Schrader inner tube gets cut by Presta sized hole in rim I am new at bikes. I got an old bike with flat tires which I decided to put back to life.

I went to Walmart and got the cheapest inner tubes (Goodyear) which turned out to be Schrader type. I had no idea about Schrader nor Presta valves, I was just getting new tubes.

When I started replacing the tubes, I saw that the valves of the old tubes were very different and my new valves didn't even fit the rim holes. I thought my bike was just too old and used some very old tube technology that nobody uses anymore.

I got rid of rim grommets and threw them away, and the new valves fit just fine. Now, however, the inner tube get cut around the valve all the time. What can be done to avoid cuts in this situation?

The cheapest solution is to try and remove the burrs or sharp edges that are cutting the tube. This can be done with a small file or a piece of emery cloth cut into a small strip and pushed through the hole. If the rim is double walled it will be difficult to get at the inner edges. The alternative is to purchase a set of schrader to presta adapter sleeves. While they are available on line a trip to your Local Bike Shop will verify that the drilled holes are large enough to accept the adapter. Then use Presta tubes and you should be trouble fee.


Should inner tube have excess length? I've recently changed the default 700x35 tires and 35mm Schrader inner tube to 700x25 slicks with 25mm Presta inner tubes.

However whilst fitting the new tire and inner tube, I noticed that the inner tube had about an inch or two of excess length to it. This mean I had to tuck it into the tire, doubled back on itself.

I've doubled checked the inner tube packaging and it's definitively for a 700 diameter rim.

I presumed that it would sort itself out when I pumped up the tires. Is this normal?

A tube should not have excess length, and doubling on itself will cause the tire to feel uneven while riding, as well as increase the likelihood of flats.

Assuming the tube is the correct size for the tire, as you said it was, there are 2 common causes for this problem.

If you installed the tube without inflating it first, just a tiny amount, then it hasn't got the shape to sit in the tire completely, and it will appear to be too long. It isn't, just add enough air to the tube to give it a little shape and try it again.
If you did that already, then in the process of inflating the tube to make easier to install in the tire, you have probably inflated it too much, and so it has gotten larger. It's not permanent, just let the air out and inflate it only enough to give it shape before installing it in the tire.

If these don't work, there is likely a problem in manufacturing, and you should get the tube exchanged.

Hope that helps.


Remove paint from the head tube I'm planning to build a new bike from scratch.

Part of that is buying a new frame, and possibly facing/reaming it. That's actually the part I'm scared of the most.

Fortunately, the brand I'm targeting, Surly, seems to do that in the factory. But as they state, there may be some paint left where it should not be:

  Since Surly frames are faced prior to painting, it is possible to
  shave the paint off the head tube and BB shell ends with a carpet
  knife blade.  This usually results in an acceptable result, saving you
  money, but we still recommend having it done the proper way to ensure
  longest life from your components.

So what is the "proper way" to remove the extra paint, if the frame is properly reamed/faced already?

Should I choose not to do it the proper way, which components are going to suffer? I suppose at least the headset and bottom bracket, but could the frame suffer as well?

The proper way to do this is to use a facing tool. Park Tool makes the BTS-1 for BB's and has directions to use it here. Theres also the Park Tool HTR-1 for head tubes with directions here.

[You may need different tools, but the idea is generally the same. Note that some manufacturers of headsets or what not may void your warranty if you don't do this properly.]


Disc brake clicking noise I just took my rear tire off of my mountain bike that has hydraulic disc brakes (elixer5). When I put the wheel back on and started pedaling it made a clicking sound.

At first I thought it was the spokes rubbing up against something (that's what it sounded like, some metal sound). I took the tire off again and took a good look at the disc brake pads, I saw a skinny metal "r" shaped thingy leaning out in the slot where the disc would fit.

Is this where the clicking is coming from and if so how do I fix it? Please ask for any more information I couldn't think of for more clarification.

The metal "R" shaped piece is likely the brake return spring (#7,8 in the image below):

If it is visible as you describe, you are likely missing a brake pad, and the spring is contacting your rotor.

You will need to find or replace the pad to fix the issue.


Double up-shift on Sram X01/XX1? For over a year now I'm using Sram's 1x11 X01 drivetrain. It works great, but the only thing I miss from my 3x9 XTR is the double up-shift on the rear derailleur. With 11 gears it only makes even more sense -- it's often annoying to click the trigger 4 times when starting a downhill section.

I know on the 3x9 XT trigger it was easy to do, as it was almost the same as XTR, but Sram's shifters probably work completely different... Is it possible to "hack" the X01 trigger shifter so it can double up-shift like the XTR?

From what I remember (it's been a while since I've torn one apart), the "up" shifts on SRAM shifters are a mostly passive affair. You click the trigger, and this essentially gets a pawl out of the way of a spool inside the shifter which holds the cable. This spool unwinds one "shift" worth of cable due to the spring tension on the rear derailleur pulling on the cable. The rotation of the spool is stopped by a sear of some sort which catches the spool when the trigger is depressed, and resets when the trigger is released.

The only "hack" I could imagine is to remove or modify that sear, but more likely than not, what would happen is you'd down shift as normal, but pressing the up shift trigger would immediately release all of the remaining cable, shifting you from wherever you are down to the smallest cog. Which sounds completely miserable to me.


Bike size advice Bianchi vs Cannondale I have been after a Bianchi Via Nirone 7 for more than one month and an half without much success. The main reason is that they don't produce many 47cm frames, while 47cm would be my optimal size.
In the meantime, I ordered also a Cannondale CAAD Optimo 48cm and it fits fine, it's arrived in the shop ready to be brought home. But I really want the Bianchi. The problem is that the cheapest 47cm upgrade that I can do with a Bianchi is the double of my budget (Sempre Pro).
At this stage I'm very exhausted and temped to go for a via Nirone 7 50cm frame even if is going to be slightly too big for me.
I already quickly tried the 50cm via Nirone and the hip isn't very stable, I do some small overstretch.
If I go for a 50cm frame I need to cut 2cm in the seatpost (seatpin). So, the saddle would be slightly lower than handlebar.
However, watching the geometries of Bianchi Via Nirone 7 50cm and Cannondale CAAD Optimo 48cm I don't see much big difference. My leg inseam is 70cm and height is 159cm.
Bianchi Geometry:

Cannondale Geometry:

By the way, I did two 50 mile rides on Trek Domane, the first with a 47cm frame and the second with 50cm, and I felt more comfortable with 50cm. (But there wasn't any need of cutting the seatpost - I put it at the lowest position).
Trek Geometry:

Would would you do in my case? - Any advice?

When you buy a complete bicycle, you just need to check two things: fitting and components.

Did you test the 2 bikes in the size you are discussing? The Bianchi should have a better frame, but nothing that can counterbalance the fact that a 50cm frame is too big.

Regarding "If I go for a 50cm frame I need to cut 2cm in the seatpost (seatpin)" I would go as far as to say that you are voiding warranty and therefore it does not make sense to do so on a new bike. In my opinion, neither on a used one.


How to ride when the weather is hot? Today the weather was 36°C (97°F) and sunny.

What should I know about riding when it's a bit hot like that?

I'm a kind of casual rider now (no longer commuting by bike) -- when the weather is above freezing I'm like:

20 to 80 km rides at an average 20-25 kph.
Don't stop en route (except for gulps of water).
Drink a bottle or two of water, and eat a banana or two on the way home.
Cotton shorts and T-shirt.
Over 50 and a bit overweight.
Roads are slightly hilly and unshaded.

I went out today wanting a longer ride but returned home half-way because of the heat (so I managed only 20 km each way, 40 km round-trip).

I've heard that occasionally people can get heat stroke (and brain damage) from their e.g. running in the heat. What should I know about how to cycle?

Is it just like, "Don't: stay home and drink plenty of fluids"?
Is there a temperature above which you don't ride (or ride less, or more slowly)?
Do I have to be cleverer than my usual (water), about electrolytes or something?
Do you stop for rests (to cool down)? Do you know/recognize symptoms of overheating?
Is it necessary to stick to shadier routes?
Is pouring water on yourself necessary, or a luxury? Any other precautions?
Do you ride without a helmet (I did, because with a helmet my eyes flood with stinging sweat)?

Several questions, several answers:

Is there a temperature above which you don't ride

Yes, for me that's about 45°C. At that temperature where I live (Australia) the air is usually so hot that even wearing glasses it's hard to blink often enough to keep my eyeballs from drying out. Wrap-around glasses, complete skin coverage, and riding slowly is the only way to go. Or it's just before the rainy season and sweat is pouring off me just standing in the shade, so I don't go outside if I can avoid it.

Do I have to be cleverer than my usual (water)

Ideally, yes, regardless of whether you're riding. But 35°C is not especially hot, it's more that it is useful to pre-hydrate and make sure you're drinking to replace sweat. My usual is to buy cordial powder and add salt until it's undrinkable when I'm at home testing it. When I'm riding it starts to taste good, so I drink it. "electrolyte drinks" that work taste foul when you don't need them, if they taste like soft drink they're purely there to replace the sugar and are thus a waste of money. You should also be drinking 2-3 times as much water as electrolyte drink. But again, at 35°C you should be able to ride an hour or more without issues (I ride 45 minutes home from work at that temperature in the summer, and drink before the ride and after, rarely during).

Do you know/recognize symptoms of overheating?

This is important. If you start to feel weak or have a headache you should stop, drink and cool down. If you stop sweating you're about to die, so you should immediately seek cool shelter and warn the people present (there must be people present) that you're suffering heatstroke and may pass out. Note that "sweat evaporates as fast as it appears" and "not sweating" are very different things. I find my back will generally stay wet up to about 40°C, and above that I try not to ride very hard because my body and especially my brain does not like getting above 40°C so I need to sweat just to stay alive, forget exercising.

Is it necessary to stick to shadier routes?

Anything you can do to stay cooler while riding is good. But note that riding close to building or on roads "in the shade" is often no better than being in the sun as they will reflect and absorb/re-radiate heat. Trees are good, riverside or on a path near a creek (even a dry creek) are better. Mostly, pay attention to how hot you feel.

I took photos last summer of heat blisters on my hands from resting on the brake hoods of my bike. That was at only about 38-40°C, but riding through a built up area with lots of shiny buildings and fingerless cycle gloves - you could see that the blisters were where bare skin had touched black plastic hoods. The blisters were really annoying to work around while they healed.

Is pouring water on yourself necessary, or a luxury?

It's a waste of water, unless you have lots. A sock around a waterbottle, wet, can help but if it's hot and dry it won't help much, or for long. Keep the water for when you need it.

Do you ride without a helmet?

Not in Australia, where the law requires a helmet. I would consider it, and sometimes do, but I much prefer a helmet cover with a wide brim, then a headsock under the helmet to stop the sweat running into my eyes. It's much easier to wash or swap a sweatband or head-covering than to clean a helmet, especially if you're riding in the heat every day.

Clothing

The hotter it is the more I cover up. I'm a white guy, so in theory my skin is more reflective than black skin, but forget it, if I don't cover up I get way too hot.

At moderate temperatures I don't bother, riding home from work I just accept that I'll get hot and since it's a known journey if I get home uncomfortably hot that's bearable. So I wear a white, long sleeve t short and white knee-length cargo shorts, plus helmet cover.

But when it's hot, usually I'm touring, so I wear the full kit. Head covering as above, then a long sleeve white t shift (cotton is fine, and SPF 50 or higher is better (in Australia we get SPF rated clothing)). I will attach that to white gloves, buying the lightest, baggiest gloves I can find. Strangely, dishwashing gloves are more available and work better than gardening gloves. I wear cycling glove under them, because the offer basically no road protection. Then I wear cycling kicks with long, baggy cotton pants over the top. Those tuck into my socks. Basically the only skin you see is my face, and not a lot of that.

Hydration

I prefer to drink enough that I have to stop and pee every couple of hours. If the pee burns I will drink right there until I can't drink any more without throwing up. This is when I will normally drop a film canister full of cordial powder+salt into my drink bottle, drink that, then straight water until I'm full. The goal is to get that water into my bloodstream as fast as possible.

You should never, ever get to that stage just riding at 35°C. That has only happened to me when I've been at the end of a long day touring after making a mistake and having to ride further, harder, than I expected.

Time of Day/ Avoid the darn heat

Finally, and most importantly, if you can avoid riding when it's uncomfortably hot, do that. I have flexitime at work, and in the hot part of the summer I will start later and finish later so I'm not riding home when it's hottest (normally I work 7am-3pm, but much over 35°C I'll start between 0830 and 1000, so I finish later). When cycle touring I'll either ride early or ride a split shift. I'll start at first light (30-60 minutes before dawn) then ride until I'm hungry, tired, or hot. Then I'll stop and spend the day trying to avoid the heat while being a tourist, and possibly ride again when it cools down.

If you're working and riding for exercise, do it before or after work/office hours. First light is a great time to be out, you'll see any local wildlife before people drive them out of sight, and it's a very calm time of the day in most places. Or follow the crowd and go out for a ride after work. There's more people, less wildlife, and it's usually hotter, but that is relative to dawn, not midday, it's still a lot better than riding at 3pm.


What would I gain by upgrading a norco vfr 2 hybrid bike group set to tiagra or 105 shimano group set What would I gain by upgrading a norco vfr 2 hybrid bike group set from alivio 9*3 speed to a tiagra or 105 shimano group set? Are there any things to consider or look out for?

Things to Gain:

Higher quality groupset
Headache
Frustration
Thinner wallet

It is not really a good idea for this type of bike to consider trying to evolve itself into another type with the components your suggesting

Reasons:

The Norco VFR 2 Hybrid has the Norco 25mm Riser and handlebars which are not compatible with Tiagra or 105 shifters.
Tiagra and 105 are both STI (Shimano Total Integration), This means that they are not designed to fit this bike handlebar style and are designed for drop style handlebars
Trying to keep your original shifters will probably not work as the indexing will not mesh. Although there have been some reports of users getting lucky mismatching shifter and derailleur models, it is generally not a good idea and leads to frustration and ending up with brand new components you spent good money on that just don't work.
Brakes are another story. Trying to match your existing levers with tiagra or 105 calipers will most likely lead to more frustration as chances are, you will never get them adjusted perfectly to your liking and the original brakes may feel more natural and function better.
105 does not come in 9 speed so you will be limited to Tiagra.
You can not upgrade to a 10 speed group without changing out your rear hub which would mean a new wheel or wheel-set.
You mentioned 9/3 drivetrain. I imagine that means a triple front crank which is not compatible with tiagra or 105 and would require a crank replacement.


Where to buy dust cap for bottom bracket for an old bicycle? I need to buy replacement dust cap for the bottom bracket in the picture. Is it still available anywhere? Under what name can it be found?

I highly doubt you would be able to find replacement for a bottom bracket dust cap on a bicycle which looks that old.
The economics for such parts do not make sense in general.
Something you could do, however, is 3D print it. It is a fun little project to redesign a part in 3D. You can use something like SketchUp to do it.
It will be a bit expensive though to have it printed (~tens of $), but you get to pick between different polymers.
FYI It is something I did to salvage a 1960s chest of drawers I have, where the plastic bits holding it together had become completely brittle.


Will my chain line be affected if I use a BB386EVO crankset on a standard cartridge BSA frame? https://www.ebay.com/itm/324064544587

FSA sells this which allows you to use BB386 cranks with BSA frames. Is the offset different enough between the two standards to cause problems with my chain line? I'm talking about the classic cartridge style BSA not the outboard BSA in case there is a difference. If there is a BB offset chart somewhere out there it would be super helpful as well.

BSA or 'English' or ISO standard refers to the the thread in the bottom bracket shell (1.37in x 24 TPI). Both cartridge and external bearings fit in this these shell threads. There are several standards shell widths: 68mm for road bikes, 73mm or 83mm for mountain bikes.

There is no such thing as a bottom bracket chainline offset chart. Each bottom bracket standard has a specified external bearing width and internal bearing diameter. Cranks designed for a BB standard have the correct axle diameter and length for the bearings. The crank itself positions the chainrings for a specified chainline, not the bottom bracket.

You can read about BB standards here: https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/the-complete-guide-to-bottom-bracket-standards/

The external bearing bottom bracket you reference will fit in a 68mm shell (you can see this in the specs on the web page) and provide the proper external bearing width of 86.5mm for BB385EVO. You need to check that your BB shell is the right width. You then need to check the specs of the crank to make sure it give you the proper chainline for the bike you are building up.

If you are building a road bike your BB shell will almost certainly will be 68mm, and a standard BB386EVO road crank will give proper chainline.


What are the times and costs involved in assembling a rideable bicycle from a salvaged frame? Let's assume I bought a frame for XXX eur/usd/gbp. It usually is a steel frame from late '80s/90s, or an aluminium frame from the early '00s.
The frame is of decent quality, it does not present relevant damages and it comes with a working bottom bracket and headset.
How much time&money (parts cost only) are needed to build a complete bicycle out of it?
A little definition of specs: the bicycle should have some kind of general use, i.e. running errands and short tours, so I foresee assembling it with mechanical rim-brakes, average 2" tires (the frame itself may have 26 or 28 or whatever size wheels, 32 or 36 spokes according to what it can be found cheaply at the scrapyard/ bike co-op), average 3 x 8 gears. Optionals: mud-guards, hub-dynamo, rack.
Ideally, the answer to this question will be the default answer to question like:
Muddy Fox Pathfinder 90s MTB and it should not include specific products recommendations, but it should make self evident that one has to rationally compare the frame acquisition costs to all the successive costs (considerations if XXX is too much are then left as personal, opinion-based, evaluations).
ps: I do not exclude writing myself an answer in the (not so) near future, although I imagine a collective, community answer would be very nice: please don't race to answer.

This is the classic "how long is a piece of string" question, where almost any answer is valid.

At one end you have a frame.  And enough skills and time to assemble a bike, along with the desire/need.  If you can source every part you need from your spares boxes, then the cost is nothing more than your time.

On the other end if all you have is a frame, then every other part needs to be sourced.  Subject to finances and availability, you might be scrounging through auction listings and waiting for the right parts to come up, or you might simply purchase the parts new from a LBS.   Here the costs could range from "minimal" to "extreme" to "costs more than a new bike complete with warranty"

How far on that slippery slope you go is completely up to you.
A competent mechanic could assemble a bike from new clean compatible parts in an hour or two.   If you're working to mate up dirty worn and possibly incompatible parts, then the time component will naturally grow.
If you put a dollar value on each hour of your time, then the balance of the entire equation changes.
Personally, I enjoy making a bike better, so to me that's relaxing time, more productive than watching TV.

Tools  Bikes need some special tools for different tasks.  While most assembly can be done with basic tools like hex/screwdrivers/wrenches/etc, you may require more custom ones like cone spanners, cassette/freehub tools, BB tool, cable cutters, nipple drivers etc.  Buying serviceable tools is wise, they will last for life and you likely need these tools again in the future.  But that's also an added cost.
Many cities have "Bicycle Cooperatives" of some sort.  They may offer fixed up used bikes for small cost, or access to those tools along with expertise and advise.  Use a search engine to find the ones near you, or ask around.

Ultimately noone can tell you if something is worth doing.
IMO if the bike can be made rideable and safe, its worth doing.
Fixing a bike is it's own reward.


Why don't standard bike chains have inner/outer combo links so odd chain lengths are possible? I noticed while at an amusement park that on the roller coaster, each link of the chain has what can be considered a combination inner and outer plate.  The side plates are somewhat diagonal so they start as an outer then become an inner.  So my question is if these work well for roller coasters which have a lot of load, why not use a similar scaled down design for bikes so that odd length chains are possible?

Here is a pic of a roller coaster chain so you can see what I am talking about: (you can click on it for a more detailed larger pic).

Maybe this design wont shift well?  I wonder what the main reason is.  Motorcycles also do not use it.  Maybe large pitch chains require it cuz being 2 links too long or short is a big difference but with a short pitch chain (1/2 inch or so), it is not so critical?

Bike chains have to have some other method to take up the error (like horizontal dropouts or tensioners even on a single speed).

They'd still need this if the maximum error was halved, so you wouldn't really gain anything. Chains would need thicker walls as the  walls would no longer be in pure tension (the force would tend to straighten them). This would make the chain heavier and wider, neither of which is desirable. It would also be more expensive as parts would have to be stamped then bent rather than just stamped.


How does stiffness affect experience and performance? I see many mountain bike reviews and articles discuss the stiffness of frames, forks, wheels and other components.
Here are some questions which cross my mind:

What is the definition of stiffness?
How do you measure stiffness?
How does stiffness affect riding experience and performance?

A Wikipedia definition is pretty much applicable. Stiffness is how much things resist bending.

Stiffness is measured by measuring how much stuff bends when lateral force is applied. So, in the example of frame stiffness, you could put one end of the frame in a vise, horizontally, then hang a known weight from the other end and measure how much it sags.

Because bending takes and dissipates energy, the stiffer stuff is, the less energy it robs from the rider. In general, you want everything in the system to be as stiff as possible, except the elements that are specifically designed to be flexible, like tires and shocks. Also, stiffer bikes (or any type of vehicle really) are more predictable in handling, because they have less degrees of freedom, are less prone to vibrations etc.

All that being said, the effect of stiffness is generally felt only by the performance oriented cyclists and is typically secondary to other considerations, like weight. For instance, for years MTB XC racing cyclists used the lightest forks possible like RockShox SID, even though they had the reputation of being "flexible like maccaroni" because weight trumped all else. Only in recent years, and especially in the road world where there is a fixed lower limit for bike weight in competition, manufacturers started to focus on stiffness as one of the main differentiating factors of their components.


Is the Power-Link designed for routine usage? I have a Power-Link which i intended to use in emergencies (when the chain breaks and i'm far from home). Used it once, worked pretty well.

Now i wonder, what if i use it permanently with my chain? My idea is that it might be convenient to quickly remove the chain, stuff it into a bowl of acetone/oil/whatever, and easily install it back onto the bike.

But will the Power-Link wear out quickly (e.g. quicker than the other "links" of the chain)? I am not sure whether it was intended to be used all the time or just for emergencies.

There are several versions of SRAMs power links. The original versions were intended for reuse, and you would have no problem using them in that manner. If you have an 8 or 9 speed bike, you've got one of the original designs.

If you have a ten speed SRAM drivetrain, then you need to look at the link and the model of the chain. SRAMs newest power links for 10 speed are not designed to be used more than once. They are sold in a 4 pack so that you have replacements to use.

The gold power link you've pictured is either 9 speed, or one of the first 10 speed links, which is reusable. If yours is black, you have one of the newer, non reusable variety.

If the chain is a PC-1071, PC-1091 or 1091r, this is the links it comes with, and while you can remove them, they need to be replaced with a fresh link each time you do.

I hope that helps.


3 week old brand new Montra Rock 1.0 front gears don't change as well chain slips frequently I bought a Montra Rock 1.0 MTB 3 weeks back, I use it mostly on city roads.

For the past 4 days I have noticed that the front gear does not change. It stays on lower gear and if try to change it chain slips frequently and there is a rattling sound at pedals.

What is ideal front-back gear combo for city roads?

Ensure the shifter is set to the low position - the position where the chain is on the smallest chain ring.  Give the cable a tug, it should be taut but not tight. You can make minor tension adjustments by turning the barrel adjuster near the front shifter-to-cable housing connection.  If you can not take up enough slack with the barrel adjuster, screw it in about 3/4 the way and then loosen the cable at the front dérailleur and pull out the slack in the cable and retighten. Make the final adjustments with the barrel adjuster near the shifter. It should take about 2 minutes for correct.

If you continue to have shifting problems it can be the angle of the derailleur or the position of the set (stop) screws. In that case if you are comfortable making adjustments look to YouTube for instructions, otherwise, take it into a shop.


How do I make a road brake lever work alongside a mtb brake lever If I manage to get a dropbar on my mtb and want to use both the MTB brake lever AND the road dropbar brake lever (like the Tiagra STI, but no gear shifting)... Is it possible? Can they use the same brake cable? I want something like

What you're looking for are called Cross or Interrupter levers (i.e. they interrupt the brake cable housing--the cable passes through them. It is worth noting that in the video the cables protruding from the sides of the brake hoods are shifter cables...the brake cable is routed under the handlebar tape to the cross levers).

Most setups are designed to work around short pull brakes (cantilevers, side pulls, &tc.). Long pull brakes (linear pull v-brakes, most mechanical disc brakes) require more cable to be pulled per motion of the brake levers, so it is generally not recommended to mix short and long pull components (though some report varying degrees of success).

If you have cantilever studs on your frame, you can easily find a set of cantilever brakes and a cross/drop lever combination that work well together. For long pull drop levers, there are fewer options (the ones that stick out in my mind are Cane Creek Drop Vs, and Tektro RL520s). For cross levers, there is only one that I've found that has a long pull option: Paul components makes a cross lever which can switch between short and long pull pivot location. (Alternatively, there are a few "mini" v-brakes which are short pull brakes.)

Your best option, given the availability of long pull road/cross levers, is to invest in something called a Travel Agent--it mounts to your v-brakes and effectively makes them short pull so that you can use any kind of road brake levers. They cost ~$20 each and are well worth it considering the headache of procuring compatible components or setting up cantilevers for the first time.

If you have mechanical disc brakes (which are generally long pull), you can either invest in long pull levers or switch to the Avid BB-7 Road calipers which are short pull and work quite well.

Additionally, pay attention to the diameter of the drop bar you'll be using and the levers you install! Most mountain bars have an OD of 22.2mm where road bars have an OD of 23.8mm.


Fixing the valves on tubeless tires broke, what are my options? I bought a used bike that was set up with tubeless wheels, however both valves are shot what should I do?  In general, is there more maintenance involved with the upkeep of tubeless wheels? Because I'm thinking of just throwing some tubes in there and call it good.

As long as the wrench flats on the valve core are still accessible, you should be able to replace just the valve core:

from https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/36955/30982

http://k0lee.com/2009/10/putting-tire-sealant-in-presta-valve-tubes/

If there is leaking, you could spray some soapy water around the valve to see where its leaking from. If its leaking between the valve and the rim, possibly the valve is not tight enough. To tighten: from inside the rim, push the valve 'outward' (towards hub) and tighten down lockring by hand. Never tighten with a wrench as you'll never be able to remove it on the trail! (I've learned the hard way).

As far as 'is tubeless worth it?' or 'is it more complicated?' that will be largely opinion based and an internet search will likely turn up countless discussion. A simple answer would be: do what lets you ride your dang bike. If you're familiar with tubes, throw some tubes in there and go shred. some winter if you're looking for a project, get a friend who is more familiar with it and give it a go.


Which freewheel remover tool to use on vintage Columbia bike? I picked up what looks to be a late 80's Columbia 'USA Racing' Women's city bike on Craigslist recently. It needs a new 5 speed freewheel, but I can't seem to figure out which remover tool to use.

The freewheel center has 12 slots, and is 22-23mm in diameter (best guess is 22.25mm). I happen to have the FR-1.2 and FR-5 and both don't fit (too big).

Also, can anyone suggest a decent freewheel for this bike for around $15? Thanks!

Take it to your favorite IBD- they can explain and illustrate much better. They might even show you how to do a destructive freewheel removal! Since bikes age in "dog years", and the correct tool to remove it (thick -boss Shimano) hasn't been made since the '90's), your shop may not have the correct tool unless they have been around for a while. IBD freewheel removal should be about $5 or so plus freewheel, if you bring just the wheel.


Does rebuilding a hub increase efficiency? I was recently helping a friend build a bike from scratch, and one of the first things he did was to inspect the hub to check that the wheel was rotating smoothly. He was adjusting the cone and lock nuts.

How large (or small) of an efficiency boost do you see from such adjustments? I'm a commuter using a single-speed daily -- if I were to rebuild my hub and do the same adjustments, would I see a significant improvement?

Sorry for the newbie question! Thanks in advance.

For a typical rebuild the increase in efficiency is negligible. Think about the leverage you have over the bearings on a rotating wheel- it's pretty substantial compared to the friction of the bearings, even if they're not in perfect shape. The bearings would have to be destroyed for it to make a significant difference, and if the bearings are destroyed it's likely that the hub would be too, at which point a rebuild is moot.


greasing closed bearings on the outside Assume I have a couple of closed bearings on some pivots on my bicycle.

These bearings:

are fitted on a housing
have an axle going through them
are tightened by bolts which also have cups to "protect" the black plastic part of the closed bearing

My question is, would you use grease between that black plastic part and the axle cup to protect the bearing from water and dust? I'm talking about a lot of waterproof grease which upon bolt tightening will overflow. Of course I will wipe out any excess after tightening.

I'm asking because even if the bearings are of high quality, I will sometimes find that dust or other small particles have entered its inside area making the bearing lose its smoothness and eventually making it wear faster. So, could that extra grease on the outside act as protection?

Edit: This question doesn't regard greasing inside the bearing. I'm asking whether puting grease on the bearing, covering the metal and the black part, will prevent water and dust from entering.

Generally speaking, that style of bearing ("sealed cartridge bearing") is "permanently lubricated".  You do not lubricate them and you replace the entire assembly if anything goes wrong with them.

A few people have claimed success by gently prying back the flexible gasket and injecting grease with a syringe, but these claims are subject to legitimate skepticism.

Note that the inside diameter and the outside diameter are not supposed to move relative to the external parts that hold them.  If they are slipping it indicates that the "holders" are not tight enough or the bearing is failing and needs to be replaced.


I read that "training is needed" before your voice can replace a horn. Why might this be? In a discussion about very-loud bicycle horns, alex wrote that he uses his voice.  He added that it works well and is always ready to use.

And then he added:

"And, yes, training is needed."

If I need to alert a car to my presence, I generally might yell "C'mon" so loud that my throat hurts for a few minutes afterwards.

This seems to work fine.  I don't think I ever needed any special training to learn how to do this.

What might Alex have meant when he wrote that training is needed?

The word "c'mon" is a bad choice for an alert word, because you close your mouth to form the M and the C is a back-of-mouth sound that you can't say loudly.  The N sound is a nasal sound, so the volume there is through your nose.

So the only loud part of this word is "---OOOOOnnn"

If your alert phrase was "Come on!"  then it would be better than "c'mon", but the word of volume is some variation on HEY or HOI or OI

Punchier words with a more defined start - so its an imperative sound
Your windtube is simply pushing air without having to make limiting consonant sounds.
It doesn't really matter how your mouth is, you can make this sound with your tongue anywhere
Doesn't matter how dry your mouth is either - you're essentially just a straight horn pushing air.

More so in the road position than an upright, but that there is your lungs, windtube, and mouth while riding.  Not pictured is your diaphragm muscle, which is the hand squeezing the bulb.

If you ever get a chance to play with a sound meter, try it out and see if you find a better word/noise for pure volume.


How much side-to-side foot movement is possible in Crankbrothers clipless pedals? To be 100% clear I am not asking about rotating the foot, but moving side to side along pedal axis.

The Crankbrothers cleat web page states there is -2/+2mm adjustment but this, as I understand it, refers to mounting/fixing the cleat (similar to SPD).

But I am interested how much movement is possible after the cleat is fixed, one is clipped in to the pedal. And I am asking because I would like to compare Crankbrothers (Candy 1 in my case) to Time ATAC pedals which are  supposed to provide 5 mm side to side movement (I hope this at least is accurate because I already learned that offset given for Time MX4 pedals is wrong).

I happen to use candy pedals so I measured how much I could move a shoe laterally on a pedal when clipped in - it's about 2mm.

However the pedal is holding the cleat quite tightly and and I'm pretty sure the cleat does not really 'float' laterally when riding. If the heel of the foot wants to move off the cleat centerline that is provided for by rotational float.


Would the seating position of a road bike cause issues with prescription glasses I currently use a mountain bike to commute to work but I am keen to switch to a bike more suited to commuting. I have been looking at road and cyclecross bikes but I am concerned the more horizontal seating position of these sorts of bikes would cause issue with my glasses; specifically, I would end up peering over the top of my lenses rather than through them. Is this a common problem? Do I need to worry?

Yes, in most cases normal prescription glasses sit too low on the nose for the purpose of shielding the eyes in road bike position. And as the speed increases, the need for effective eye protection grows, too. Consider either:

Getting contact lenses, and then you can wear bike specific glasses
Getting bike glasses with prescription lens inserts. In my experience, they are somewhat awkward to handle and not all optometrists will undertake fitting the lenses to what they perceive as nonstandard frames.


Questions about shifting from a new road cyclist I recently purchased a used bike from my local co-op. I've ridden previously on fixed bikes with straight bars, but this bike is the first one I've owned where I have to shift and use drop handlebars. I've been practising for the last two weeks or so, but am still uncomfortable with this. I have two big questions

1) I am having a lot of trouble simply keeping my bike steady with one hand while trying to shift. I am quite confident riding one handed and even shifting with one hand on the part where the handle bars curve out on the top, but have no control over my bike if I try riding one handed from the hoods. Its almost impossible for me to shift (with down tube shifters) and have a hand on the brakes just in case. It seems impossible for me to ride on the hoods and not have the handlebars carry a lot of my weight. I'm considering brifters just because then I'd never have to take my hands off the handlebars, but that'd be almost as much as I paid for the bike.

2) I have read that you are not supposed to shift while under load, but what about no load? I guess this partially stems from the fact that I'm not really comfortable shifting from the hoods, but I really have a hard time shifting and keeping control while still pedalling. Also, when I do shift while still pedalling, my foot sometimes comes off the pedal. Is there any way to prevent this without clipless pedals?

Sounds like an issue with bike-fit. Try the following:

While on the bike and stationary, lean on the wall with elbow (of one arm). The other arm/hand reaches the hood, your body should be as close as possible to the normal riding position (on hood).
two feet on the pedal
Use your back muscle and gradually reduce the load on the hood. Is this possible?

If the answer is no, which is what I suspect, try:

invert the stem, if you have threadless headset. Keyword: 'stem threadless adjustment' for further details on the internet.
increase the (quill) stem height, if you have threaded headset. You often seen this type on older bicycle (1980s and older), which is likely to be your case. Keyword: 'quill stem adjustment' for further details on the internet.
change the seat angle: change the angle so that the seat prevent you from sliding forward
change the seat position: slide the seat forward and have a more up right riding position. However, your centre of mass also shifts forward and your body is more likely to slide forward. Thus there should be a balance between seat angle and seat position (and stem length/angle).


Adjusting pedal / crank / other components to account for different leg sizes I added a heal lift (~1 cm) for running to my right shoe after learning my right leg was slightly shorter than my left. Doing so alleviated any pain I was experiencing in my right knee.

However, I'm now regularly commuting, and the added miles seem to be adding up, as I'm experiencing pain in my right knee that seems to be due to the issue corrected by a heal lift.

Does anyone have any suggestions for how to somehow make an adjustment via pedal / crank / other components such as shoes to account for slightly different leg sizes?

I've done the same thing in the past, heel shims, cleat wedges, pedal washers, insoles, etc.

The one thing I can say is that it's a slippery slope once you start fiddling with these things.

One small adjustment effects all the others and it's very difficult and time consuming to get it right, which you probably never will without 3rd party perspective and expertise. No to mention there are a bunch of other things that can be causing your pain besides leg length difference; fore/aft foot tilt, knee alignment, saddle position, etc.

The real solution is to get a professional bike fitting.


Crank Compatibility for my Orbea Hydro 2012 I have received as a gift a set of SRAM bb30 cranks. I would like to know if they fit my 1012 Orbea Hydro and if can I use SRAM Alloy GXP Bottom Bracket to fit it all together.

You cannot use a GXP bottom bracket to "fit it all together".

BB30 cranks do not fit in a GXP bottom bracket. A GXP crank can be made to fit a BB30 bottom bracket with an adapter, like one from Praxis.

If your Orbea is a GXP standard (24mm) the cranks are no good to you as they will not fit.  If it's a BB30 they will work without the need for any type of GXP bottom bracket.


How to find a bell that works well in the rain? I have a small aluminum bell with a striker on the side that has a good loud piercing "ding" that's easily heard from over 100 feet away (30 meters). However, when it's raining and the bell gets wet, the piercing ding turns into more of a sort of dull metallic "tink" that's barely audible from 10 feet (3 meters). I assume that water drops on the bell are dampening the sound somehow.

Anybody know what to look for to get a bell that will still be useful in the rain?

I agree with Daniel R Hicks, my bell also gets a lot dampened in the rain, and this will happen with any bell.

But even so, some bell properties might influence:

Steel is denser than aluminum, so a similar-sized steel bell could have more mass and ring longer;
Bigger rings might also ring longer, because of the relation among size, mass, wall-thickness, and frequency pitch.

But, to be honest, I cannot say any of the above for sure, because I didn't test it.

If it is of any help, I use my ring upside down, and raindrops get inside it, but even so it rings just a bit less than dry (not a lot less).

It is a steel ring, the type that has a lever and a spinning mechanism inside (which I strongly recommend over the model you've shown).

Also, I have a set of similar rings on my bikes, and none of them has the same acoustic properties, I think there are some subtle factors involved, most probably the relation between the bell's main frequency and the frequency of natural resonance of the raindrops on the bell (I'm serious!).

Hope it helps


Bicycle fork design history I recently saw a bicycle on display that was labeled as circa 1895 (from the White Crown bicycle company), and the fork blades appear to be made from a single piece of tubing bent into a U-shape (see image). All other bikes I've seen from that era appear to use separate pieces for each blade. Is it possible this bike is later than 1895 or was that design actually in use by then?

According to the post the bike display said "circa 1895" so the claim is that it was made around 1895. Is this believable?
I think it is. During this period there was a lot of creativity directed at bicycles and there was a lot of variety in construction methods.

To validate the approximate year on the bike I thought to find another reference for the same bike. Searching for "White Crown Bicycle Company" in a variety of search text strings came up with nothing.

Next, I looked to find bikes from the period with similar looking construction. During my hunting it was clear that your observation was mostly true.

  All other bikes I've seen from that era appear to use separate pieces for each blade.

Most of the forks in that era were obviously constructed with individual blades and some type of stamped or forged crown.

Here is a picture of an 1892 Iver Johnson No. 1 Diamond Safety Bike with what might be similar construction methods

It's not exactly the same but it's similar and it's very different from the crown with blades fork.

The rear stays seem to have a similar construction

I spent a lot of time reading the article on this bike to try to verify that the fork blades and frame stays are actually tubing and not just bent solid steel. As near as I can tell it really is tubing.

As Criggie said, the fork in the original post may not be a single bent tube.

The fork and rear stay in the pictures I've posted may not be a single bent tube. It could be a rounded crown with blades brazed onto posts and smoothed out to look like a single tube.

My thought is that if the bike below is from 1892 then it's reasonable to think that the bike in the original post is circa 1895.

If you send your picture and information to Colin at The Old Bike Museum he might provide you with better information.


How can I evaluate a used road bike i intend to buy? I intend to buy a used road bike, but don't know anything about bikes. So how can I buy a good one with a reasonable price? How can I evaluate the one I intend to buy? Thank you

Check the bike is the right size for you

If the bike is still on sale commercially, check what the new price is. You can find out about many brands/models from bikepedia.com

Find out what components (gears and brakes) it has and what they'd cost new (by Googling)

Check for any hairline cracks in the frame, especially around the head tube, bottom bracket and the top of the seat tube. You shouldn't ride a bike with this kind of damage, let alone buy it.

Check the rims for signs of wear - for example a pitted or deeply scratched surface, or concave feel indicates significant use.

Check the cassette for signs of wear - the teeth should be symmetrical, not sloping more sharply on one side than the other. Scroll down Sheldon Brown's article on chains for more detail and pictures.

Items like saddles, pedals and bartape can easily be replaced, but you should know in advance what this might cost.

Also see this answer on evaluating a road bike.


Potential ways to silence a (new) Sturmey Archer 3-speed hub I have a new Sturmey Archer 3-speed S-RK3. It's a standard 3-speed hub with a 9-spline driver and disc brake mount.
I use the bike with a belt drive and one of the benefits of the belt is the extreme silence.
Out of the box, these hubs tick in at least 2 out of three gears while pedaling along; that's how they are supposed to be.
I'm interested to know if anyone has successfully muffled the ticking by using a thicker oil lubricant for the hub internals. I have previously achieved this on normal freehub/pawl mechanisms by using a thick oil like Lucas Heavy Duty Oil Stabilizer.
I am not concerned with voiding the warranty.

I wouldn't guess ticking would be well silenced with thicker oil.
I would look for the source of the ticking by stripping and cleaning it.


Native BB30 crankset or adapted Shimano? I have a bb30 frame, and I need to change my crankset. However, I am baffled by the reviews online if it is better to get a native BB30 crankset, like SRAM Force 22, or an adapted Shimano Ultegra 5800 with the wheels mfg adapter, which I slightly prefer. Would there be any performance or durability losses choosing the adapting way?

If the frame is made for BB30 I'd recommend using that.

Advantages of using native BB:

BB30 spindle is thicker (30mm) and stronger than a gxp (24mm)
No extraneous parts

Advantages of using adapter:

Ease of service - no bearing press needed except for initial install, after which you will have a threaded BB that's easy to remove.  BB30 requires relatively expensive tools to service, e.g. Park Tool bearing press and puller, which most enthusiasts don't own.  Also, the fact that you only need to service a BB30 once in a while (maybe once or twice a season) makes buying the tools less attractive when one can just take it to the LBS and have them pull your BB30 for relatively cheap.
Q-factor - can be an advantage or disadvantage. Your stance will likely be wider with the adapter. I consider this less desirable but it's all about the fit. I like a narrow stance.  You may have knee pain if your q-factor is too narrow or too wide


Road Bike £600 or under I've been serious about riding for the last year however have taken a while to save up. I want a bike that I can rely on. I ride on average 7/8 hours a session.
I'm 20 year old male and 182cm.

Last seasons models usually go for a big discount so its worth trying to find one, are you prepared to wait if needed. Consider the used bike market if you know what you are looking at, or have a mate that can help out. Even if you don't have the skills, a LBS might have used bikes. Best bike for buck for someone who is not familiar with bikes is to buy used from the LBS.

Any bike in that price bracket will be reliable. They get reliable as soon as you leave the department stores and go to a bike shop.

For those hours in the saddle, far more important that any bits of paper describing the will tell you is the bike fit. Most important is go to a real bike shop, not a department store. I would recommend a cheaper bike and paying for a proper bike fitting session, decent shoes and pedals, and good bike shorts/bibs. No point spending all your money on the bike and having a poor fit and uncomfortable cloths.


Seat post nominal and actual size If seatpost has nominal size of lets say 27.2, what is its actual size? Or other way around, if frame nominally accepts post of 27.2 what is the actual size of the bore in the frame?
Obviously both can not be 27.2 since it would not be possible to insert the seatpost, so what are actual dimensions?

Please check which one refers to internal diameter and which one to the outer.
If the seat tube (the one on the bike) has an inner diameter of 27.2 and the seat-post has an outer diameter of 27.2, obviously they will match.
You can expect tolerances (variances, as more correctly mentioned by @weiwen-ng ) on the order of +-0.2mm, unfortunately.
Don't forget grease, especially when installing aluminium seat-post in a steel seat tube.


Do road tubeless tyres lose air faster? I just replaced my rear wheel with a road tubeless (Bontrager RL TLR). Was lucky to have the bike shop installed the tyre, took two blokes to put it on the rim. Anyway, my second ride was a couple of days after I bought it and I can feel the wheel bumped a gap on the driveway. So I went back and put some more air to 90 psi.

Two days after I pumped the tyre, I checked the tyre before riding and it only had 40 psi. Is that normal for road tubeless? I only have to add air once a week with none tubeless tyre.

Follow up

I went back to the shop and they said they put enough sealant and insisted that rapid air loss is normal for tubeless. They also offered to put tube in it if it's too much a pain. Caveat, I asked how others' experience with road tubeless and they said I'm the only one with tubeless. I did see there's a stack of TLR rim strip, presumably from new Trek bikes they sold that came with Bontrager TLR wheels.

I sent a link to this question to them and trek, no response yet.

For now, I will just pump the tyres before every ride.

Edit

To clarify, my question is only about road tubeless tyres relative to road clincher, so they're both "high pressure" tyres. I actually ran the tubeless with less air (90 psi) compared to my front clincher tyre (100 psi). The reason for that was because the tubeless rim is a "wide rim" than (then) usual road wheels.

In case anyone's interested, I only have tubeless wheels now and run them with tubes because 1) losing air was too much trouble and 2) I don't think I can put on a tubeless tyre myself.

You're really asking two questions here:
1) Do road tires lose air more quickly?
And 2) Do tubeless tires lose air more quickly?

First off, let's talk about the different ways that tires can (and do) lose pressure.

Obviously, they can lose pressure through a poor seal, either on the valve or where the tire seats to the rim on tubeless tires.

Tires also lose pressure through permeation. This essentially means that air molecules escape between the molecules that make up the casing (i.e., tube or tubeless tire). This is true of all tires, not just bicycle tires.

And of course, there is always the possibility of a slow leak caused by a puncture.

No matter what the reason for air loss, a tire at a higher pressure will lose air more quickly than a tire at a lower pressure. Thus, if we assume the same type of tire, materials, etc: road tires lose air more quickly than cross tires, and cross tires lose air more quickly than mountain bike tires.

Additionally, air loss is also more noticeable on smaller tires because any air that escapes represents a larger percentage of the total volume of air. So, if you have a 26x2 mountain bike tire and a 700x23c and inflate them both to the same pressure, they will initially lose the same amount of air at the same rate. However, since the air lost in the road tire represents a larger percentage of the overall volume, the pressure will drop more quickly. And as the pressure drops, the road tire will lose air more slowly, but the pressure will still drop more quickly than the mountain bike tire due to its significantly greater size.

Air loss is also exacerbated by thinner walled casings. This means that (again, assuming the same materials) lighter and thinner tubes will lose air more quickly than heavier and thicker tubes.

Now, I don't have a lot of experience with tubeless, but given that caveat...

Tubeless tires should in theory lose air less quickly than tubes due to the thickness of the casing and the fact that people typically run them at lower pressures. I have heavily stressed "in theory" here because it is certainly possible that tubeless tires are more permeable than tubes and because of this, some balance is achieved.


Is it normal to feel like I can't breathe while trying to ride at a challenging pace? I have been riding for about 3 months now, and when I try to keep a faster pace for about 15km I notice that my legs are not tired or burning, but I get hyperventilated and my hearth beats quickly. I know that this is very common since I'm a beginner and I'm not super fit, but I have chronic sinusitis, and I was wondering if maybe that’s part of the problem. I feel that my nose closes and therefore I can’t breathe enough air. Should I just keep training and it will get better? Should I schedule a doctor appointment? Do more cardio?

I think you should always check with a doctor if you have concerns about your health. While you probably can get advice on your health from this forum, this is not the best place to seek specific medical advice that is going to be right for you.
With that said provided you have no issues that can stop you from training here is what worked for me and others to improve:

Try to use a heart rate monitor to train and/or cadence sensor
What you want to do is ride for 30-60 minutes at a constant heart rate and a cadence of 75-90 RPM (Note if you are trying to do strength work going as low as 65 RPM is ok, but note it does put more stress on your knees so listen to your body).
What you want to do is use the gears on your bike to allow you to maintain that cadence and maintain a heart rate that essentially stays flat for the duration of the ride. If you ride in spurts, like you pedal hard and then recover, that will not help as quickly to build your aerobic base up. Your aerobic base will let you ride longer without going above your anaerobic threshold.
Interval or training in Zone 4/5 is something that usually is done less often to help increase speed or functional threshold power (FTP). For example, once you build up a base, can ride around for a while, and know the gear that works best for you to do that you can go to the next harder gear in your rear cassette and try to ride for 30-60 min at 65 - 90 RPM. That will make your heart work slightly harder and force your cardiovascular and skeletal muscles to adapt to the harder work load. Your heart rate will probably slowly keep climbing when you do this and you will probably ride at a slower speed until you fully adapt.

The approach above worked well for me to go from being able to ride only 13 MPH to being able to go 17-20+ MPH while staying under my anaerobic threshold within a year or so.
Here is a boring stretch from one of my rides with metrics where I am doing some of the things outlined above.

Pedaling the whole time.
Managing the gear I am in so that I am able to keep pedaling between 75-90 RPM  and my heart rate in Zone 3/4 for me. Yes in a few small inclines I dip below that cadence, but I usually do strength work between 65 and 75 RPM so it is something I have adjusted to. On a separate note, for some of my personal goals some of my rides focus on Zone 2/3 and Zone 5 depending on what I am trying to work on.
Note your target heart rate will probably be different than mine - Heart Rate Calculator.

Doing some rides like this where you are not trying to push max speed or go up super tough climbs I found has helped and often takes some self discipline to do cause let's face it...going fast and/or climbing hills is fun ; ). You can also take this same approach to a mountain bike on a gravel or off-road trail as well.
Also note there is no way I could do this ride at this effort level 3 months into riding. I still remember having to stop in the middle of a 13 mile ride when I picked up my new bike. However, with doing the things outlined above I eventually got there and you can too.

Hope that helps.
Addition:
One this I struggle with in the cold is breathing through my nose and often due to the cold breathe better through my mouth. Also as others have mentioned, in sports to get more oxygen into your body you should breathe through your mouth.


What are the benefits of going from 25mm to 28mm tire? I went from a 23mm to 25mm tires on my '07 Tarmac Expert. The change was a blessing as I was able to do everything with more confidence. A part of it was for going from Gatorskins to Grand Prix 4000s II. Now that my Grand Prix are about to be worn out, I'm considering to going to 28mm versions. I know that my frame and brake callipers can clear the tire, however I'm not sure if I will gain any major benefits. I do a lot of climbin and try to stay off the flats.

Here are some benefits:

less chance of snakebite flats
increased ride comfort on rough terrain
less frequent tire inflation to maintain pressure (because of greater volume of air)
ability to carry greater weight


Shimano Sora 9-speed shifters "missing a speed" First time posting, hope I can get some suggestions on this weird issue I've noticed with my shifting. I have a fairly decent understanding of how to maintain gears myself, and have made quite a few attempts at trouble shooting this, so unless I've missed something it seems to be something beyond the obvious 'reindex, replace cable-housing, lube chain' sort of thing.

The Problem
So basically, my 9-speed shifters which are a few years old, seem to only click through 8 speeds, both ways. This manifests in the chain always 'skipping' a cog on the 9-speed cassette no matter how I index, although I think the cog it skips varies depending on whether I'm shifting up or down.

Notes

I have recently replaced the chain, the cassette, the cables (lubed) AND the housing, so I am fairly certain it is none of these.
The deraileur seems to be indexed correctly: transmission is quick and crisp and and both extermes of the cassette can be reached when shifting through all the speeds.
I have come off the bike on the the derailleur side before, but the fact both extremes can be reached seems to suggest a bent mount isn't the problem?
The shifter seems to physically only click through 8 speeds, despite most definitely being 9 speed.
Chain is 9 speed

For all I know it could be a common problem, but not one I'm familiar with. Is there some sort of adjustment needed on the shifters themselves?

Any informed suggestions greatly appearciated!

Thanks

I'm kind of confused here. You say you can only click 8 times. On a 9 speed bike, there would only be 8 clicks for shifting.  Let's say you start on the largest gear, and we'll call that 1.  Clicking 1 time with bring you to gear 2. Clicking 2 times will bring you to 3. Clicking 3 times with bring you to 4. Continuing on with the pattern will bring you on to clicking 8 times to bring you to 9.

If you bike was skipping a gear somewhere in the middle, you would shift 7 times, and already be on the smallest gear, and shifting one more time would bring you nowhere, as you would already be at the bottom. The limit screw would keep it in it's place, and the cable would go a bit slack. Going up the cassette you would notice a problem where you still had 1 click left, but would be unable to move the shifter because you would be pushing against the limit screw.


Tektro Spyre C — is the rotor riveted to the hub? I recently bought the Cube Nuroad FE. I features Tektro Spyre C mechanical disk brakes, and I am underwhelmed by their stopping performance, especially on the rear wheel. I am thinking about changing the rotor and the pads, however after inspecting the bike it seems the rotor is not screwed to the hub but actually is riveted to it.

Can somebody confirm this?

Rotors are wear items and therefore must be removable.

The Cube website does not specify what rotors are fitted, but I strongly suspect they are Shimano Center-lock which have a steel rotor riveted to an alloy ‘spider’.  They are fixed to the hub with a central lock ring.

Changing the rotor will not improve braking performance, unless you are thinking of replacing it with a bigger one.


Is 2kg static cross-load dangerous for a carbon frame? The bicycle is a carbon fiber cross-country machine. It is from a local manufacturer, not a well known one.
Compared to other CF bikes but for more aggressive riding, when I knock on the tubes it feels that the wall thickness is half of the others! Nevertheless, it handles it's purpose well.
I am contemplating is it safe to add a triangle bag with a multitool, tube, oil, rag. <TODO: I have the bag, just equip it and weigh it> <TODO: add picture> Intended application: cross country with rock gardens and drops below one meter. My worry is that the bag is going to load the top tube radially. And the end strap is at the middle of the tube where it's certainly weakest.

Opinion, but a frame bag won't cause any problem for a normal bike frame.  If it were an ultralight hillclimbing bike with no paint or something specialist, then I'd worry.
If you're concerned about fretting of straps on the clear coat, get some of those clear frame-protection stickers and apply to the frame under any retention straps for your bag.  Also cinch velcro straps down firmly.


Why are cycle components so heavily branded? The average car has the manufacturer's logo on the front and back. Usually that's the extent of the branding. It is discreet and under-stated. Sometimes with the higher-end luxury cars you don't even get the model name and engine size given on the boot. A 'less is more' approach seems to work for cars.

Now take a look at a race or rally car. You get stickers everywhere to let you know who supplied the tyres, brakes, headlights, oil, petrol and other parts, e.g. what the hi-fi would be if they had one. Invariably these are sponsors logos, paid to be on the car. Sometimes boy-racer wannabees have similar sticker collections on their cars but they are rare exceptions, most cars keep the branding simple.

The same goes for the interiors, the parts do not have huge supplier names plastered all over them. There are occasional exceptions, 'GTI' models with 'Recaro' seats, forty-year old Porsche cars with 'VDO' dials and that is about the extent of it.

Now take a look at your average bicycle. Why is it a rash of tacky logos? Why does every component with the exception of a few generic parts on low-end bikes have to be disfigured by the make with model? This is particularly tedious with the big brands that get their own parts made for them. Why cannot Trek just have their logo on the frame and keep it clean? Why do they have to litter the entire 'finishing kit' with 'Bontrager' logos? It is not as if the average Trek buyer really needs to be reassured that they have 'Bontrager' stickered handlebars every time they look down to change gear. The after market for 'Bontrager' handlebars isn't exactly huge either.

So why is it that bikes have to be covered with childish logos everywhere?

Up until the mid-to-late-eighties bicycles were not heavily branded. Frames bore the manufacturer's badge on the front, had the manufacturer's name on the frame and had the model name on the frame. Components did bear their manufacturer's respective names, however, these were just stamped on. You could read them if you wanted to. In rare exceptions these secondary brandings were anodized on.

Then a company called Shimano came along with the innovations that were to define the mountain bike in a groupset - indexed gears, cantilever brakes and so on. None of these parts were branded as before, with a simple stamp into the alloy/steel. Alloy parts had big anodized logos, plastic covered gear levers had stickers on them carrying the Shimano name.

The success of the 'Deore XT' groupset led to the introduction lower down in the market of Shimano's 'Exage' groupset. This had even more plastic parts and lots of 'Shimano Exage' branding.

Shimano brought in practices that today are deemed to be 'anti-competetive'. They made bike manufacturers wanting to use their superior indexed gears also use whole Shimano groupsets. They were not able to mix and match components until SRAM came along with their 'GripShift' rival to index gears. SRAM took Shimano to court and thereafter got a foot hold in the market.

Until the SRAM challenge, almost every bike at a given price point had identical components from Shimano. High end bikes had 'Deore XT', lesser models had various 'Exage' parts. Due to how good indexed gears were from Shimano the competition practically did not exist. The Yen was low at the time and European brands could not compete on price, even if they could make a half-decent set of indexed gears.

With every bike being practically identical mechanically, how was a bike manufacturer to command a premium for their products? One way was to go for a better finishing kit (seat, handlebars, grips etc.) Brands such as 'Syncros' came along to offer better handlebars and they adopted the big sticker branding pioneered by Shimano rather than go for the subtle stamp of yesteryear.

Thereafter the die was cast. Even though today bikes don't have to be identikit Shimano, they have the rash of stickers pioneered way back in the days of the mountain bike boom years.


Can I use a SRAM 10-speed cassette on my Shimano 105 9 speed groupset? I'm looking to get a separate wheel for my indoor trainer for easy swapping between indoor and outdoor. I found a used wheel + cassette that has a SRAM 10 speed cassette on it already. Will this work with my setup? Would it be easier to just replace the cassette on the trainer wheel?

If you had 9 speed on both the wheel and trainer, or both 10 speed, then it would likely work fine.
However you have once of each, and that won't work well together.  There may be one or two cogs on the 10 speed cassette that line up with a 9 speed position on the rear derailleur.
Your best option is to buy another 9 speed cassette and keep the whole lot 9 speed.


Drivetrain squeaky birdsong Road bike with Shimano Tiagra 2x9 compact drivetrain makes a continuous random pattern of quiet squeaky noises (like birdsong) when the bike is leaning against a wall and the pedals are rotated backward. Forward rotation of pedals creates less, but similar noise. Rotating the wheels with pedals stationary does not make noise. The noise is not periodic with each pedal rotation, but its tempo increases with the rotation speed. Occurs in all gears about the same.

I wiped and lubed the chain and jockey wheels, without taking the jockey wheels out of the rear derailer cage. The noise remained about the same or slightly quieter (placebo?). Took apart derailer cage and jockey wheels, cleaned and lubed. Individually the jockey wheels did not squeak after that, but I did not check before the process. Reassembled drivetrain squeaks as before.

The chain has about 500 km on it, length of 12 links is 12 1/8 inches according to my inaccurate tape measure. The cogs and chainwheels have a lot more km, but don't look worn compared to new replacements.

Rear derailer cage looks slightly rotated outwards (not inwards as from a crash or dropping the bike on itsright side) from the top, but looks straight from the rear ground level. The rotation axis is thus vertical, not horizontal. Shifting is fine, so I have not fixed what ain't broken.

Crankarms Shimano Tiagra. Not sure about the bottom bracket, but the circle between crankarm and frame has "BC 1.37x24 road FA" written on it. Giant OCR1 2008 bike, probably has standard components. There is no sideways play in the crankarms. I tested the bottom bracket according to Park Tool and there is no grinding or rumbling.

I took the rear wheel off and spun the cogs - no noise there.

Any other suggested solutions to the noise besides taking the jockey wheels out of the derailer cage for lubing, or replacing chain/cogs?

I suspect the jockey wheels are the culprit.  You said you lubed the jockey wheels without removing them.  Likely the bearings or bushings didn't get lubed sufficiently this way.

Typically you will need to remove them and clean and lube the bushing or pry the dust shield off of the bearing so you can clean and lube the cartridge bearing (depending o the derailleur).  If you are dealing with a cartridge bearing you need to take  care when prying of dust shields so you don't damage them.

When reassembling the derailleur ensure you use loctite (blue 242) so that the derailleur doesn't do a RUD (Rapid Unplanned Disassembly) at a later point in time.


Correctly sized chain with impossible too loose B-screw adjustment? I have recently changed my cassette from a 11-32 to a 11-25 (11 speed). To make the change possible, I have reduced my chain size to 106 links (53 inches) by the largest cog, largest chain ring method. For further information, my crankset is a 52-36 teeth.

When I installed my RD-6800 (SS), I noticed that even by removing the B-screw, the derailleur is never too close to the largest sprocket (largest sprocket, smallest chain ring configuration). How is that possible?

I thought that maybe I screwed up the chain sizing, but I have just recalculated using the equation and the recommended chain length is 53 inches:

L = 2*(16.125) + (52.0/4 + 25.0/4 + 1) = 52.5"

Is it maybe due to the bike or hanger design?

According to Shimano, the RD-6800 GS is designed for 28-32T largest cog, where the SS is designed for 23-28.
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bike/en/home/components11/road/ultegra1/rd-6800-gs.html
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bike/en/home/components11/road/ultegra1/rd-6800-ss.html
They may have actually done something different to the body of the derailleur instead of just putting a longer cage on it. I don't know that for sure though.
Of course, that doesn't mean the GS can't work with 25.
Your chain length shouldn't affect the B position at all. It will only affect the rotation of the cage around the upper pulley.


Cube Agree GTC - Tri-Bars I have a Cube Agree GTC (2012), and I would like to buy some tri-bars for it. I've read that this model (
Although, on second thoughts, maybe this is a newer model...) has compatibility issues with clip on tri-bars so I was hoping that someone has already solved this problem, if one exists (I've never bought or clipped on tri-bars before)

Has anyone satisfactorily purchased tri-bars for this model? Any recommendations?

Based on the review, it simply sounds like the cross-section of the bar is different than a usual bar. So, if you want to attach tri-bars to the bike, you may need to get a new drop bar (which has the usual circular cross-section), and then attach the tri bars to that bar.

Of course, if the bike works well with the new drop bar and tri bars are all highly a function of you and the particular bike, which we can't really determine over the internet - You'll probably just have to try it or get advice from your LBS on it, since they can probably fit you in a tri-position.


How are the stages accumulated at the Tour de France? Edit 1: Asking in one sentence only: If all cyclists start the last stage together, why is the winner of just the last stage declared the winner of the Tour?
Edit 2: Example: Joe and Mark are, hypothetically, the only two competitors in the TdF. Joe is fantastic; until the last stage he wins every single stage. Joe is a grimpeur and a puncheur; hence he wins the mountain classification. Joe is a baroudeur and a sprinteur; hence he lets Mark stay up front and still manages by sheer power to win every single stage—but the last. Mark is patient. On the eve of the last stage, Mark practices meditation. Joe and Mark start at the same time. Soon after Mark leaves Joe in the dust. Joe is exhausted, having neither the power nor the spirit to fight. Since Mark is a kilometer ahead of Joe, he sashays into le Boulevard des Champs-Elysées, even picking up a glass of champagne. Mark wins the last stage. Mark is the winner of the general classification. Mark is the winner of the TdF. But something is entirely unfair. Joe's cumulative advantage far exceeds that of Mark.
What is incorrect in this calculation for determining that Mark won the general classification and the TdF? Or is it the case that the one who finished the last stage first (Mark in this exammple) is in fact NOT the winner of the race?
End of Edit 2
More Detailed Question:
I am having trouble identifying the system used to determine the winner at the Tour de France. I never understood the accumulation, but until this year (2020) I never bothered.
All (170-200) cyclists start the first stage together, not from a static line, but rolling behind a car from which the "go" signal is issued. The second and third stages likewise this year started with all riders at the same time, also behind a car. Hence the winner of a stage would appear to be the winner of strictly that stage, not the cumulative winner, as I perceive some descriptions to suggest. Yet the winner of the entire course is the one who arrives first at the finish line in Paris (and there is by then such a gap that that finish is rarely contested; the winner just cruises through the last stretch). What am I missing?
Various Hypotheses:

Are the milliseconds and seconds added up, and the start of the last stage adjusted to give an advantage to each cyclist according to the sum of his performance on all preceding stages, hence making the arrival in Paris a true measure of the winner?
Are the various points issued used in some exotic way; if yes, how?
Is the order along the pack at the start of each stage adjusted to give some advantage to the winner of the preceding stage (or the cumulative sum until and including the preceding stage)? If yes, how do some teams ever manage to regroup?

How are the stages accumulated at the Tour de France, such that the one who arrives first at the last stage is indeed the winner of the full Tour?
Secondary related questions/notes:

I understand that each team has one star, and that the purpose of all team members is to assist that star to ride sometime in their slipstream, but I'm not clear on even that detail, since most often it is the star who's taking the head wind among his team. What's the point of having a team at all then?

I understand that historically the Tour de France has adjusted its formula—abandoning, for example, a point system because riders tended to cruise amicably and sprint only at the very end of each stage to contest that stage. I'm here asking about the calculation in modern times, or, if the formula is still changing, how the accumulation is done specifically in 2020.

The parts of this answer dealing with victory in the general classification apply to any UCI-regulated stage road race that I'm aware of. The overall winner (aka the winner of the general classification) is, in fact, determined by cumulative time on all the stages, added up. However, there are three additional prize classifications: sprints and mountains, plus the classification for best young rider. On top of that, the individual stages themselves award prize money. There is also a prize for the top team, determined by the total time that the team's best 3 riders take; this is considered less prestigious than the other prizes, and isn't usually contested intentionally.
The Tour's Diverse Terrain
One of the key things to note is that there are a few types of stages. There are flat stages, rolling (aka hilly, but not mountainous) stages, time trials, and mountain stages (usually with one or more mountains, usually but not always finishing at the top of a climb). In the latter two stage types, the gaps between the riders competing for the general classification can be a lot bigger than you see on the flat stages.
The early part of all the three Grand Tours tends to be dominated by flat and rolling stages. Here, sprinters and breakaway riders tend to dominate. Time gaps tend to be small unless a small group breaks away and is not reeled in by the finish - this is not common (NB: but it does happen; Google Thomas Voeckler for one example of a successful breakaway specialist).
In fact, in all the Grand Tours, the last stage tends to be a flat one into the capital. It is traditionally more of a parade. It is won by a sprinter. Some exceptions have happened by design (Google the 1989 Tour de France for an example when the race was concluded with a time trial into Paris). I believe the last stage tends to be considered more prestigious. After all, it's in the capital among a large bunch of spectators. GC riders don't contest the final sprint stage (unless it's not a sprint stage), as they do not perform well in the sprints (due to specialization).
Games Within a Game
One of the nice things about cycling is that even during the same grand tour, there are multiple games within the main race. The mountains and sprint classifications are decided by points, rather than time. The first few finishers in a stage earn points in the sprint classification. There are also intermediate sprint points offering fewer points than the final sprint.
In a separate points system, points are awarded to riders who cross a summit first (NB: it's possible for a breakaway rider to collect the climbers classification points on multiple climbs in one stage; Google Laurent Jalabert for an example.) Moreover, each stage has prize money associated with it that is separate from the GC prize money. Riders who were trying to contend for GC may attempt a stage win to salvage their race somewhat; Nairo Quintana did this in the 2019 Tour. Some riders may even deliberately drop back on prior stages, so as to increase the time gap to the current GC leader. This decreases the chance that the GC leader's team will chase them. In theory, it's possible to win multiple jerseys. In practice, the last person to do so was Eddy Merckx in 1969, before professional road cyclists became much more specialized.
This is complicated very slightly by the fact that many stages award time bonuses to the top 3 finishers. Thus, the yellow jersey (i.e. the rider currently leading the general classification) frequently passes between riders who aren't real threats for the overall classification in Paris (example riders who have earned the yellow jersey thanks to early performance include the aforementioned Voeckler and Julian Alaphilippe; neither ever won the Tour, and it is not very likely that Alaphilippe can if he remains a breakaway specialist rider).
What Types of Riders Contest Each Classification?
What skills differentiate breakaway specialists from general classification (GC) contenders? The latter need to time trial well, and to climb well. In the Tour, I think conventional wisdom is that the better time trialists have the advantage; the climbs are not steep enough to let pure climbers (who tend to be poor time trialists) gain enough time on the time trialists. The reverse often appears to be true in the Giro d'Italia and Vuelta Espana. Riders who are better climbers than time trialists may aim for stage victories in any Grand Tour.
Breakaway specialists need to be able to execute and recover from repeated hard efforts (specifically, VO2 max-type efforts, or short bursts at 110% or more of functional threshold power; these can be sustained for one to five minutes). These riders will tend to aim for stage victories. If they capture one of the major jerseys, they often attempt to hold it for as long as possible. (Again, Alaphilippe and Voeckler have done this.)
Pure sprinters need to specialize in sprints, which are 30 second or less efforts. They will, of course, need the attendant bike handling skills at close quarters.
Why So Complex?
Why all these games within the game? I'm not aware of the history and reasons behind the evolution of the Tour. In the current era, riders tend to specialize highly, e.g. the people contesting Grand Tours typically specialize in this, and they train for time trials and extended climbs. This typically comes at the expense of their ability to contest many single-day races. The multiple classifications and prizes do seem to reward various types of riders, and to give them reason to enter one of the three marquee events. On the fan side, this complexity does seem to reward fan engagement. It is admittedly a large number of individual items of information to take in, but each individual competition is not that complex.
Miscellaneous
The starting order in non-time trial stages is not adjusted to my knowledge because it does not matter. At all. Because cyclists can draft each other, by the time the stage is over, anyone at the front of the start line had precisely zero advantage. Anyone who tried to ride in front the whole race would have been benefitting anyone behind them (NB: many GC contenders' teams will, however, take the front to prevent contenders from getting into a break). TT start order is the reverse of the current general classification, i.e. in 1989 on the final stage, Greg Lemond started the stage in 2nd place, and started the TT second last; the then-race leader, Laurent Fignon, started last.
In the proposed example, where Joe won 20 stages but Mark won the last by some margin, you are potentially correct to point out that Joe's perceived advantage should exceed Mark's. However, it depends on how much of a gap there was between Mark and Joe on each stage, counting any time bonuses in play. What we would want to know at the start of stage 21 is, what is Mark's accumulated deficit to Joe? At the end of stage 21, what is Joe's time gap to Mark, and is it bigger than the starting gap between the riders?
In the 1989 Tour de France, Laurent Fignon and Greg Lemond traded the yellow jersey back and forth repeatedly. Fignon led Lemond by 50 seconds on stage 20, which was generally considered to be enough for Fignon to prevail at the end of the race. In fact, it was not.


Is there a quality alternative to powder coating when it comes to repainting a steel frame? I'm not a paint expert and want to make a choice that will last a few years. I know that powder coating will last a long time, but I'm restoring an older bike and don't want to spend too much. Maybe someone has a creative solution.

Powder coating, done right, is quite durable. I have had it done on an old steel frame a few years ago and have been happy with the result. The more expensive alternative is regular paint.

As far as vehicle owners go, you can't find ones that are more vain than motorcycle riders. These people often get paint or powder coat jobs done. The good news for us is that that means there's always a nearby facility that can handle bike frames. Bicycles are just like motorcycle frames except more simple. So, look for places that handle motorcycles and you then know they can do bikes too.

What you need to do first is to take off all parts from the frame including the bearing race on the fork (will require a bike shop or very special tool). The shop will then be able to blast the old paint/coat off your frame, clean it with a solvent and apply a base coat and paint or powder coat. If the shop has done motorcycle frames, they will know what to do with holes and threads and know which areas should be free of paint.


How do the pros recover so quickly after a crash? And what can we learn from them? I assume when pros crash, they do the same damage to themselves that the rest of us do.  Although they're lighter, they tend to be going faster. But not only do they often finish that day's racing, but they're racing again the next day.  How do they do it I'm thinking mainly about joints.

Why I'm thinking about it/an example:

A couple of weeks ago I had a bit of a crash.  Nothing serious and I finished the ride (another 180 km) but the knee I landed on must have got a bit twisted, which seems to be a habit when I go down.  We were doing about 45 km/h just before four of us went down in a race-style crash, but I certainly managed to hit the brakes.  I was still clipped in with my hands on tha bars when I hit the ground, and I'm only a few years older than typical TdF riders.

After 10 days of taking it easy (ibuprofen, bandage, elevation, some ice but probably not enough, and not complete rest) I was ready to try it out on a club run, and yesterday (2 weeks after) did another long ride in which it really stiffened up at lunch.  There's no way I could have been competitive (yes, there were some PRs towards the end, but not on roads I've ridden recently).

But the pros can race again the next day.  Are they just stoked up on painkillers/anti-inflammatories? Is it a lot of ice and compression after they get off (which is much sooner even if the distance is the same)? Do they manage to avoid injury in the first place despite crashing with a lot of energy?

Because there is no answer yet I would like to add my thoughts on this subject, from pure logic perspective and some previous reading on biking theory. Would like to hear your comments and thoughts!

Background

Generally speaking, professionals have better than average physiology which includes recovery capabilities too. Physical training is a process of constant damaging of the muscles and their recovery done with supercompensation. Professionals are in constant recovery mode since very young age.
Well-developed muscles and joints. Professionals are very flexible and muscularly developed. This is why it's recommended to do stretching, to ensure that your body can handle excessive stress / extreme positions without getting a trauma. This fact is quite obvious to me through my life experience, but studies results vary.

Working environment and culture

I believe that professionals should have a base training on how to handle crashes to make them less dangerous. This could include body position and other things which could potentially make a difference in severity of the cases.
Instant access to medical staff to make any trauma effect less severe.
Direct access to medical staff to analyze the trauma and suggest recovery procedures.
Access to professional staff to maintain and speed up recovery, access to massage.
Protein-rich diet provides building blocks for body to recover faster.
Medical supplements, permitted doping. Good example here with Russian doping scandal related to use of Meldonium. This is a pharmaceutical designed for recovery of damaged by hypoxia heart cells, makes you recover faster after the load. Every professional team has their own set of recovery pharmacy which they would actively use to bring athletes back to business and make them recover ASAP after physical training or trauma.

Personal factors

Pain tolerance and hormonal stimulation. Adrenaline rush in a very competitive race environment is something helping pros to continue the race even after getting some serious trauma.
Very fast methabolism speeds up recovery significantly and allows to utilize more "building blocks" than any average person would.
Psychological factor and motivation. Pros are super motivated to come back to the game and this would make them spend all available time on working to recover from a trauma and go riding as soon as it would be possible and not the hour later. Check this article for the perspective from a pro side of things :)

The world is not just black and white

And last thing, pros are also humans and also suffer from the crashes, so two examples here:

Story from Wikipedia: "Merckx later stated that he "was never the same again" after the crash."
In 2011 Tour De France Johnny Hoogerland had a crash which made him famous but he never fully recovered from it: "Years later, Hoogerland is said to still suffer from back pain, mood swings and insomnia as a result of the horrific incident.".

I hope these thoughts were helpful, keep on recovering after your crash, learn from the pros but take your time :)


What other parts might need replacing if I replace an old freewheel gear set for a modern freehub cassette? I currently have a pre 1970s 10 speed Claud Butler. Perhaps back then men were real men but there is no climbing gear. Since I mostly do touring this is a bit of a problem. Finding a new freewheel gear set with a climbing gear has been tricky due to their rarity in shops. One suggestion from a salesman was to change out the old freewheel gear set to a newer cassette freehub gear set.

When changing to Shimano's new cassette freehub (which from what I gathered from the jargon in the shop I visited was the new standard) I know that the wheel will need replacing (right?). That isn't perhaps so much of a concern since I am missing a spoke and should perhaps replace that regardless.

I am concerned that this upgrade might spiral out of control in terms of labour and cost. What factors about the upgrade do I need to consider to minimise the amount of other components that I need to change? For example, in a typical upgrade like this would I also be expected to buy a suitable new rear derailleur and chain? Will the swap affect my chain ring and front derailleur?

Ultimately, is it possible to buy components that will be reasonably compatible with my old components, and how do I identify compatible components?

You probably have the right drop out width.
Unless it has down tube shifters you have cable routing.
The chain size must match (e.g. cassette number of gears) and chain ring width.
Your existing chain rings are probably too wide.
But I think you would be better off finding a newer used bike with the stuff you want.

If you stay with the same number of gears and get different gearing (number of teeth) you can get better climbing.


Baby Transportation Safety Statistics Is there a resource comparing different safety statistics for transporting babies on bicycles, specifically using different methods?

I'd like to see some information about how safe it is to compare a baby in a bike seat vs. in a trailer vs. in a box bike. Intuitively trailers seem to have the least risk of a fall, but might be more likely to be hit by an inattentive motorist. I've looked and I can't find any data about this.

I found this article - Tykes and Bikes - Injuries Associated With Bicycle-Towed Child Trailers and Bicycle-Mounted Child Seats

The paper estimates the numbers of trailer-related injuries and the number of child seat injuries:

  there were an estimated 322 injuries associated with the use of a bicycle-towed trailer (95% CI, 158-486) and an estimated 2015 injuries related to the use of a bicycle-mounted child seat (95% CI, 988-3042).

The paper notes that there is some uncertainty around these statistics:

  The data indicate the incidence of injury associated with the use of either bicycle accessory was low. However, injuries related to use of bicycle-towed child trailers were much less common (estimated 322 vs 2015). We do not know if this is because there are fewer bicycle-towed child trailers, resulting in lower exposure, or if there is truly a lower risk of injury associated with bicycle-towed child trailers.


Rockshox Quadra 21R -- Removal tips for old brittle elastomer I am tuning up the mountain bike I purchased in 1994, which has the old yellow Rockshox Quadra 21R front suspension fork.  I have found a nice video on YouTube which shows how to service the suspension, and replace the elastomers, and also found an elastomer replacement kit for the fork at suspensionforkparts.net.

My concern is, when I unscrew the top plastic nut to remove the old elastomers, that I have found the old elastomers to be very brittle, several of them breaking into pieces upon removal, with brittle chunks still stuck within my fork.  I can get the top-most units removed, but I know there is still at least one or two layers of elastomer in the bottom of the fork.

Does anyone have experience removing old brittle pieces of elastomer without damaging the tubes of the fork? My intuition says I should get in there with a long flathead screwdriver and a hammer, but I do not want to damage parts within the bottom of the fork that I cannot see.  I also will need to access the very bottom of the fork with a long hex wrench when the elastomers are removed to fully disassemble and service the the bottom shafts.  So, I am a bit worried that my screwdriver approach will jam the old elastomer pieces in the bottom of the fork, preventing access to the hex screw.

Thank you in advance for any tips you can offer on safely removing the old brittle elastomers.

The replacement elastomers I ordered from suspensionforkparts.net arrived and I replaced them this past weekend. Easy job, and the front suspension works like new!


Can you have too many in line barrel adjusters? Just replacing the shifters on my bike. It had STI shifters and I'm putting thumb shifters on, the shifters have built in barrel adjusters.

The bike also came with barrel adjusters on the down tube, and there is an adjuster on the rear mech. This means that the cable for the rear mech will have three adjusters along its course.

Is there any reason to not have too many adjusters?

I could take the down tube adjusters off without it looking bad (they're not on bosses), but would like to keep them if there's no downside as they are a bit easier to operate that the ones built into the brakes.

Thanks

I don't think so, as long as you have correct cable housing and ferrules where you need them, there's no problem having multiple barrel adjusters. If you know how to use them then there's no downside to having three in my opinion.

Try it and let us know!


Carbon seatpost dip in? Can I insert a carbon seatpost up to 20cm deep into seat tube? The seattube is carbon as well. Total length of the seatpost is 35cm. The shape of the seatpost is aero seatpost (tear drop shape). It's a Pinarello Dogma.

On most frames, yes, you can put as much of the post into the frame as you'd like. However, you are likely to remove graphics, and scratch the top coat of the carbon, so if you care about things like that, don't put it farther into the frame than is necessary.

If it is a permanent position, cut it, as suggested above. Be sure to check the manufacturers' recommendations for your post. Not every post can be cut to any length.

If you need to, try to put it at that position, gently. If anything stops, sticks, blocks it, or doesn't feel right, stop.