you should be fine. If you're using compressionless aka braided brake housing, choose from the other options suitable for compressionless, like the Jagwire nosed ones.
If every ferrule you put in there is going in tight, you'll need to figure out why. Usually it's because of excess paint, or the two sides of the stop got squished together, or the stop got smashed shut at the opening a little. On an aluminum frame one must proceed with caution to find the best way of repairing it. I have very gently used a screwdriver to widen back out smooshed housing stops on aluminum frames, but there is some risk of it breaking completely. I've also used a small file to take away the dented-in part of the opening, which is typically a better way as long as the end result is workable because you really don't want to be bending anything non-replaceable around on aluminum frames.
4mm, 4.5mm, and 5mm refer to the outside diameter of the housing that goes into the ferrule. In contemporary times, all brake housing is 5mm, and shift is usually 4mm. 4.5mm is seen in a few fancy kit type systems, but is pretty uncommon.


Ride with someone who is less trained Barbie and Ken both love to ride the bike. Ken is a strong guy who likes to ride 60km as fast as possible, enjoys of getting to the edge of his strength. Barbie is more relaxed, likes to enjoy the view when riding and rides about 20km on a ride.

Now, Barbie and Ken decided to go for a ride together. They decided to meet in the middle and ride 30km. After the trip, no one was happy:

Barbie was very exhausted because of the long distance
Ken was bored because he would have liked to ride longer

What can they do in the future to enjoy riding the bike together?

First thing first: Barbie should NEVER suffer a penalty because of Ken's preferences or athletic level. It is up to Ken to solve by himself the problem of making Barbie enjoy the ride. Leaving her alone is not fine, unless she explicitly, truly says it is.

One possibility could be to add weight to Ken's bike, or maybe Ken could choose, among his many bikes, the one less efficient, be it because of weight, aerodynamic position, or rolling resistence. Of course, if he has a blazing racing bike, he could very well fit it so that Barbie can ride with less effort (and thus faster).

If Barbie and Ken are in a firm relationship and their mood is well tuned, riding a tandem is a garanteed success. Take a well-paved, fair traffic road and Barbie will love to go above 20mph while Ken beat the sh*t out of his legs.

Let's go further in the future: if they happen to have a CHILD some day, of course Ken is going to carry her around on his bike. Around four years old, the "average speed" of Barbie and Ken+Child should be quite similar, and beyond that age Ken is starting to fall behind... Above eight years old, or even sooner, the kid can eventually become the tandem stoker, while Ken is the captain and Barbie goes happily along with her own solo bike.

It is important to mention that every regularly performed physical activity develops endurance, then perhaps if Ken is patient, and surely if he gives up a bit the "every ride is a workout" paradigm, Barbie can improve, then Ken doesn't have to wait so often, neither she has to keep riding only 20km. But ONLY if he is patient.

(That pretty much describes my recently completed five years of marriage, with a stepson now 11 years old. I believe even a steady date can benefit somehow with this tips. Of course lots of times things go wrong, though...)


What waterproofing rating is sufficient for a navigation device for touring? I am exploring the possibility of using my phone as the main navigation device for touring. The phone (Pixel 2) is IP67-rated and I was planning to use it without any additional waterproofing, just attached to a Quad Lock handlebar mount.

I am now wondering whether serious rain is going to kill it or at least render temporarily unusable (touchscreen issues come to mind)?

Since I don't really want to find out the hard way, I thought I'd ask here in case any of you have relevant experience.

For comparison, my Edge 810 is IPX7 and has been fine in all sorts of conditions.

As an alternative to putting my main phone at risk, I am contemplating getting a cheap IP68-rated rugged phone (like BV5800 Pro). Not really sure whether it's likely to fair better (higher ingress protection rating) or worse (presumably cheaper construction).

P. S. Having looked into this further, I came across MIL-STD-810G. There are quite a few devices that advertise this, but I am not sure how much attention to pay to it (given that it's self-certification just like IP ratings are)?

P. P. S. There are phones that are specifically advertised as being operable with wet or gloved fingers (for example CAT S41). Not sure whether this in any way relates to MIL-STD-810G, or how much attention to pay to it. Would love your input.

Easy bit - Touch screens don't usually work when wet, you can easily test it, sprinkle some water on the screen and see how it goes.

Because phones are high volume consumer goods designed as life style toys, not outdoor equipment, as far as IP ratings, I personally believe the claimed IP ratings are based on marketing need for a bigger number than the other guy, tempered by engineering squealing that IP99 is not a real rating, and Finance insisting at that price point they have a budget for X returns out of Y sales. The exception are devices sold as ruggedised.  Read the warranty fine print - I bet it excludes water damage.

IP67 is 1 meter for 30 minutes, but the test is done in factory conditions on a new phone, not after they are a few years olds and lost elasticity, and the user has contaminated the seals with dirt and dust. I had an IP67 phone with a single o-ring seal for the battery cover. I was happy to get it wet in the rain, but would not have left it on handle bars for hours in driving heavy rain while riding. Driven rain on a fast down hill could exceed the pressure of 1 meter of water.

I would also be concerned about "solar driven" moisture entering the phone. It gets wet, sun comes out and shines though the water onto the phone. The water close to the phone surface heats and vapor pressure increases, driving water vapour (not water droplets) into the phone. The expanding and contracting of air inside the phone from changing temperatures can also cause a negative pressure that sucks water in.

Although the risk is small, if you plan on riding with the phone on the bars in all weather, put it in a case or accept you might need to buy a new phone. But in a case, the touch screen may or may not work - you would need to test it.


Are rear triangles made today made of thinner / less substantial materials than in the past? I read this question posted by someone else (details below) but without any response:

One thing I've noticed about newer bikes vs bikes like this [referring to a Specialized Hardrock aluminum frame MTB] from
around 20 years ago is that the rear triangle of the older bikes are
typically a lot beefier.  on some of the newer bikes the rear looks
paper thin, particularly the seat stays.  What is your opinion on that
trend, are the beefier rear triangles from yesteryear better or the
newer, more forgiving modern frames that look like they have a lot
more flex to them?

(From a comment to video

             by 'madcapper6' -- though the comment was tangential to the main subject).
Firstly, is the core observation about rear triangles getting smaller accurate? Assuming its true, what's the reason for it?
This is somewhat of an opposite observation to another question (Why are bike frames getting so much bigger) which was about the embiggening of frame & some components.

There is some validity to the observation.
In aluminum, hydroforming on mainstream bikes only started in the early to mid aughts and got more prevalent and sophisticated from there, eventually to the point where even fairly low end bikes often have heavily manipulated tube shapes that would have been much more expensive to produce, if feasible at all, in the past. Hydroforming is often used now to create thin profiles on chain and seat stays that in the past on a comparable price point bike would have been a chunkier, continuous diameter tube.
In carbon, many companies have veered towards dainty, compliant rear end sections. There was less of this in the earlier days of carbon.
In steel however, there's been some of the opposite effect. Steel stays on many contemporary bikes are much larger diameter than comparable older bikes. In some cases this is because fancier modern alloys beget larger tubes with thinner walls. More commonly though, it's a mix of consumers being visually accustomed to bigger tubes and also the structural requirements of disc brakes.


What is the difference between a “single-speed bike” and a “fixed-gear” bike? I would have thought that a single gear was the same as a fixed gear, but that does not seem the case.  What am I missing?

Can a fixed gear bike have more then one gear?

A single speed bike has a single speed freewheel threaded onto the rear hub. The freewheel allows the rider to coast.

A fixed gear has a single cog threaded on the rear hub, along with a reverse threaded lockring, to prevent the cog from getting loose. The cog has no freewheeling action, so any time the wheel is moving, the pedals are moving too. This setup allows the rider to even ride backwards.

Generally speaking, fixed gear bikes have only a single gear. There are some setups however where instead of a single gear at the rear a special dingle with two cogs is placed in, and a pair of chainrings is up front, and the tooth difference between the chainrings is the same as the tooth difference in the cogs. Then, the rider can change gears for different riding, however it requires dismounting, loosening the rear wheel, and manually moving the chain from one set of cogs to the other.

There are also some 3 speeds or other internally geared hubs that have been owner modified to be multi-speed fixed hubs, but they are very, very rare.


Bicycle Storage: Does Kvartal method need studs (or other suggestions)? Does anyone know how http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ikea-kvartal-easy-unobtrusive-137753 was done? Do I need to get them into studs?

Here's some photos of my laundry room, I thought it would fit length wise but because of the water heater it doesn't. I'm trying to figure out another solution.

This is the wall I was hoping it would fit across:

It doesn't:

Here's the wall I think I think the Kvartal method or something similar could work on. Without someone to take the photo for me I couldn't get one, but if I bring the bike up so the handlebars and seat are against this little corner piece then it does fit before the water heater (similar to the kvartal link). I'm just concerned because the stud on the inner side is too close to the corner for the handlebars so I wouldn't be able to drill into a stud.

Think doing it without being in studs will work? Or anyone have another idea that might work?

Edit

This is what I was going to try using instead of those actual Ikea pieces - Blue Hawk Large Storage Hanger from Lowes:

To answer the Kvartal question: no, but in practice if you don't have studs it will be fragile and over time you're likely to pull the screws loose or right out of the wall. If the rack doesn't match up with your studs use a backing board attached to studs and you'll be fine - even a length of 1x4" timber would probably be enough. Don't use any of the processed woods (particle board, chipboard, MDF) as they're not strong enough.

The easy option is a stand that leans on the wall, since that doesn't require any holes in the wall at all. The disadvantage is that they tend to move around and mark the wall unless you anchor them in place. But that anchor can be quite weak, a drywall anchor will be fine. I haven't seen one designed to hold the bike vertically, but I suspect you could buy one that would be easy enough to modify one to hold the handlebars rather than the top tube (the one shown it looks as though you could bend the bars in so the hooks are closer together).

As WTHarper says, if you can find studs but they're not in the right place, the better approach is to attach a solid bit of lumber across the wall, screwed to the studs, then attach the bike rack to that. If the wall is painted I'm am not a fan of the screw-in hooks, inevitably the bike ends up pressing on the wall and marking it. Better to buy a proper suspended rack and hang the bike on that. Or make your own, add a second cross piece lower down to brace on and a couple of timber triangles will work fine.

There are a heap of very pretty DIY solutions here, you could do this one with a couple of bits of 2x4" at each end if you don't want to spend the time on shelves:

Since you want a vertical stand something like this might work, and could even be arranged so the saddle doesn't (quite) touch the wall. That would make it less likely that you'd mark the wall. (As Daniel says, this is the same idea as the Kvartal holder you're asking about)

If you're lucky this will fit on the short wall behind the door, otherwise it'll block off half the room. Note that I'm suggesting wheels-out so the dirty parts are in the middle of the room. You might prefer to mark the wall rather than have wet, dirty wheels in the middle of the room.

IME drywall screws will not work, drywall just isn't structural. The electrical panel right there also gives me pause, even hooking a cable with a drywall screw could be bad (either by pulling the sharp edge of the screw through the insulation, or just pinching the cable and starting a fire). But mostly, to work well enough to hold even a light bicycle you'd need to carefully arrange them to get the forces right, otherwise you're going to tear the hole  or rip one out of the wall. Screwing a board to the studs, then the rack to the board is a better solution.

One last question: does it fit in this way round? I assume you've tried, but if that works it's the least effort option. You might want to tape a bit of card to the wall where the front tyre hits and by the rear axle (and rear tyre) if it does work.

Edit: Another Option:
Would this fit on the wall beside the door? If so, then if there is no stud where it needs to be mounted, place a length of wood between the door and corner, screw that into the wall studs and mount the hook anywhere you like.


Asymmetric pedaling? When riding with clipless pedals and road bike shoes is it possible that the legs work asymmetrically?

I biked for some years with normal shoes but I started with new pedals and shoes a month ago. It seems to me that now my right leg does more work than the left because with the shoe hooked into the pedal I now both push down and pull up with more effort than before. Is this possible?

Bilateral asymmetry in pedaling is well-known and long-studied. You can see the abstract of a review of what is known about bilateral asymmetry in running and cycling here. During cycling, bilateral pedaling asymmetry is common, and not fixed at a particular split: it varies with cadence, power, duration, and your ride goals. Another article that is highly cited is Smak et al. (1999), which found that bilateral asymmetry varies with cadence. The asymmetry appeared to decrease within increasing cadence, though the power was held constant so it could as easily have been a story about crank torque.

In summary bilateral asymmetry appears to vary for each individual depending on his or her cadence, power, crank torque, and level of fatigue. This appears to be normal. It is unclear that one can easily alter one's pedaling symmetry or asymmetry, nor is it clear in cycling that small amounts of pedaling asymmetry lead to injury (since the asymmetry is so common).

As an aside, non-constant asymmetry has the potential to affect measurements from "single-sided" power meters.


Suggestions for budget mountain bike with opportunities for upgrade I live in Bulgaria and I am looking for suggestions for budget mountain bike with opportunities for upgrade, budget 400-500$ . I am planning to travel from home to work (dayly) and to take part in competitions like 100 km (about 63 miles) mountain lap called the "The 100km Vitosha Lap" and to have occasional drifts in the mountain .

My choice so for goes for Drag Ontario Pro. I have heard good things about Sprint Apolon too, but I am not so impressed. 2nd hand RAM or Scott are also an options.

I am interested to hear suggestions and if you don't know what to recommend me in that price range advices what I should be looking for when buying a bike with options for later upgrade.

Assuming a new bike, look at the Scott Aspect 30, 20, or 10, depending on your budget.
They all use the same frame, and the only difference is components.
When you buy a bike with the intent to upgrade, realize you will spend far more long term, than if you bought your bike ready built with the same components you upgraded to. I understand why it can be better to do it that way to break up the cost, but it does cost a lot more money overall.
I would make sure you buy a bike with good wheels, a good frame, and a good fork. Those parts are astronomically more expensive to upgrade to than to buy on the bike.
Your budget is fairly low, so if you have the option, save a bit more before you buy. A budget of $800-1000 is more appropriate if you can afford to make it work. It allows the wheels and fork to be quality enough that upgrading the other components becomes worthwhile.
If you can make that budget work, then look at the Scott Scale line.
I like and recommend Scott bikes for you because they are readily available in Europe, and they make high quality bikes at a reasonable price.
I hope this is helpful to you.


Brake levers for bullhorn on single speed - tt/cross or both? I'm newbie.

I need advice regarding brake levers for bullhorn on a single speed.
I ride both flat and bullhorn ends.

Do I need both TT levers and cross levers?
What do you use?

Bonus questions:
Can you advise specific models of levers?
Is there any reason use same brand levers as brakes (I have Tektro)?

Thanks

It depends very much on you whether you need cross brake levers or are fine with levers at your bullhorn bars alone. Here are some questions to ask yourself:

Can you break effectively and quickly with your current brake levers?
Can you switch hand positions from tops to bullhorn ends in time for braking?
Would to be able to brake reliably with a set of levers at the tops?

Caveat: Cross levers may make braking from your current levers a little less controllable due to interrupting the cable outers. Which reduces the brake lines stiffness to compression and increases friction. However, this might not be noticeable in regular use.

Compatibility:

Your Tektro brakes and levers are most likely compatible with any other product except Shimano. Bear in mind what pull your brake actually needs. There are short pull (road, canti) and long pull (V-brake) brakes.


Freshly inserted pin on a new Shimano chain causes a stiff joint I just tried to replace my chain for the first time - Shimano, 9-speed, labeled as CN-GH53. After I inserted the special pin, the joint is somewhat more stiff compared to the other ones. On the insertion side, it seems to protrude from the plate about as much as the regular pins (so almost not at all), and on the other side, where the guiding part of the pin was, it's protruding by about 0.5 mm.

Is this normal, and will it get better once lube penetrates the link, or did I mess something up? I did notice that before I pushed it in enough to be aligned with the regular pins on the one side, the joint couldn't move at all and it got better once I got it further, but I don't want to push it in too far by accident.

It happened to me several times and the most reliable way to fix it was to actually push the pin back a bit, i.e. use the breaker tool from the opposite side engaging the chain link on the other bits of the breaker tool, see the picture:

Red is the chain breaking tool
Black are the chain parts
Blue is the pin you are driving in

First you drive the pin (usually from the outside towards the frame) just to see it flush like the other pins on the frame side (middle figure). Since the whole link was resting against the massive part of the breaking tool, it gets somewhat compressed (towards the frame).
You then reposition the chain breaker tool so the chain link rests on the tiny leaves of the breaker tool (see the right-most figure) and drive the pin further relieving the link.

I've found a youtube video titled Bike Assembly and Repair - Chain Breaker Tool that shows the whole process as I've described it above.


triathlon beginners guide I'm new to triathlon and want to ask about what are bikes that consider a good choice for triathlon beginners? for both training and locale or small competitions.

Here are some parameters to put in mind while recommending bikes:

Price range: As a beginner, I may give up early if I find out that this sport is not suitable for me, and spending $10k on a bike at this stage is not the best decision for sure.
Durability: beginners usually do mistakes, and may broke their bikes. A durable bike is highly recommended for this stage, right?
Ease of use: I mean by use; easy to be assembled, disassembled and any common or periodical fixes that need to be done to the bike.

Any other suggestions to put in consideration, please add.

Budget advice
Visit/Join a Tri Club and check out what second-hand bikes the members are selling. Aim for the low end, say less than $1000. Make sure you ride a few different bikes so that you can compare.

It needs to be comfortable and fit well.
It must have quick-release wheels.

Also, work out what shoes and pedals you are comfortable using: will you use toe clips or clipless?

Serious Advice
Find a local Tri shop or LBS and talk it over with them. Be firm about your budget, and that it includes clothes, shoes, and pedals. A good shop will let you ride the bike before you buy, provide some free service and fit the bike to you. Shop around as well. Be up front with the staff: tell them that you are starting and are checking out your options.

Good luck!


Is sanitizer an effective degreaser? Thanks to COVID lockdowns, things are shut and I'm anyways miles away from larger market areas. What I do have is litres of sanitizer, the kind that is watery in consistency (not gel-like) and is intended to be sprayed (not squirted).
The composition of(v/v) is as follows :

80% Ethyl Alcohol
1.45% Glycerol
0.125% Hydrogen Peroxide
Purified Water Q.S.

It's flammable and has tonnes of alcohol, basically a good sign as a solvent to dissolve oil and grease, from what I can remember from high school chemistry. Not to mention it also leaves the drivetrain smelling nice ;)
So, is it fine if I use it as usual degreaser (spray, rinse, lube) ?

This might work, but probably not as well as using dish soap and water.
Because greases are made up of nonpolar chemicals, they are best dissolved by either nonpolar solvents or detergents. Nonpolar solvents are fluids made up of nonpolar molecules, which stick directly to the grease molecules they dissolve. This category includes things like acetone, petrol, and mineral spirits. These make good degreasers, especially if they're volatile enough that they will evaporate (otherwise you've just replaced one oily substance with another). WD-40 is in this category.
Polar solvents similarly stick to polar molecules or ions, so that's why you can use water to wash something covered in salt (where it dissociates into Na+ and Cl- ions in solution) but trying to do the same with acetone would be much less effective. This category includes water and alcohols.
Detergents (such as dishwashing liquid or laundry soap) contain chemicals with large molecules having a polar end and a nonpolar end: the polar end sticks to (polar) water molecules and the nonpolar end sticks to the grease molecules, allowing both detergent and grease to be washed away by water. This might be your best bet for common household chemicals, google shows quite a few people reporting good results for using it to clean bike chains.
EDIT: After prompting from gschenk I'm reminded that ethanol is actually a decent solvent for nonpolar molecules as well, due to basically having a polar end and a nonpolar end. Still, as a spray it will just slightly dilute grease. You might be able to use it by putting the chain in a container with it and shaking it around a lot, but you would have to do the same with a detergent, and the other additives in the sanitiser aren't going to do you any favours.


Using a 9 speed cassette with a 11 speed shifter I've just bought a turbo trainer and I'm looking to buy a new cassette/wheel/tyre to use to save the ones currently on the bike and make it easier to change between my bike and my girlfriend's bike too (easier than changing the tyre all the time).

I have a 105, 11 speed set up - will this work with a 9 speed cassette on the turbo trainer wheel?

thanks

Nope.

Above 6 (or 7, can't remember which) speeds the spacing of the sprockets gets narrower as the number of sprockets increases. So, you can't use a cassette with a mismatched number of sprockets - at least not for the full range of the cassette. A 10 speed cassette would work slightly better.

If you want to minimise cost of the extra wheel, find the cheapest used 10 speed rear wheel you can and an 11 speed cassette that will fit on a 10 speed freehub body.


How to stop handlebar from creaking Ever since I bought my hybrid bike the handlebars creak. It is worse when torquing them such as climbing a hill, but just shifting my weight on the bars will make them creak.

The problem gets much worse in hot weather.

The bracket is as tight as I can make it. Is there any thing I can do to stop this annoying noise?

Are you positive it's coming from the handlebar to stem interface? Creaking sounds are notoriously hard to diagnose. It's highly possible that the noise could be from the stem to steer tube interface or your headset or the spacers on your steer tube or topcap or another source, while it may sound like it's coming from your handlebars.

Also, be cautious with making things "as tight as I can make it" as you may risk over-tightening the part and risking more damage to your bike and/or components. If you are unfamiliar with how hard to tighten bolts, you should consult your owner's manual, the part manufacturers technical documents or simply take your bike into a reputable mechanic to properly tighten everything.


Why is carbon fiber inherently weak? Or is it? This question got me to thinking: If it were possible for me to use a carbon frame, I would, but the expense and my riding style keep me using steel and aluminum. (I like hauling stuff on racks and I'm not a skinny guy.)

I'm looking for a physical reason why carbon is a weak, fragile material, suitable for light bikes that will be treated delicately. Keep in mind, they make airplanes out of this stuff!

Is there some reason carbon fiber has to be treated with kid gloves? What is it about the material that resists being light and strong? Or, perhaps, is the weakness of carbon a myth, and it's all in the way that carbon bike frames are built at present?

Carbon fiber isn't necessarily a "weak" or "fragile" material. If you had a tube of the same diameter and thickness of typical CF as a typical steel frame tube, that CF tube would be extremely strong and durable.

Metals like steel and aluminum are isotropic materials. That means their mechanical properties are identical in all directions. If you have a cube of steel, it will respond the same way regardless which direction you pull or push on it.

Carbon fiber is a composite material. It consist of tons of little bundles of the fibers held together with an epoxy.

A block of steel is, well, like steel, but carbon fiber is like a big bundle of straws glued together. In one direction, it is extremely strong, but if you push or pull to the side, it will collapse. In that one dimension where it is strong, it is vastly stronger than steel. However, in other directions it's rather flimsy.

So, engineers have been able to exploit those properties in bicycle frames. In a bicycle frame, the vast, vast majority of the forces are primarly along a single dimension. They can make tubes thinner and lighter yet still retain the desired strength and stiffness.

So, there is no mechanical reason that you couldn't build a fully loaded touring bike or something like a Salsa Fargo with a carbon frame, and it could be just as tough and durable. And it would probably be lighter than a steel or aluminum frame. But the reason it isn't done is because of the market. Carbon fiber is an expensive material and difficult to work with, and its mechanical properties are best suited for when you demand very light applications.

When you build a steel framed bike, when you get the tubes sufficiently strong enough along their length, that because of steels isotropic properties, you get the lateral strength for free, the strength to resist things banging into it, withstanding crashes, etc.

In a carbon fiber frame, you don't get the strength in the other dimensions unless you choose to design it in. In carbon fiber bikes, where weight is a serious concern, the engineering decision has been made to not make the frames strong in those areas. They could do so, but they choose not to because its not necessary for the bikes intended purpose.

When you build a heavy loaded bike, you lose a lot of the carbon fibers advantages, and so it would be far more economical to use steel or aluminum.  Especially when throwing a couple filled water bottles in your pannier nearly exceeds the weight savings.


Night cycling: Is it worth using electroluminescent wire? It's currently winter in the UK, so for my commete to and from work I need lights and reflective surfaces for safety. I've read about local people losing their lives cycling, so I don want to make myself as visible and safe as possible. I currently have:

Lighting

2 x Smart Lunar 35 Lux front lights
Energizer head torch
Smart Lunar R 1/2 Watt Rear Light
Fibre light (Flashing red) attached to back

Reflective

ALTURA MENS NEVIS WATERPROOF CYCLING BIKE JACKET
3M Reflective spoke covers

I'm considering buying and fitting electroluminescent wire to my bike frame in order to make myself more visible. Does anyone have any thoughts or first hand experience?

On one hand I consider the brighter and more visible I am, the safer I am. However I'm already got lots of lighting and reflective surfaces on my bike. Also I've made sure that my front facing lights are white, rear facing red and other surfaces reflective. So I worry that el wire could add a non-standard and confusing colour into the mix.

Update: 4th December 2012
I found some el wire for £6 at Suntekstore so I decided to give it a go! I've also recorded a quick video

There is some interesting research here (pp 56-60), in amongst some decent comparisons of methodologies, they suggest that reflective material on the major joints makes the real difference in having cyclists being identifiable and identified. The thinking, as I understand it, is that lights are just lights and could be on (more or less) anything but reflective material on ankles and knees introduces motion and makes you look like a cyclist to a viewer's subconscious.

This isn't to say that you shouldn't light yourself up like a Christmas tree, but unusual and unexpected things aren't necessarily going to help you be noticed.


Dynamic stability of a tricycle I'm currently designing the "electric bike of my dream" (please do not laugh! it's for fun, nothing serious), and I came up after some though with a tricycle, where 2 rear wheels are supporting the battery and cargo weight, and a suspended front part for the rider.

The simplified kinematic of the bike is the following:

The link between the front part (in blue and red) and the rear part (in orange and green) would be made by two rotations: R1 for suspension, R2 to be able to move the front part sideways when making a turn. The rear part is supposed to stay vertical (well, more or less perpendicular to the road anyway).

My question is about the suspension part, and its influence on the "rideability" of the bike. I was thinking of putting two suspensions (SL and SR) to provide some positive "feedback" on R2 when making a turn, and to make the front part stay vertical when parked. On paper this looks nice, but I was thinking that this may be a problem when:

the road has potholes, or when crossing some curb sideways: the front part (and the rider) will experience some disturbing force sideways;
when making a turn the behavior will not be exactly the one of a normal bike as you need a stronger push to tilt the front part.

The feedback force and behavior would depend on the choice of d and h as seen on the diagram (h can be made negative if needed).

Another (probably simpler) solution is to only have one suspension in place of SL and SR, w/o any "feedback" couple.

What would be better in your opinion? Does a small feedback for R2 would render the bike not rideable?

As a bonus some "artist" views to get the whole picture (on the rear view you see only one suspension):

The bicycle is a deceptively simple machine.  The physics behind bicycles is actually quite complex, with multiple forces interacting to produce  self-stabilizing behaviour (i.e., ghost ride a regular bike then run along and strike it, the bike will deviate from its current trajectory and self right).  For a good rundown of the main physics principles behind this behaviour, see this short "MinutePhysics" video.

The take home is there isn't a single optimal bicycle handling archetype, but rather there are multiple optimal solutions that are "better" at different use cases.  To start to be able to answer which of your designs might be "better" we also need a clear use case and bicycle dynamics we wish to mimic.

To further confuse the matter the reason bicycles are a intuitive to ride as they are (after an initial training/learning phase) is that balance on a bike also co-ops neural pathways in our brain dedicated to walking (i.e., when we walk we step into the direction we are falling and in the same way we turn into a fall on a bike). Coming up with a functional design that is "intuitive" to the end user will be somewhat complicated, as we must also understand how people walk.

Taken together you may find an empirical approach (i.e., trial and error) may be the most effective. I would suggest creating a modular design that would allow you to easily switch between a single suspension beam  without any "feedback" coupling, or a design with suspension beams.  Ideally, you would also be able to dynamically adjust the level of feedback so you can vary it until it becomes more "natural."

Finally, you mentioned

  when making a turn the behavior will not be exactly the one of a normal bike as you need a stronger push to tilt the front part.

In this case you may want to consider a lower trail front end as it is my understanding that having less caster makes it is easier to initiate a lean.  Also a higher bottom bracket height may also assist in this department (think of balancing a broom on you hand, keeping the weight up high makes corrections easier). [NOTE: I am really outside my area of expertise in this last paragraph, if my understanding is wrong please feel free to add a correction in the comments.]


How to deal with long pre-bled brake line? I bought and installed a set of pre-bled hydraulic brakes onto my bike to replace the mechanical discs that came with it. My future plan is to buy a new bike, transfer the brakes to my wife's bike and replace the old discs onto my bike and sell it.

In the meantime I have a very long rear line, about 30cm extra, that I'm struggling to manage. I've looped it and cable tied it on both sides of the loop, once back on itself and again to the front brake line. Unfortunately this solution slips a lot so I'm looking for a better one. At this stage performance of the brakes seems ok with this method.

Does anyone know of a better solution or is getting them shortened by my LBS the way to go?

Shortening the hoses isn't much more than a 10 minute job on most models. You'll need either a bike shop, or some nice cutters and a new olive and insert which will cost a dollar/pound or two.

Although, as these are moving to a new bike, I'd leave them be and do a more thorough job of looping them until you can measure them on the new bike. What are you using, my first stop would be zip ties and if that slips still, duct/duck tape. When you move them, a little alcohol will lift any sticky mess that's left.

You wont hurt the performance of the brakes unless you kink the hose. Don't do that. They'll want replacing if you do.


Is there a way to merge tracks within a GPX file? I have GPX files for local MTB riding areas.  In each area picture several connected loops composed of between say 6 and 12 named trails.  In my GPX files all of the trails are individual tracks.  Its really annoying because I have to load each track sequentially as I ride.

My desired outcome here is to have all of the tracks displayed on my Garmin at the same time so I don't have to keep loading them as I go.

So, three questions:

Is there a way to load multiple "courses" (this is how the tracks are represented on my Garmin 1000) onto the map simulatanmeously so I can load up the entire ride before I go and not have to keep loading the next course (track) while out on the trail?
If #1 is not possible, is there a way to merge all of the tracks into a single track inside the GPX file so they appear as a single course on the Garmin?
If #2 is the solution and possible, once I have the tracks merged, is there a way to add annotations on top of the track to mark the names of each trail (formerly there names of each individual track in the GPX file) so the labels appear on the map on my Garmin?

Thanks for any help on this!!

I'm not sure how the Edge 1000 works, and whether or not it allows showing multiple tracks. Some other Garmin models can do this (ie Etrex), but they work differently in a number of ways.

Yes, joining tracks in a GPX file is possible, there is a wide variety of software to do this. One option is Garmin BaseCamp, which is available as a free download for Windows or Mac OS. Or you could try EasyGPS or QLandKarte GT. Or GPX files are just XML, so you can edit them in a text editor. If you remove the </trkseg> and </trk> tags from the end of one track, and the <trk> and <trkseg> from the start of the next, this will combine them into a single track.

Note there may be drawbacks to this: A GPX track is just a list of points. So a single track needs to be in order, and continuous from the start to the end. So a single track would work for a single mountain bike path, or a continuous loop. But it wouldn't work if the paths splits into several alternative routes, or if you have several unconnected paths. Also there may be a limit on the length of a track you can load on the Edge, ie the number of trackpoints. I'm not familiar with that model, but some Garmins are limited to 10,000 points in a single track. Tracks in a GPX file can have names, but I don't think these will be shown on Garmin.
Better solution
Instead of loading GPX tracks on the Garmin, a better solution could be to produce a map, in Garmin IMG format. Probably the easiest way to do this is to use Javawa IMGfromGPX. You can give a number of GPX files as input, and it will create a map. Advantages of this are you can have as many paths as you want, they don't all have to be continuous or connected. And you can set different styles and colours for each.
Then load this map onto the Edge. It can be used instead of any other maps you have loaded, or as a transparent overlay on top of other maps.
OpenStreetMap
You could also try OpenStreetMap. If your bike trails are not on OpenStreetMap, you can add them - using aerial imagery if available, or GPX tracks you have recorded. Then you can use OpenStreetMap data to produce maps in Garmin format, or download some ready made OSM Garmin maps. Then these can be loaded onto the Edge 1000, and it will show your trails.