1970's Gitane please help identify the model Does anyone know the model of this bike?  Where do I look on the bike to find out?

Does anyone know the model of this bike? Where do I look on the bike to find out?

There are catalogs for Gitane but it does not appear to be one catalog for each year.

Velo Pages 1970 - 1974 (Did they only have one catalog for four years? Seems unlikely but I can't find any other U.S. catalogs)
Gitane USA

From what I can see it's about a 1970 Gran Sport in sport orange. Your bike has a different quick release on the front than the rear. From what I'm seeing in the catalogs the rear is original and the front is off some other bike.
In 1970 they had Mafac brakes like yours has. Sometime after 1970 they went to Weinmann.

Other Information on the Gran Sport

Gitane USA

  The “Grand Sport DeLuxe” came in both men’s and women’s models. An entry level bicycle, they were used mainly for commuting and were extremely popular with students due to their affordability. The name was used by Gitane throughout the 1970's, but was not used in the 1980's for reasons unknown.

  Grand Sport DeLuxe’s can be identified by their stamped dropouts and fake chrome fork crown. They also include kick stand mounts, which did not come with Interclubs or any of the other higher-end Gitane bicycles. Because of their popularity, they are the most readily available of all Gitane models today and can be found regular on internet auction sites.

Classic Rendesvous

  The Interclub and Gran Sport DeLuxe were the bottom level Gitanes offered during the early 1970s, and don’t warrant much space here or in your collection. They do, however, make for great “city bike” converts. Stamped steel dropouts and “chromoly” tubing, they came with extremely heavy Stronglight steel cranksets and usually with Simplex derailleurs and Mafac Racer brakes. With a similar look to the Super Corsa and TdF, they can still look good, even if they weren’t the fastest bikes on the road!


How to minimize wear on brakes? My daily commute consists of a quite steep last part (around 1 km with average 12% steepness). On my way back home when going downhill, I have to extensively use my brakes to (more or less) keep the speed limit of 30 km/h, and to avoid risks of course. Is there an optimal "brake strategy" to reduce the wear on my brakes? For example, is it better to use them in "intervals" (going to 35-40 km/h and then braking back to 25), or use them constantly (keeping around 30 km/h)?

EDIT: Rim brakes

Wear on rim brakes can be reduced by washing your bike to remove grit from the wheels, and by cleaning out the cleaning grooves in your brake pads.

You can also increase braking effect by sitting up as much as possible, so your body acts as an airbrake.  This will reduce the braking effort required by your rims.

Are there any routes with perhaps a greater distance but lower elevation changes?

Remember, no braking on the turns.  You need to drop your velocity before hitting the corner, then drift through the corner.  Braking on the turn makes you more likely to loose traction.


What is the difference between 9sp and 10/11sp cranks/chainrings? I have a 9sp setup I’m very committed to, mostly because I can’t find 10/11sp indexed downtube shifters (Dia Compe makes a non-indexed 11sp and that seems to be it). I want a new crank with swappable chainrings to support a 2x9 touring setup and a 1x9 city setup.
I assume the 10/11sp chainrings have different tooth thicknesses than 9sp chainrings. Please confirm that. I’ve also seen the cranks themselves specified as 10/11sp and I’m wondering if maybe the chainring positions are spaced differently than they would be on a 9sp crank. This is my main concern as it’s hard to find cranks specified for 9sp.

8, 9, 10 and 11 speed chains are progressively narrower to accommodate the necessary closer spacing of sprockets in the cassette. The distance between the inner plates is the same, but the width of the outer plates and rivets is different.
The main difference between crank sets designed for 8, 9, 10 and 11 speed chains is the chainring spacing as you have guessed.


How do I get my brakes to stop squealing I've tried sanding them down just a bit, cleaning the brake surface on the wheels, and this does stop them from squealing for a day or two, but it always comes back.  I'm using Kool-stop pads if it matters.

There are a few causes for brake 'squealing':

New pads. After a bit of wear (or sandpapering), the squealing will stop.
Misalignment. As some others have mentioned, misalignment may cause squealing (although it would be reduced with some wear). Check out Sheldon Brown's tips for alignment suggestions.
Oil or water on the rim. Either of these substances, even in small portions, combined with dirt or debris on the rim can create squealing. Wipe the rims thoroughly on the braking surface, as  well as the pads, with a dry cloth.
Incompatible rims/pads. No one else has mentioned this, but this is often the most common cause. Rims are generally made from one of two materials: steel or alloy. (You can tell the difference by seeing if a magnet will attract (steel) or not (alloy)). Incidentally, brake pads are made of specific compounds to work on one or the other. Often, using pads designed for alloy rims (like most Kool-Stops) will squeal if used on steel (which I'm guessing you have).


Enquiry on SPD and SPD-SL I am new to road bikes.
My pedals are 2010 shimano 105 - SPD-SL

Can spd shoes with spd cleats be used on spd-sl pedals?

The short answer is no.

The SPD-SL 3 bolt pattern is larger by several centimeters.

An SPD shoe has tread to make it easier to walk in the show off-road and a smaller, 2 bolt cleat mounting pattern. The tread would be in the way of mounting the SPD-SL cleat.


The smallest size spoke wrench I can find is 15(.127" / 3.23mm) and it's too big. Where can I find one that fits? I purchased a spoke wrench with sizes from 10 (biggest) to 15(smallest).  15 is just small enough to round out the nipples on my wheel, but not small enough to actually turn them, so I surmise that I need one size smaller, however I can't seem to find any sizes below 15.  How can I obtain a wrench that I can actually use on my spokes?

Unfortunately this is almost certainly resulting from a ring-type spoke wrench that's loose-fitting and not very well made, of which there are sadly a lot of in the world, despite there being nothing wrong with the core design in this way. (I believe the way it works is that cheaper ones have the wrench slots forged in and nicer ones have them machined in and then are hardened). So your options are either get a tighter fitting multi-size wrench or a one-size, which don't tend to have problems like this.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were all sorts of nipple sizes smaller than 15g in the long history of bikes, but they're pretty rarely encountered now if so, and never on remotely recent conventional nipples.


Is it possible to put a chain on without removing the rear wheel? I have a bike with a single chainring up front and an internal hub and a coaster brake in the rear. (For those unfamiliar with this setup, it's essentially like having a single-speed bike in that the chain is exactly as long as need be, and tension on the chain is adjusted by moving the rear wheel in the rear dropouts before tightening it.)

My preferred procedure for cleaning the drivetrain is to completely remove the chain. The obvious way to do this would be to loosen the rear wheel in the rear fork and take the chain off. (Remember, no rear deraileur and no chain tensioner.) However, rear wheel placement with an internal hub can be tricky.

If I were to install a chain with a master link,  would I be able to remove the chain without loosening the rear wheel, or would the tension on the chain make this operation difficult?

It depends on the style of master link and how much chain tension is in your setup.  An SRAM power link needs about 1-2mm of chain slack to unhook the link.  If you can find this amount of slack, it should work with most types of master link.  If your chain doesn't have 2mm of play, but isn't too tight, a master link that snaps off the side (like the first one pictured in the terminology index) should work.

The tighter your chain, the harder this is going to be to snap back together.  Depends if you would prefer fiddling with a master link on a tight chain versus the re-aligning the rear hub.


Reducing saddle bounce when increasing cadence Trying up my cadence, but noticing a fair bit of saddle bounce.

Few things that could be contributing.

I use toeclips over cleats
saddle height (thou I'm at the sweet spot of full leg extension without strain)

Is there any techniques/exercises to reduce this or am I simply trying to increase my cadence too fast too soon?

It is a matter of both fit (frame-geom, saddle position, stem & cranks), practice, and gearing.

Everyone has a max RPM after which they start "bouncing" and you'll find this RPM is even lower if you're at a relatively low gear.

Assuming the bike fits you properly, raising your max RPM is simply a matter of practice. This can't be done at will in one session. It is a motor skill that has to be trained by drills and observed for progress. Informally you can try forcing yourself to ride at lower gears than you're used to. Over time your body kinematics will become more efficient and your form will improve (bouncing will start at higher and higher RPM's).

A cadence of 100 without bouncing is achievable by almost anyone who tries for it. Elites on a track have motionless backsides at cadences of well beyond 150rpm.


What 11-32 10 speed cassettes will work with Shimano 105 5700 freehub? I have a Shimano 105 5700 10 speed hub, currently with a 12-27 cassette. I want to go to an 11-32 cassette. There is no 5700 10 speed cassette that goes beyond the 12-27. There is an Ultegra 11-32 (6700?), but i'm looking for a cheaper option. I have seen a Deore XT 10 speed 11-32 cassette, will that work? I am using a 105 long cage rear derailleur (5700-GS).

There are Tiagra 10 speed 11/32 and 11/34 cassettes available according to the Shimano page.  Coming from the road group, they will work.


When I pull my disc brake handle the mechanical caliper will grab then release My rear disc brakes will grab a little then release all together. I had tightened by cable at the brake handle so I loosened it but it still does the same. It is a Trek mechanical disc brake.

On mechanical disk brakes it is pretty common that the caliper is broken: the spring inside it just slipping when enough power applied (yet this power not enough to brake).
It is easy to check it: push the brake lever and look what is released there: the cable from the nut, or the caliper itself jumps back.
Probably you should replace the caliper.
New calipers coming with new pads, so it's a good time to clean up the disk with a good degreaser and maybe a sandpaper to save the new pads from all its garbage.


Does changing the clipless pedal float change the speed of disengaging? A couple of weeks ago I had a crash that resulted in a broken ankle and quite a bit of soft tissue damage.  I hit a large, immovable object.  I was clipped in at the time of the crash with Shimano SPD-SL yellow (6-degree float).  There was very little time between the realization of an imminent crash and the impact to disengage.
I'm far enough along in my recovery to begin planning to resume riding.
Would switching to Shimano SPD-SL red (0-degree float) decrease the amount of time required to unclip?
The answer to Clipless Pedals - Float doesn't address the speed of twisting to disenage.

Although it would make unclipping faster, there are a few other things you can tweak to get the same effect without changing cleats.

Maybe you need to reduce your clip tension so it takes less force to unclip.
Practice the instinctive clip-in/out. You really don't want to have to consciously think about "I need to unclip NOW". Rotating your feet outwards needs to be subconsciously linked to your "danger is imminent" response. Riding MTB with clip pedals is a good way to learn this habit.

Changing to a more restrictive cleat will require you to be much more precise with your cleat setup as the comment says, for fear of knee injury or even worse, reduced power. You might also not like the lack of float compared to the yellow cleats. On the contrary, you may realize you actually prefer less float, making it overall a win-win situation.


I need some advice about upgrading my fork I'm relatively new to biking, and even newer to know about the details about the components of the bike itself. I have a 2016, 29" Totem bike, with a rear coil shock and a front coil suspension (a Suntour XCT DS HLO 29). From what I can see, it's an older model of this one: http://www.srsuntour-cycling.com/components/fork/XCT-29-5620.html

I generally like the bike and I've had good times with it along these years, but the problem is the front suspension is too basic and has scared me a couple times already, so I'm planning to upgrade it for something better, around $350 - $400.

The problem is I'm not exactly sure for this price range, what should I pick? Should I pick another coil based suspension or should I go for an air-based one? For this price range, are some Rock Shox acceptable options or should I look at some other brands? Can I get something with remote lock for this price range? What features should I look to make a long-lasting investment?

Sorry if the question is too broad, I'll share any other information or details required.

OEM Suntour forks are awfully terrible. Almost any other after-the-market fork would be better.
I would recommend going with an air fork as the technology is very much polished now, so there is no need for coil. In the price range that you have designated, there are many decent forks, however not so many vendors to choose from, and one is clearly dominating.
I would focus on getting a compatible fork in the first place; that is, all the parameters:

wheel size (26/27.5/29),

travel (100-180mm),

steering tube type (straight/tapered),

axle system (QR/through-axle)

axle length ("normal"/boost)

brake mounting system (disk ISO/post mount or rim V-brake)
— must match. Let's not forget about the color, although it is mostly black.

Can I get something with remote lock for this price range?

Not sure about that. However, I've never found a need for a lockout, be it on the fork or a remote one,  — a good fork should just work, and the lockout only takes space on the handlebars.

What features should I look to make a long-lasting investment?

You need to service your new fork periodically. I've seen vendor's recommendations to do it once every 50 hours of operation. For my taste, that is way too often. Once a season should be the lowest frequency for the service.


Bike Direction on Roof Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts/suggestions on which direction bikes should sit on the roof

I've Thule bike carriers which can be left or right opening.

So do I place both bikes facing forwards, or do I have the bikes one front facing, one rear facing?

If the answer is simply try it and see, so be it, just wondered if anyone had experience of whether one option is easier for mounting the bikes, or provides less wind noise etc.etc.etc.

cheers

Mainly it doesn't matter.  Usually two bikes are front-first (because it "just seems right"), but once you go beyond two bikes the directions alternate.  True, if you don't have the bike properly fastened then, on a fork-mount carrier, it can blow loose a hair easier in the reverse orientation, but it can also come loose going around a curve or going over a bump, so you need to be sure it's well-fastened in all cases.

Note that you may find, based on whether you're right-handed or left handed (or maybe you have a bad shoulder or such), that it's easier to lift the bike onto the roof one way vs the other.  In that case it makes sense to have the bikes front-facing on one side and rear-facing on the other.  OTOH, the shape of the vehicle, position of the doors, etc, may factor into your orientation decision.


can i get a new suspension kit for a older mongoose XR-75 I've searched but I can't find anything online. Is there a store I can go to or something?

This is a bso. You won't find replacement parts that aren't maintenance items (brakes, tires, tubes, freewheels, etc.), since they will exceed the cost of the bike (particularly big things, like suspension or wheels). The suspensions on these bikes are mainly for aesthetics, not for actually taking hits in mountain biking (full suspension bikes are jolly expensive; front suspension only bikes are not that much -- few hundred bucks to start for decent basics, cheaper on used market).

You're better off getting a new bike if you need suspension, or living with the suspension as is.


Trying to find Derailleur hanger for Triace A310 As you can figure out from a quick google search, this bike almost does not exist. Finding info for this bike has been near impossible. If you can direct me to any info about which hanger I need to replace my broken rear derailleur hanger, that would be awesome.

While the Triace A310 is an entry level bike I wouldn't put it in the same class as a Walmart  BSO (bicycle shaped object). It doesn't appear to be a bike brand common to the U.S. Your best bet would be to remove the hanger and take it to your local bike shop. Most shops have a wall chart that has full size photos of the 50-60 most common types. You match yours' to the example and they can order you a #46 hanger or what ever number is appropriate. If it is one of the less common type that they don't stock you may want to order two so you have a spare.


What will be the easiest/cheapest way to get lower gearings on my "new to me" road bike? I've recently become the proud new owner of a lovely late 90's steel road bike with some not so lovely "old school" gearing (53/39 chainrings and 11-25 8 speed cassette). As someone who both loves her knees and naturally keeps a relatively high cadence I am looking to change my bike have the option of lower gear inches. I know from my experience riding around on my touring bike that my ideal lowest gear inch option would be about 30 inches (using this to help calculate gear inches). I am including the different options I can think of with the relevant research I've already done below. I would love to hear what would be the easiest, cheapest way of achieving this and if there is some option I am overlooking.
Option 1. Get a cassette with larger cogs. The first issue I would worry about here is the rear derailleur which I believe is this one. The listed max cog size is 28t though I know Shimano recommendations tend to be a little conservative. Judging from the gear inch calculator I would probably need 32t or even 34t to get the desired minimum gear inches. If I needed to replace the rear derailleur would I be able to do that and still use the 8-speed Shimano brifters that are currently on the bike?
Option 2. Get smaller chainrings. The issue here is that the crankset on the bike has a 130 BCD so I think the 39t chainring is basically as small as is possible to fit on them (Sheldon's sheet suggests that the minimum for 130 BCD is 38t). So I'd need a new crankset and hope to find something that avoids other compatability issues (with e.g. the bottom bracket or the front brifters). Unfortunately, calculations suggest that even a 50/34 wouldn't quite give the desired minimum gear inches with the 11-25 cassette.
Option 3. Some combination of a larger cogs on the cassette and smaller chainrings. This option seems to require more work than either Option 1 or Option 2 and I'd guess it would be more expensive but I am not sure.
Option 4. Put a new groupset on and just make sure the new chainrings and cassette will provide the desired gearings. This one is definitely the most expensive and requires the most work but I am including it for completeness.
For reference, I plan on doing most/all the work at a local free "Open shop" run by a non-profit dedicated to teaching people how to take care of bikes but if anything is very technical/hard/requires special skills I may go to a LBS for that.

You seem to have a good handle on your options.
A wider-range cassette, and a derailleur with a long cage, will probably give you the most bang for your buck. Switching from a 39t small ring to a 34t small ring is comparable to switching out your 25t big sprocket in back for a 29t sprocket. This is a good tool for playing around with gear ratios.
If you do go with option 4, you have more options. I recently built up a new bike with 46/30 in front and 11-30 in back. This gives a high enough top gear for me (46x11 is plenty fast for the kind of riding I do), and a 1:1 ratio at the low end, with tight spacing in between. Shimano, FSA, and some of the more exotic brands offer cranks with 46/30 chainrings.


Want a snappy scrambler for stumptown I live in Portland, Oregon and I need a bike to ride to work. It's about five miles, with one steep but not long hill. I used to have a track bike with a freewheel that was really nice for Salem, which was a flat commute. Sadly stolen. I loved how fast it accelerated, it helped a bunch in traffic. Hills were killers on my knees, ouch.

Was thinking about maybe two or three gears. But as a cassette in back would make it less snappy off the line, I was imagining a front derailleur only. Is that implausible? Maybe having a chain tensioner at all would kill any snap. Do they make a Hammerschmidt for road bikes? Are there any frames designed for this?

Frame something closer to a racing geometry than a touring geometry, since I won't be taking many long rides, if any.

Also, weight, like to keep it not much over 20lbs. So, not a hybrid frame.

Disc brakes I am in love with from years of mountain biking, and would help control and maintain stopping power in this rainy climate; I don't know how heavy the road discs are however.

So.. a track bike with disc brakes and a front derailleur? Start with a cyclocross? Is there the perfect bike out there already made? Am I nuts? Any ideas?

Thanks!

Edit, to respond to comments:

What I mean by "snappy" - I found that using a super tight chain on a single back ring lets me apply speed faster than one where i have to take up slack first - i can make quicker adjustments to unaware cars. It's the same reason that I like disc brakes, more control.

Sorry if my experiences and desires bother some of you, that wasn't my intent. I follow all the bike laws and ride politely.

@mattnz Thanks for that suggestion, I will look at internal hubs again. A few years ago I looked at Rohloff's but I decided they weren't a good choice, mostly due to weight and ease of maintenance, but it appears that they have updated their lines quite a bit. I think SRAM has one too. Still be heavy I think which would add to angular momentum. There are also the Schlumpf Speed Drive planetary front cranksets.

With what you envision - A single cog in the rear and a triple crankset up front - you would still require a rear derailleur to take up the chain slack since the chainrings have such large difference in diameter. A chain tensioner would not cope with the slack created from shifting from a 42 to a 32 tooth chainring, for instance.

Since you'll need a rear derailleur for a multiple gear solution anyway, you might as well go with a cassette and single chainring.

For disc brakes you're limited to mechanical (like Avid BB7s, TRP Spyre) or the cable actuated hydraulic calipers (TRP HyRd) unless you spring for shimano Di2.

The closest you'll get to a track/road frame that has the necessarry reinforcements and mounts for disc brakes is likely a cyclocross bike or some of the newer endurance road bikes (Trek Domane as an example).

You're unlikely to get something exactly as you envision, but with a few compromises (cyclocross with a cassette) you should be able to make things work.


Why is this rear wheel not aligned with the frame? My LBS sold me a new wheel.  I put on the new wheel.  I'd go back to the LBS, but I'm afraid that I live far away from them.  Alas, I'm now having this problem:

As you can see, the wheel is quite not aligned to the frame.  This is a picture of either side:

and

I had to use cone wrenches to remove a spacer (?) (metal ring of some sort) or there was no possible way the wheel was going on, at least that's what I thought at the time; it's base was too long for the frame.  Is there something wrong or is this just the wrong size of wheel?

One visible issue is the quick release skewer spring on the drive side. See how it is visibly stuck in the drop out, where it shouldn't be. This means it is facing the wrong way round, so you need to remove the wheel, swap the spring(s) round the right way and reinsert the wheel. They are conical, and both 'point' inwards to the centre of the wheel.
Such a little error can cause a noticeable skew of the wheel, so I would think this will solve the problem. Note how the tyre is skewed off from the bike centre line.
As Nathan notes, removing that spacer will have had an effect on the wheel dish. Check the spacing of the frame and the wheel hub width (O.L.D.). I'm not sure if the wheel was too wide originally or if the spring originally caused the problem you were trying to fix. You'll either need to replace the spacer, or re-dish the wheel to get things just right.


Effectiveness of disc brakes with brifters How well do mechanical (non-hydraulic) disc brakes generally function when used with brifters?-- This combination seems to be increasingly common among e.g. adventure bikes such as the Salsa Vaya, Genesis Croix de Fer 10 and Specialized AWOL) as well as cyclocross bikes (e.g. the Fuji Cross 1.1 and Merida Cyclo Cross 300) but I was told during a custom-bike consultation at a LBS that current non-hydraulic disc brake technology is not mature enough to work well with brifters: Apparently it has something to do with the difference in mechanical advantage between road bike- and mountain bike-style brake levers. Is this information true?-- if so, is this combination just a marketing gimmick?

As other have stated road discs are becoming more common. While hydraulic discs will give you the best performance, it comes at considerable cost. New shifters would be needed. Mechanical disc would reuse your shifters. I would put mechanical disc as a cost effective alternative. If this is an upgrade it is important to use road specific calipers. Mountain calipers and road calipers have a similar appearance but are not interchangeable.


Sram cranksets, are there differences other than weights betwen models? I'm trying out different crank arm length 165/170
Are there differences between sx/nx/gx cranksets other than weights?
(I'm wondering if I should pick one of sx/nx/gx and differentiate arm length only..)

The major difference is the materials, such as steel or aluminum chainring, the level of aluminum used in the crankarms and the way they are machined. All of which does lend to the overall weight of the crankset. See below for a side by side comparison as well and pictures of each in which you can see the difference in the chainrings and the amount of machining in the backside of the crankarms.
Notice the NX and GX use the aluminum XSync 2 chainring, while the SX uses the Steel Eagle chainring. All of which have the same tooth profile to run Eagle chains.


Are chain ring spacers a good solution to adjust chain line? I recently converted my mountain bike from a 2x10 to a 1x10.  I have a Shimano XT Hollowtech ii crankset and I like it a lot, but its traditionally a 2 speed crankset.  When I'm in my 1st gear on the rear, there is some cross chaining going on and no matter how well I adjust my rear derailleur, if I back pedal a little bit, such as to get my pedals in a good position to get on the bike and take off, the chain will drop into the 2nd gear cog. To remedy this, I have found two potential solutions.

Buy a new 1x10 speed crankset such as the Shimano Zee. This obviously is a more expensive option.
Get some longer chain ring bolts and some chain ring spacers.

My question is will option #2 be sufficient for mountain biking?  I wasn't sure if adding spacers may somehow cause some sort of vulnerability in the crankset by possibly not allowing as much force or tension on the pedals? Or am I delusional and it does nothing to cause any additional weakness or vulnerability to the crankset?  If spacers are completely safe for my application, this would be the best option.

Yes spacers are fine for this. It sounds like you want to move a few millimeters - 2 or 3 millimeters is fine and the bolts can handle it.

A word of caution about bottom bracket spindle: make sure that your crank is clearing the chain stay. Inspect this under load. You might look and think you have enough room for the shorter BB but on your first ride you can put a few nice gouges in your chain stay when you put the hammer down.


Fixed gear: slipping I have a single speed bike with a flip-flop hub and recently I decided to try out the fixed side.   When testing it out in the car-park I was applying backpressure to brake and found sometimes the mechanism slipping.  I tried and recreated it a few times but I could not tell whether it was something in the machine slipping or just the tire slipping on the ground.

Is it normal for the tire to slip on the ground a little bit?  All I did was to loosen the bolts, flip the wheel over and swap chain, and tighten up the bolts again.  Is there any way it's possible to do the conversion 'wrong' or have slipping in the crank/hub?  I don't want to ride the bike on the road like this if it could be unsafe.

It is absolutely possible to skid the back wheel, but you really need to be deliberate about it to do it. In this case, however, it sounds like you were applying back pressure to slow down and noticed something surprising, so it was not likely to be the tire skidding. It was probably the cog slightly loosening.

If you're going to apply any back-pressure at all, you must have a properly installed lockring screwed on after the cog. A lockring is a small device that has a reversed thread, so that it prevents the cog from unscrewing when reverse pressure is applied.

The best practice is to ride hard for a while without applying any backpressure to make sure the cog is seated tightly into its threads, then tighten the lockring to make it hard flat against the cog.

Track cyclists sometimes skip the lockring because they usually don't apply much backpressure, but if you're riding on the street and using the pedals to brake, you need a lockring and it needs to be tight.

Here's a youtube video. There are others. I don't agree with the video about using locktite (use grease instead).


What are the advantages of 4 arm cranks for road bikes? Are 4 arm cranks the future for road bikes?

What are the advantages?

Predominately a weight thing. The Shimano marketing spiel / hyperbole:

  With a unique four-arm spider and Hollowtech II construction putting
  strength just where its needed, the FC-9000 chainset sets new
  standards for stiffness and low weight.

^^^ Shiny :)

That and because I think it looks distinctive and is seen as innovation. Some people don't like the look, but weight weenies will snap this up.

On the web I found the following comparison:
(weights are combined chainset and bottom bracket)

DA-7900 725g  <-- previous Dura Ace version
DA-9000 683g  <-- latest

That's a whopping 42g, or 5.8%. I'd buy DA if I could afford it, but not for this reason. I'd be better off eating fewer pies.

As with other Shimano releases, the technology has already trickled down to Ultegra and 105.

I guess if you don't need 5 arms, why wouldn't you just have 4?

Shimano is just an example. As andy256 commented above, Campy also has this and maybe others.


Ladies' Cycling Shoe Sizes/Fits I am interested to know what differences there are between brands of women's cycling shoes, specifically, who makes shoes in larger or smaller sizes as well as who makes shoes for narrow feet or for wider feet.

I don't need product recommendations, rather an idea of which companies make shoes to fit different feet.

I think you should go to a (bigger) bike store and try different brands.

Are you looking for women shoes to fit smaller feet or bigger feet?

Depending on what you are looking for, sometimes getting a man's shoe might be better (for wider/bigger feet)

If you have weird feet, you should look into custom made/fitted shoes.


Shimano thumb shift compatibility I need to replace a stiff twist-grip shifter with a thumb shifter to make gear down-changes easier for my wife. There is a choice of two available locally: Shimano SL-TX50R Tourney and Shimano Altus SLM310R7AT. Are these compatible with a Shimano TX rear derailleur?

If you have a 7 speed rear cassette, any Shimano 7 speed shifter should work.

Shimano's Altus range sits just above the Tourney TX range, so an Altus shifter would nominally be a little better, but matching a TX shifter with a TX derailleur would be fine.


New trend of seat stay for road bike? I have seen quiet a few road bike with a Z-shape seat stay until now, e.g. specialized Roubaix

Does it serve any purpose? What's the advantage of this design in comparison to a straight-bar seat stay?

They add a bit of suspension to the bike

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/technology/smoother-is-faster

  HOW IT’S DONE From It’s CG-R seatpost to the Zertz viscoelastic
  dampers in the fork and seatstays, the Roubaix is designed to filter
  both high frequency vibrations and big hits from the road— so your
  body doesn’t have to.

  ZERTZ The Zertz vibration dampers are designed to take the edge off of
  high the frequency imperfections that every road rider rider knows
  well. From chip sealed roads, to cracks and everything in between,
  Zertz take the edge off of even the worst road surface.


Things to consider when choosing a recumbent Google's Sergey Brin asked for recommendations on buying a recumbent. What factors should he consider when evaluating alternatives?

  I'm thinking of getting a recumbent road bike even though +Dylan Casey will laugh at me. I would like to get a nice mix of performance, comfort and safety. So, probably 20'ish pounds, not too upright, not too flat, good visibility, maybe an optional fairing, ...

Although this should be a given, ride the bike before you buy it. Not for 5 minutes in a parking lot, but for a real, decent ride. Any shop specializing in 'bents will understand that if you are making your first recumbent purchase, it's a leap of faith, and will be accommodating. That is also a reason to buy your recumbent from a specialty shop.

Credit for the following goes to @Don Kirby above, I'm including it here as well for completeness in one answer. If he wants to edit, and add the above paragraph, or similar, I'll delete this answer.

Think about wheel base and where you want the steering.

Wheelbase:

I hear that long wheel base is more stable and faster, but I chose short wheel base so I could load it on the bus rack sometimes.

Steering:

Above seat steering is more common and I think it's easier to learn, but I chose below seat steering because it seemed like a more relaxed position for my arms.

Bonus:

I found that during a crash, below seat steering means that your completely above the bike and you don't get tangled up with it as you go down. I found myself sliding along the ground, all by myself.


MAFAC RAID brakes top mount part? What is the name of this part/mount/adapter that mounts an old school center pull brake to the top of a rear bridge? This is a 1970s MAFAC RAID on a LeJeune Tandem. I'm trying to find an adapter to mount a modern Tektro R559 Long Reach instead, thanks.

I'm about 95% sure that is a proprietary part for this frame, not a Mafac part. Mafac adapter plates exist for standard orientation holes.

It appears that at some point someone added a wood screw in place of a proper bolt. I imagine the original intention was for this to be installed with a concave washer hugging either side of the bridge.

For what it's worth, RAIDs are a vastly better brake than R559s. If you're in a situation where a framebuilder level solution is needed to address the weirdness of the original mounting, rounding of the hole, etc, there's little point in adapting it to a modern caliper and buying a whole other brake when you could just get centerpull direct pivots added. You've already got the Herse/Compass tires, why go halfway?


10 gears to singlespeed My second hand Hercules bicycle came with 10 gears. Two gears in the front and five in the back. The gearshift does not work well and since I cycle in the same gear all the time anyway, I consider turning it into a single-speed bicycle. Can I just remove the derailleur in the back and adjust the length of the chain? Any reason why I shouldn't do this besides the obvious fact that I will have less gears? Anything I would have to take care of?

I've got a 2nd hand Hercules too and I've done this exact thing. Get a quality chain tool and look up some videos on Youtube about how to remove and re-link a bike chain. I pretty much winged it as I had no clue what I was doing. It took a bit of work and a lot of frustration to get the chain length right. I probably did it wrong, but it works.

EDIT: Argenti Apparatus mentioned the dropouts.. One thing i did to get the chain tight was loosen the rear wheel from the frame, and pull it back as far as i could pull it.


What is this hook near the cantilever brakes? I just bought this old school brazilian mountain bike, and it has this little hook thing near the brakes, front and rear. Anyone knows what these are for?

This is a cable-catcher, but using the brake in the picture it doesn´t work, as the cable coming from the handlebar goes straight to the brake body. If the cable breaks, the whole system will snap open, with loose cables, not interfering with the tires.

A cable catcher is useful if you have a brake that uses the configuration shown in the picture below. In the event of the main cable snapping, the cable that goes accross the break arms stays in the hook, not interfering with the tires. At speed, with no cable catcher, this could cause quite a crash.


How do I stop people blaming me for a crash? I regualrly communte to work in central London and am a careful cyclist. I am a quite guy and mind my own business - I hardly talk and try not to get into confrontations. The other week I was involved in a serious crash that was entirely the fault of the pedestrian who decided to walk out in between 2 buses and was on her phone whilst crossing a busy road - I saw here really late and crashed right into her at a high speed; I was flown forward into the road - she collapsed and thankfully after a few minutes she got up albeit with a number of injuries herself; I also still have injuries to bear but has not stopped me from cycling.

The problem was that when the crash happened a lot of people came to help (mainly her) but there were one or two who said "why was I not looking" and "you need to be more careful". I do not talk much and I was also in slight shock (the wind was taken out of me) however, once the lady got up she apologized a lot and said it was entirely her fault and the bus driver also agreed.

However, some people still gave me dodgy looks and I was thinking what else could I have done or said to make them believe it was not my fault? If I said anything it may have aggravated the situation and with me being silent it kind of still aggravated the situation...its a no win situation.

If only she had walked a few meters to the traffic lights this whole mess would never have happened and if only she had been watching the road instead of her phone - I hope she is fine and learnt a valuable lesson but I am yet to decide how else I could have handled this.

UPDATE:

Didn't think this would blow up the way it would...thanks for the posts.

Some points...

Am I at fault - yeah, probably, and I am one of the first to apologise (if you know us British people we say sorry even when it is not our fault) - however I am yet to see how I could have possibly seen her hidden between two buses and squeezing past them running to reach the other side. Even if I was going at 1 mph or 2 0mph - I just would not have seen her until the very last second - granted a lower speed means greater reaction time however (read later on) after 10 years of cycling this I never expected to see this in any day of the week.
I travel this path everyday (weekday) for the past 10 years - its not like this was new to me.
I am not a racer, nor do I have a racing bike - I do not have the fancy gadgets some poeple have - asking me "how fast I was travelling" will not bring any fruition as I have no idea...which leads me to the point of the "high speed" I mention is something I would consider in myself that I am doing - I am one of the slowest in a group of riders so I think you guys seem to think I was going at some crazy speed - I am a commuter rider, not a racer - so not sure if this came across.
This happened between Bank and Chancery Lane - if anyone knows this place there is a slope down to the traffic lights whereby you can easy go above your normal speed (however, not too much high speed as traffic tends to turn left at the lights so your constantly on your brakes anyway...I can't be too sure but I reckon I may have been braking as I apprached the green lights.
There was no bus stop nor any people coming off buses - I am not sure why some of you think this? Even the bus driver who came off the bus sided with me (which surprised me as Buses can be an pain with cyclist) - if there were people coming off a bus then why would anyone cycle fast? That would be self-defeating.

I dispute your claim that the collision was entirely the pedestrian's fault. Of course, the pedestrian shouldn't have stepped into the road without looking. However, you, as a road user in a busy city should have been aware that pedestrians often cross the road carelessly. You shouldn't have been travelling so fast and so close to the bus that you had no time to react if a pedestrian appeared.

Even if you don't feel you have any responsibility towards careless road users, surely this makes sense purely from the self-preservation angle. You need to consider what other users might do, not only what they will do if they obey all rules and guidelines.

Now, I wasn't there so I wont attempt to apportion blame any more precisely than "You were both at fault." But you were both at fault.

In your edit to the question, you point out that the pedestrian appeared so late that you would probably still have hit them at 1–2mph. First, if that is literally true, then you must have been riding extremely close to the buses. If you had been riding a meter away from them, you would have easily avoided the collision at walking pace. Riding very close to stationary vehicles is very dangerous: if they start moving, there's a good chance they'll move towards you; it invites other traffic to overtake, trapping you in a space barely wider than your bike; and it gives you no time to react if a pedestrian appears or a door opens. Second, if you had collided at walking pace, nothing serious would have happened but, for example, colliding at 12mph involves nine times as much energy.


EBikes - is torque a good predictor of how easy it will feel to go uphill? Electric bikes sometimes quote the torque or max torque of the motor being used.
So for instance this bike has a Shimano Steps E8000 motor the torque of which is given as 70 Nm (confusingly enough the web page actually has another specification of torque for the same bike but let's ignore that for the moment).
Ignoring other variables for a moment (bike weight, battery charge, wind etc) would this bike go up a given hill at a given speed with less effort on the part of the rider than another bike with a quoted torque of, say, 90 Nm ?
If torque isn't a good measurement of "effort uphill to achieve given speed" what would a good metric be ?

To be frank, I would not put much stock in quoted ratings for motors.
Before I bought my electric bike, I test rode something like eight or nine different makes and models, equipped with a range of different motors (Bafang, Bosch, Brose, Yamaha, maybe some others), some with mid-drive, some with hub drive.
All of my test rides included some steep hill climbs.
The biggest difference I noted was that bikes that had a throttle were the easiest to go up the hill, and this was simply because it was possible to go up the hill with no pedaling at all.
Among the bikes that required pedaling for motor boost, there did not seem to be any direct relationship between quoted motor torque and perceived boost. I attribute this to there being too many variables involved.
For example, even within one particular line of bikes equipped with Bosch Performance CX motors, there were options for the gearing (Nuvinci, now Enviolo, vs Rohloff) as well as options for max speed (in the US, 20 mph vs 28 mph). The difference in gearing, as well as motor setting for the max speed, meant that even with the same nominal torque rating, different bikes climbed hills differently. For example, the 20 mph bikes were better climbers than the 28 mph bikes.
That said, all of the bikes made all but the steepest hills effortless to climb (up to the maximum speed rating for the bike), and even on the steepest hills I could easily double my speed as compared to riding a conventional bike (e.g. a hill I'd normally take at 4-5 mph, I could go up at 8-10 mph on an electric bike).
These tests were ridden entirely on paved surfaces, in a city where the steepest hills are about a 20% grade. Most of the test rides were in neighborhoods where the steepest hills available to me were in around 10-15% grade. Below 10% grade, most of the bikes provided enough power that I could reach the bike's maximum speed going uphill; the main exception being the 28 mph bike that I tried, which didn't have as much power going uphill as the other bikes.
Beyond the fact that the quoted torque for a motor won't tell you very much about how that bike compares to another, I will also suggest that you probably shouldn't care very much anyway. There is a vast difference between climbing a hill with an electric bike as compared to a conventional bike, and only very minor differences in effort climbing a hill comparing one electric bike to another.
In addition, there are a number of other aspects about an electric bike that IMHO should take much higher priority in terms of selection, including battery size and cost, drive configuration (mid- vs hub-drive), motor controller (I found the cadence-sensing motors very annoying, and the torque-sensing motors very natural to ride), and of course cost. And those aspects are overshadowed by the most important, which is simply how the bike feels to you when you ride it. How do you like the handling, how comfortable is the rider position between seat and handlerbars, etc.


What are the advantages of owning a Unicycle? What are the advantages of owning a Unicycle, as opposed to owning a bicycle?

I can think of several:

They are lighter and smaller than bikes
Easier to maintain, fewer moving parts
They provide good practice for balancing

Presumably a 50% reduction in punctures?


What to call bike brake levers with two gripping points? I have a Schwinn Letour bike which has brake handles that can be gripped from two different points, but the whole brake handle is a singly body of metal, as can be seen here:

I am wondering what this kind of brake handles are called?

I was hesitating to flag this post as a duplicate of Why don't brakes come with 'Safety Levers' any more?, but the other post is rich in the names of those "dual-pull" brake levers which in fact answers the OP's question.

So the names are:

Dual pull
Safety Levers (manufacturer's term)
Extension Levers (Sheldon Brown)
Suicide levers (wikipedia)
Auxiliary levers (wikipedia)
Interrupter levers - these are the additional brake levers placed along the brake cable. Although their position is similar to those mentioned above, they operation (and effectiveness) is different.

I hope this gives the OP enough possibilities to chose from.


Changing a spoke on a rear wheel is it easy enough to change a spoke on a rear wheel? It is not on the side of the chain ring.
Thanks

Ian

Depends - you will probably need to remove the cassette/freewheel anyway, to get enough room to get the spoke in even though its the non-drive side.  I've replaced one by bending the spoke horribly to get it through the hub, and while it worked was not a good technique.

You will need a spoke key for tensioning - an adjustable spanner may work but its asking for rounded-off nipples.  Or you can remove the tube and tyre and maybe tension it with a flat screwdriver.

If you don't feel confident, its safest to get a bike shop to do it.  They will only need the wheel, not the whole bike.  You'll need to buy a new spoke of the right length too, the LBS can measure your old one.


Put larger tires on my road bike rims My rim size is 622-20 and my current tire is 622-30
Can I fit a 622-35 or a 622-40 tire on my rim?   My forks are wide.

Is 20mm really the inside width of your rim? Would be unusually wide for a road bike (I think currently around 17mm are most common). If it’s really 20mm inside width you can mount anything from 32 to 63mm wide tires on that rim. According to Schwalbe as narrow as 25mm would also be okay: https://www.schwalbe.com/files/schwalbe/userupload/Images/FAQ/reifen_felgen_2020/Reifen_Felgenkombinationen_2020_EN.pdf
Of course you need enough clearance in the fork, frame and (if you have them) rim brakes. Very wide (and therefore high) tires can also increase toe overlap on the front wheel (i.e. your toes hitting the front wheel in tight turns).


How do I know what gear combinations should work without chain rasp on front derailleur? I tried adjusting the front derailleur on a 3x10 trekking bike. After fiddling around a long time, I concluded that is probably not possible to make all cogs work with all chainrings. How do I know what gear combination should work? Should you for example be able to use the fifth gear with all three chain rings without chain rasp? Should you also be able to switch between all chainrings in the fifth gear?

Currently, the three largest cogs are only working with the smallest chainring. If I adjust the front derailleur to allow shifting on the second chainring, I lose the ability to downshift from the third to the second chainring in higher gears (the chain rattles but does not come down).

I also experienced something similar when I crosschain on a 3x8 city bike. I have never had any issues with a 3x7.

There are two approaches here:

The standard rule is to avoid cross-chaining. It means that you don't use large with large and small with small. The large sprocket at the rear should not be used with the large ring at the front. In the same manner you should not use the smallest rear sprocket when your chain is on the smallest front ring. In both cases the chain runs quite diagonally or sideways when you look from above. It puts a lot of strain on the drive components and the chain is most likely to rub against the front derailleur plates. With a triple the use of the middle ring is less critical. It may work with any rear sprocket. But still, depending on the position of the chain, rubbing against either FD-plates is possible, so you should avoid the use of the two extreme sprockets.
The previous being quite old school, newer derailleurs and narrow chains are less affected by cross-chaining, if you leave out the higher wear of the drive train. Especially modern indexed front derailleurs don't have just three positions but two for each chainring or even three for the middle one. You can notice these if you carefully actuate the shifting. You will notice that when the derailleur is as far right as possible, a slight touch of the lever will have the FD move inboard ever so slightly without throwing the chain off. This position is meant to be used with the larger rear sprockets. It will only work with carefully adjusted indexing of the derailleur which may be fiddly. Some makes, like SRAM have FDs with a special geometry of the plates that doesn't require trimming where electronic shifters trim the position of the FD according to the position of the rear derailleur

Note: in the days of non-indexed shifting and down-tube levers it was customary to the adjust the position of the left lever slightly when the 'ear-meter' registered noise from the chainrings.


How do I measure a fork for suitability? I have an old bike I bought from ebay that looks to be '80s vintage. I'm converting it to a single speed. I have some new(ish) wheels that I plan to use. I tried to just slot in the existing wheels and struck the following problems:

The axle would not fit into the dropouts as it's too big.
The axle also wouldn't fit between the dropouts as the space between the dropouts is too narrow
Even if I could mount the wheel the brakes I have don't reach the rims, as the distance from the dropouts to the brake mounting point is too great.

So I think I will upgrade to a new fork. My question is how do I ensure that these measurements will be correct for a new fork? I've measured a fork from another bike that I know fits with my wheels.

The axle is 10mm diameter (on the old fork it's 7.5mm)
The inside measurement between the dropouts is 100mm. Outside measurement is 110mm. (On the old fork, it's 95mm and 100mm)
The distance from the dropouts to the brake mounting point is 355mm (on the old fork it's 375mm)

Will this fork fit? It looks like it will but I'm not sure if the measurements supplied are inside or outside. I'm aware that it's for a threaded steerer and I know it's a 1" steerer tube (see this question for the information about the existing fork.

Also, since the replacement fork is 20mm shorter from the dropouts to the brake point is that going to throw out the angles of the bike?

Update: I bought the fork and it's a great fit for the wheel. The offset against the original fork is less than I expected, somewhere between 10-20mm so the handling is not too bad.

The overwhelming majority of modern road forks are designed for 10mm axles and 100mm-width hubs. (Since the hub width is the important measurement, it's the inside measurement between the dropouts which should concern you).

After you've ensured that the wheel sizes are the same (700c), the largest concerns are the axle-to-crown measurement; or very nearly what you're measuring as "the dropouts to the brake point", the steerer length, and the fork's rake.

Axle-to-crown. As you've surmised, changing this will modify the angles of the bike. Increasing it will rotate the bike back, slackening the head and seat tube angles.  Reducing it will steepen them.  Unless you've got a particular desire to change the handling of your bike and are willing to work out the geometry (see Damon Rinard's article for starters), it's advisable to keep it as close to "as-designed" as possible.  3-4mm is a minor change. 20mm is significant. It will also reduce the range of tire sizes you can run and most likely require new brake calipers, as they typically have only 20mm of total adjustment.  I don't actually see the axle-to-crown measurement on the fork you have linked.
Steerer length. This is the amount of steerer tube from the top of the fork crown.  On the fork you linked, the steerer length is listed as 250mm, with the top 130mm threaded (leaving 120mm unthreaded).  You'll want to remove your current fork and measure the steerer tube.  If it is longer than about 220mm (rather long) it probably won't have enough room for you to install the headset and get everything threaded on - you'll need a longer fork.  If it's less than 150mm (rather short) you may not have threads far enough down the tube to tighten everything, so you'll need to get more threads cut at a local shop.
Fork rake. This is the distance that the axle is offset from the centerline of the fork.  Changing this dramatically will also change the handling of the bike, so try to stay close to what you have now unless you want to work out the maths. You can measure it by having a friend hold the old fork vertically and then sighting down the steerer:

There are lots of resources to learn more about how fork rake affects handling, Dave Moulton has a good introduction.  The fork you have linked doesn't show a rake measurement.


Adapt V-brakes bicycle to disk brakes I've been thinking in changing my v-brakes to disc brakes.
Now that my rear v-brake can't brake anymore I think that it is time change it.
I've already seen this article. My frame is prepared for disc and, as I don't want to change my brake lever, I'll go with mechanical brakes (does this look ok?);

The only problem is the rear wheel hub that has not the six holes for the disk. Is it ok if I just change the rear wheel hub and keep the front one?

Typically, the front brake is more important if not as important as the rear brake, so you'd be better off swapping to a front disc (plus, if you are buying genuine Avid BB7's, they're sold as a front and rear kit IIRC). If you don't have a disc ready wheelset, you just need to get a disc ready wheel set (the front wheel is relatively cheap compared to a rear wheel) - I don't really see the point of reusing a rim in this case, since it will likely not be cost effective [and I never approve of reusing spokes].

Also, check the condition of the levers and use new cables + cable housing when replacing the brake.

Good luck!

P.S. It is spelled "brake", not "break".

(Note that this will all be significant in cost relative to putting on a new V-brake (Avid Single Digit 5's are under 20 dollars a piece. If you put in a new FR-5 lever and new cable housing and cable, you'll still be under 40 dollars - this may be a better option if you were satisfied with v-brake performance [obviously, you can opt for better V-brakes, pads and levers for not much more, but the point still stands that a good V-brake is significantly cheaper than a disc conversion, and decent levers really aren't that expensive]. Make sure this replacement is economical on the bike you're using - in some cases, with cheaper disc-ready frames, you're actually better off selling the current bike and getting something with disc brakes on it already!)


Should I be worried about sand in the chain? This is about my daughter's (10yo) bike. It's fairly new, maybe about a year old (bought it off a relative who changed her mind). We're no active sporting family, but with this social distancing and working from home thing we've started to take long walks every day - about 2h per day or so. And my daughter rides along with her bike most of the days. So - light but regular usage.

Now, most of the days here have been nice and sunny, but last Friday we got some rain while walking. The next day, Saturday, she started to complain that her bike has become squeaky. Had to agree, the chain was squeaking.

So on Sunday I went to the nearest hardware store and bought a can of the only chain oil they had (this product). It's not specifically aimed at bicycles but judging by the many bicycle pictures on their webpage, it certainly can be used there.

My daughter didn't ride her bike on Monday, but on Tuesday we took it out again and I sprayed the chain thoroughly. Indeed, the bicycle became whisper quiet. Nice.

Then today (Wednesday) we went somewhere a little different and visited a nearby patch of a forest. Dirt paths, hills, was fun. But soon after we got out my daughter again started to complain that it's gotten harder to pedal and the chain is making noise again. This time it wasn't squeaking but... I don't know the English word for it, but it's the sound that sand makes when it's between moving parts. "Gritting"? "Grating"? "Grinding"? Not sure. Anyways, yeah, the chain and gears do look like they've got some sand and dirt stuck to them which would explain it all.

Now... I don't know what to do. I could try applying more of the spray oil, but my intuition says that it won't help much, if not actively make things worse. Reading on this site reveals that people are using some sort of "degreasers" and giving their chains thorough cleaning with a toothbrush... Which seems like way too much hassle and overkill. As a kid I've spent years riding my bike through whatever and probably lubricated the chain twice in total, so this sounds like it shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps it will just dry off or get ground off in a few days and that will be that? Or maybe I've overlubricated the chain or used the wrong substance or something and now there is indeed trouble brewing?

Any advice on what to do?

Update:

What I ended up doing was a lot simpler and will probably earn me at least a few disappointed sighs from the experts here. I remembered that there's a gas station nearby where they have free access to running water for washing your windshield/bike/whatever. And I just poured some on the chain and gears and the noise stopped and the bicycle is running nicely now. I'm keeping an ear out to see if it starts squeaking again - if it does, I'll apply a bit of oil again and this time - wipe it off!

It was the right thing to use the lube for the chain.

I do not know the particular product but in general spray lubes have the tendency to become too plentiful on the outside of the chain. This film of lube will become sticky as the solvents in the spray are dissolved.

The grinding noise from the drive train may come from sand or grit sticking to the outside of the chain. The fix is to remove it. You do not have to use the more complicated methods meant for bikes where drive train efficiency and longevity are important.

If you have a degreaser or a light oil like WD-40 at hand it helps to soften the old lube. Otherwise use warm water with dish washing detergent. Spray the degreaser or light oil on the chain. A stick is often useful to scrape off old dirt and grease from sprockets and chain ring. Use an old brush or an old rag with the soapy water to clean off old lube (and detergents). That doesn't have to be super thorough. Rinse with clear water.

When you cleaned the chain this way, apply your 'Krown' spray lube again. Spin the gears or let your child ride a few rounds on your yard (not through dirt) to work the lube into the rollers. Then wipe off excess lube from the chain. Do this last part quickly after applying, while the spray on your chain is still fluid. After a while the light oils in it will disappear and only the sticky lube will remain.

We want the lube inside the chain, between rollers, not on the outside where it attracts dirt and grit.

shortcut:

If you are in a hurry, it might be enough to spray the chain again with the 'Krown' lube you have. It will soften the grease on the chain. Then wipe it all off with a dirty rag. Wipe also the sprocket and chain ring. Be careful not to pinch your fingers!

This quick-and-dirty method will get grit into the chain rollers, and reduce their life. But for the use you describe, that will not matter.


How to re-terminate frayed brake cables? I've bought and installed new cables for my bicycle, but I didn't have any cable-ends to crimp the ends. I've been riding for a few days now and just noticed that one of my cable ends has unwound itself due to movement or vibrations. Now I have a frayed set of wires sticking out of the end of my brake calipers.

Is there a good or proper way to reset these wires back to their original position so that I can crimp the end of the cable properly? Thanks

Seth's Bike Hacks channel on Youtube has a video that specifically addresses this problem:

A quote:

  When I showed the cable fray trick in another video, some of you thought I was playing it in reverse, but it’s true! You can unfray some cables by twisting them from the base and working your way back up. This works particularly well on cables that were recently frayed, and usually by clipping a little off the end and adding a new cap, you’re back up and running without needing to swap the whole thing.


How to deflate a tire properly? I need to flatten my bicycle tire. What is the safest and best way to do this?

What I mean by safest is: I want to reinflate it again afterward.

It's quite common to deflate a tube for some valid reason, like you want to change a worn out tyre or replace a spoke.

If your valve is a Schrader (a car style) then you remove the cap by twisting, then use a pokey object to depress the center pin in the valve to release the air slowly.  A nail, or the end of a house key, or a Phillips-head screwdriver are all effective pokey things.

If you want to completely deflate the tyre fast, you can use metal cap with special screwdriver to remove the valve from its case. If the valve is not tight, you can tighten it or replace it using this tool.

If your valve is a Presta (a French valve, more common on high pressure road bikes)  then it's easier.  Remove the cap by twisting, then back off the knurled nut, by twisting two or three turns.  No need to remove it completely.  Finally press the end of the pin with your bare finger.

If you have a Woods or Dunlop valve, then the valve core needs to be loosened, by twisting.  (Seems like there's a common twisting element here!)  The knurled nut holds the whole valve stem down, so back this one off til air comes out.  If you undo it completely, the valve core can fly out and be lost.  These are common on Japanese and German bikes, or old English bikes.

Regardless of the valve, escaping air makes a loud hissing noise.  Don't be startled.  The air coming out also smells rubbery and is prety cold - this is fine.

If you have airless tyres (foam filled ones), you cannot let the air out - they have to be cut off the rim generally.  These don't have a valve stem at all and are quite unusual.


Feasibility of keeping an Electrical Bike in poor (wet) storage conditions I'm looking to buy an ebike for my partner, and have been researching how best to store them to protect them from the weather.

We live in a south-facing house in a New Zealand city notorious for its southerly storms and icy horizontal rain. There is no shelter at all on the outside of the house, and there's very little space to store a bike on the inside. The current (pedal) bikes we have are both stored outside.

The advice I see online for storing ebikes seems to be some combination of old, somewhat contradictory (geared towards different levels on the hobbyist - true-believer-enthusiast scale) and geared towards places with deep freezing winters, which we don't have here.

My question is twofold:

Are there makes of Electrical Bike out there that can stand up to being out in the elements for extended periods of time?

If not, how much rain abuse can a typical ebike get away with before it starts to get damaged?

It would depend on the bike itself.
The electronics on a high end e-mountain bike are pretty much waterproof, and the bike itself is susceptible to the same issues as any bike from rain etc.

Regardless, any bike will have its life and service intervals shorten by being left in the rain.

I'd suggest a small shed to store the bike in or at least covering it with a tarp would help a lot.

but ultimately no, e-bikes cant be left in the weather with no adverse affects like you could with a car.


Fixie Vs Urban bike for small-distance commuting My daily commute is a 1.7km long, almost straight line with minimal slope. Since I have no other method of private transportation, I am thinking of getting a bike and have come up with two interesting candidates:

A fixie (for the fun of it)
A purely urban bike

Some of the things that affect my decision:

I have not riden a bike in about 8 years (since my teens)
Every day I will be caring a laptop case with me
The super market is pretty far for hauling the week's groceries by foot, so the bike should be useful there as well. If not, then I will be thinking for something like this: Good backpack for carrying groceries
The temperatures around here, year-long range from -4° to 36° Celsius (averages 13°-22°)
I don't know much about bike maintenance but I have some experience with maintaining other mechanical stuff (car, motorbike) and since my dad is a mechanic, I think I can get it going with a manual or something
I don't want my budget for the bike to go above 400 euros

For practical day to day commuting I would stay away from a fixie because:

You are not a very experienced cyclist, riding a fixie in traffic is actually not that easy.
No fenders, so dirty clothes/mud in the face on rainy days.
No rear-rack, so for luggage you are forced to use a backpack.

I also wouldn't go for the type of urban bike you link because:

You will have a very straigth posture on the bike. This makes quick steering more difficult even though it might be a matter of life or death in traffic.
The straight-up posture with your pedals almost directly in line with your torso is not very comfortable when you have to put some effort into your cycling.
The small wheels make this type of bike unnecessarily unstable.
A luggage rack on the handlebars leads to unpleasant/unresponsive handling.
It looks dorky (but that is just my opinion)).

I would find a nice secondhand bike that looks like the fixie you link but has fenders, a rear-rack and proper brakes.


Are there any reasons why you would avoid going disc (other than cost) for racing cyclo cross? Why (if you had the choice) would you stay with cantilever brakes and forgo the opportunity to change to a disc set up for racing cyclo cross?

One good reason to stick with cantilever is easier wheel swaps. Last weekend races, my son flatted and we did not put spare wheels in the pits. Neutral support had spare wheels and if my son had a disc based bike he would not of been able to use them. Even if neutral support had disc wheels, with differences in rotor size they may not work for your bike.

Full Disclosure: my next CX will be disc based, I've been through too many rims with brake surface getting dished from grit and grime.


To buy this damaged carbon bike or not? I'm looking to get an MTB and have been looking for this particular one for quite a while but stock is hard to get hold of.  I managed to find one in a store but the bike is damaged unfortuntely and the store is offering it with a discount of 10% because of that.  The damage doesn't bother me too much but I don't know much about carbon fibre bikes and it seems like it is pretty deep so wanted to understand if this will cause me long term issues, I'll probably have this bike for the next 10 years.
Should I buy it or is this kind of damage not worth it / going to cause me issues later on?

Close up:

I would not. You are paying for the frame. The SX Eagle RD has quite a few reports of failure, and it's bad quality overall. There's nothing special about the brakes (bog-standard entry-level), or the fork (Judy Silver TK, 30mm steel stanchions & basic Turnkey damper).
A carbon frame will provide more responsiveness on trails than alloy, but on-road this is no better - you'd be better off buying two bikes if, as per your previous questions, you'll be riding on road a lot as well. The weight saving here is nothing compared to the heavy tyres and upright position which will slow you down on asphalt.
And if you want a pure off-road machine then full-suspension alloy frame would be better.
If you are buying a bike with the advantage over alloy that it's 'more confidence-inspiring', then it doesn't make sense to buy one where you are concerned about frame damage before purchase.....
As far as this bike goes the frame seems to be the ONLY feature out of the ordinary, where the brakes are merely 'good enough', the fork 'entry-level', and the groupset 'cheap and nasty'.


Can I use Shimano 8 speed rear deraileur (Claris) with 6 speed SIS downtube shifter (for a 6 speed freewheel)? So currently I have Shimano SIS downtube shifter (6 speed) with indexing, a 6 speed freewheel, and Tourney TX for the rear deraileur, they index properly.

If I want to swap the RD with Shimano Claris, will it still index properly?

Why? because I'm planning to upgrade the wheelset and shifter in the future to end up with full Claris, but I want to do it incrementally.

Proper indexing of the derailleur cage relies on two things:

Length of cable pulled per click of the shifter.
Derailleur actuation ratio (how many mm the derailleur cage moves per mm of cable pull).

If the derailleur is swapped for another with the same actuation ratio the indexing will be unchanged.

Shimano used an actuation ratio of 1.7 from 6 speed to 9 speed mountain and 10 speed road. (Source: Arts Cyclery Blog - Drivetrain Compatibility).

So yes, the 8 speed Claris derailleur should work with the 6 speed shifter and 6 speed freewheel.


Crankset removal, Shimano FC-M361 I'm trying to save an old Trek and need to remove the bottom bracket.

The crankset says FC-M361 but when I google that it says that's a square taper bottom bracket. This surely doesn't looks like a square taper. How do I remove it and what's it called?

Update

I just realised that my crank removal tool cant do this type of square taper. I have been using this for 10+ years on many bikes and it has always worked.

Update 2

It is an octalink. My neighbour had a tool and removal was straight away.

Thanks!

I think what is confusing you is that the square hole cannot be seen in the crank with the retaining bolt removed. It seems this model of crank has a circular flange at the outboard end of the square hole for the bolt head to bear on.

Regardless of what the axle-crank interface is, the cranks are removed with a  crank puller tool that threads into the retaining bolt hole in the axle and the larger threads in the crank, and pulls the two apart.

DO NOT attempt to get the cranks off any other way, you will damage the square taper interface in the alloy crank arm. (Someone asked a question here once who had levered his cranks off with a crowbar, and totally trashed them.)

You also need a special tool to remove the cartridge bottom bracket. There a ton of help available on the web. Personally I think Park Tool's pages and youtube videos are the most detailed and comprehensive.

Removing 3-piece cranks

Removing cartridge BB


Spots on bike bar tape after wet ride I recently went on a ride which partly involved a light rain and after that I noticed that among other things there were a lot of mud colored spots on my bar tape. I presumed it was grit and mud stuck onto the tape (it looks almost painted on though, very little if any 3d shape to them), and tried to pry them out with a needed, but it felt like all i did was tear a bit of foam. Does anyone know what this is? Would this come off with some soap?

I cant be 100% sure it wasnt there before, but the bar tape was recently replaced by the prev owner.

It's almost certainly cork that is used in the bar tape for its vibration damping and sweat absorbing properties.

It's clearly visible in this promotional image for Cinelli tape:


Building up a 1988 Schwinn Circuit frame with new parts I’m very new to vintage road bikes, I’ve had an 1988 Schwinn Circuit frame laying around for years. Is it possible to build it up using newer components?

I understand that it originally came with an 7 speed Sante’ group. I’d like to build it with an 9 or 10 speed group if possible. I’ve heard that you may have to widen the rear to 130mm?

It's certainly possible to build late 80s frames up with modern components. The two biggest issues you may run into are the rear dropout spacing and wheel size.

Older bikes with fewer rear gears had narrower rear dropout spacing than modern ones designed for 10 and 11 speed drive trains. A frame designed for a 7 speed drivetrain very likely has a 126mm rear. These can easily be widened to 130mm. Detailed instructions can easily be found RJ the Bike Guy has a good instruction video on his YouTube Channel.

Older road bikes were designed around '27 inch' wheels with 630mm diameter rims. Modern bikes are designed around '700c' wheels with 622 diameter rims. I'm not sure what wheel size 80s bikes used. Tf your frame is designed for 27" wheels, new wheels and tires are available, but if you want to switch to 700c for a vastly wider array of choices you have to fit long reach brake calipers as obviously the brake mounting holes are 4mm further from the axle axis.


Ideal % jump between gears? I am wondering if people prefer equally spaced gears (such as 20% per gear change) or if (like on motorcycles), the lower gears are spread out more and the upper gears are "tighter" (more closely spaced as far as ratios).  From my limited bicycle riding experience, other than the super low granny gear ratio, I like to have the lower gears spread out so the shifts are not instantaneous, and have the higher gears closer so for example, if you are chugging along at a good pace and encounter a slight headwind, you may not want to downshift and get about 20% more cadence.  Perhaps 10% will suffice.  Motorcycles generally have a spread of about 2.5 (street bikes) and some dual sport bikes are as wide as 3.  For bicycles, since we have very limited input power (generally about a few hundred watts max), it seems we need many more gears and much closer spaced to harness that little bit of power.

Ideal differences are generally thought of to be around 15%.  Changes in excess of 20% make it difficult to select a proper gear for spinning based on varied conditions.  Changes of less than 10% are so slight that they will almost unnoticeable to most unskilled riders and even some skilled riders.

You make an assumptions about the purpose of gearing on a bicycle that is incorrect.  Gearing is present to provide the proper gear to maintain a near constant and comfortable for the rider cadence in a variety of changing conditions.  They are not simply there to provide a shifting mechanism until the bike "gets up to speed".  A combustion engine has a power range that is most efficient at a certain RPM, but there is no comfort level involved.  It will produce any amount of power in it's range given the proper amount of gas. The human body does not work in the same manner.  There is a very defined range that riders are comfortable producing power in.  Generally producing power above that range causes drastic losses overall and can only be maintained for so long.  You miss the point that lower gears also need to be closely spaced to maintain that output in conditions that greatly slow a bicycle (hills, wind, etc).


Hub bearing preload approaches I am the owner of a bike with a DT Swiss RWS thru-bolt (kinda like a thru-axle but it fits in regular 9/10mm dropouts) skewer system. I saw in their marketing fluff that one of the supposed advantages was that you could put way more tension into the axle than you could using a QR skewer. Leaving aside any discussion of whether it's an advantage at all (indeed some users report that it's actually quite easy to strip the alloy threads on the skewer if you overtorque it). I was curious how this would affect hub bearing preload.
With most of the other wheelsets I own, skewer tension directly contributes to bearing preload and anyone familiar with the correct way to adjust classic cup-and-cone bearings will know that it's important to check the bearing clearance with the skewer/axle bolt tightened, if not it's easy to put too much preload onto the bearings.
Looking on the DT Swiss website, their approach to preload seems to be different. The inner bearing race fits flush to shoulders on the axle on both ends of the axles and the shoulders on the hub shell for the outer race are spaced slightly narrower. This means that the outer race of one bearing sits flush against the shoulder on the hub shell but the other outer race floats slightly off the shoulder on the other side of the hub shell and is kept in place with an interference fit within the hub. Through some physics that I can't quite picture, this means that before the wheel is put into the frame the inner axle exerts outwards force on the inner races, preloading the bearings. When you put the wheel in the frame and tighten the skewer, the inner races (and axle) get compressed, the preload is reduced to the correct amount (that is apparently independent of the skewer tension) and you're good to go.
I guess my question is why do they do it like this and is it actually any better for ensuring correct bearing preload vs. traditional systems?

There's a couple points being covered here.
Classical cup and cone hubs use standard axles (M9, M10, 3/8" etc) that flex under compression from the QR. The cones are getting a little closer to one another.
Once you get into hubs that don't use standard QR axles, most of them are much stiffer and have little or none of the same effect. Almost all higher end hubs from recent years are like this. Even Shimano, who still uses cup and cone, use nonstandard axles on most of their nicer hubs and have for a long time now. You can adjust those to have some play and test how the bearing responds in the bike. Most of the time you won't be able to make the play go away or even change appreciably with force from a quick release, meaning you should adjust it to have no play off the bike.
Your second question is one of those topics that bike people might say whatever about but is more properly the domain of bearing engineers, but I'll try. Hub designs that aren't like you describe are then by necessity trying to play the game of having the shoulder to shoulder distance on the axle be exactly the same distance as the bore to bore distance on the shell. If they fail at this by too much you get excess preload. A lot of hub designs do work this way, but not all. Some designs eschew this by allowing the outer race on or both bearings to not actually be bottomed in the bore. BMX three-piece crank cartridge BB bearings for American shells are a poster child for this, although a lot of people don't realize it. Those shells are made with zero uniformity or precision of the exact face to face dimension, yet the BB kits come with a tubular spacer that's machined to be a certain length. The trick they are playing is that when you press it all together, one or both bearings unseat themselves in their cup. It works by the cartridges being overbuilt enough to handle being loaded this way without premature wear.


What type of Hayes hydraulic brake is this? I am having trouble finding out which brake set from Hayes this is. I think they are from around 2003 or so. The brake levers were spray painted and I can't see anything about them anywhere. I'm trying to buy brake pads and a bleed kit for them, so if you have any bleed kit recommendations let me know!

Looks like you have a set of Hayes HFX Max G1, you can use these pads. Surprisingly, a lot of other people experience the same issue as you.


single speed mtb chain slipping hey i am new here and i was just wondering if anyone can help me out with the problem of my chain keeps slipping when i pedal a little bit hard. I took my bike to lbs and they said that my chain was fine and the sprockets were near new if any one can help me out that would be much appreciated.front sprocket

[

That chain is sitting quite well on the front ring, almost perfectly, as far as can be discerned in the photo. In particularly, it doesn't appear to be elongated at all, which is usually the telltale sign of chain wear. When a chain is elongated, you can easily tell on the front ring, because it has so many teeth that the cumulative error of the elongated links causes it not to sit properly all the way around the ring.

I'm guessing you (or a previous owner) replaced the chain, possibly more than once, but didn't swap the rear cog at the same time.

That's a mistake.

Chains elongate as they wear, and at the same time, they wear the cog, and are worn by the cog. A chain which wore together with the cog might not skip, yet if you change to a new chain, that chain will skip on that old cog.

I've never been able to change a chain alone, without skipping cogs. (That is, the few times that I tried, before I stopped doing that).

Do check the tension! But note that chains don't have that much tension in derailleur systems (just that tension provided by the tension wheel) yet they don't skip, when in the proper condition. Basically there has to be ridiculously low tension. It's hard to tell from your picture, but it does look as if the chain is coming from the ring in a fairly straight line, no sag. Anyway, when you're pedaling hard, there is tension in the top section of the chain, between the ring teeth and the cog. Under this tension, they stay engaged even if the returning-to-ring section of the chain is sagging. If you don't believe me, think about this: when you remove a cassette from a hub on a derailleur system, you open a lock ring, for which you require a chain whip to hold the hub steady. That chain whip is just a piece of chain connected to a lever, loosely wrapped one of the cogs in the cassette: no tension in it at all, other than the applied tension. Nothing pulls on the unattached end of the chain to keep it wrapped around the cog! Yet, it grips tenaciously, enough to remove a stubborn lock ring. I've never had a chain whip skip, even when ridiculous force was needed (enough to break a spoke).

Get a new cog!


Straight 1⅛" steering tube is not actually straight? I have a bike (~2016 year of manufacturing) with a fork which has what is called a straight 1⅛" steering tube, used with threadless headsets.
I have always thought that, compared to tapered 1⅛ – 1½ steerers, the straight meant the same diameter all the way down from the top. A strictly cylindrical piece of tube that is.
However, at the latest overhaul I measured the diameters of the steering tube at different positions. Closer to the top of the tube it was 28.6 mm or 1⅛ inch as expected. However, at the crown race it was 30 mm.
Studying the documentation to the bicycle confirmed my measurements, as the lower headset cup was listed as EC 44/30, which means 30 mm internal diameter of the bearing to match the steerer. The fork is still called as "straight steerer" by the vendor.
The fact is, my "straight 1⅛ fork" is slightly but still tapered at the crown. This poses a few questions in terms of (in)compatibility.
Are all straight 1⅛" steerer forks actually tapered to be 30 mm at the bottom? Are/were there forks with truly cylindrical tube with 28.6 mm all the way down?

Yes this is totally normal. The crown race is fitted to the base of the fork steerer with an interference fit. If the steerer didn't have a slight lip at the base, the interference fit would be all the way down the tube!
The reason it is called a straight steerer is because it has the same size bearings top and bottom. Tapered meanwhile means having larger bearings (like 1.5") at the crown race than at the top race. Much more noticeable.
I don't think the diameter of the crown race seat is totally universal, I've had to file one down before at least. So that is a good example of where the EC 44/30 SHIS code you notice is so useful in getting this kind of thing right.


Why is track cycling done counter-clockwise? As far as I have seen, track cycling is only done anti-clockwise/counter-clockwise/with only left turns, yet looking through what I can find (in a non exhaustive search) I cannot find any mention of this in the rules and regulations, is there a rule or regulations stating that track cycling must be anticlockwise or is it just convention? Or have I missed some clockwise track riding anywhere?

For clarification, by track cycling I am referring to riding round a velodrome

The UK National Cycling Centre FAQ (PDF) says:

Why do the riders go anti clockwise?
The Chariots in Roman times raced this way round, and athletic races and most other sports have followed in the same direction.

The Straight Dope says:

How do these things get started? I've gotten several letters asking why races are "always" counterclockwise, and I notice my fellow toiler, Omni magazine game czar Scot Morris, has written a lengthy treatise on the subject. Scot came up with the following list of counterclockwise phenomena: the Indianapolis 500 and other auto races, track and field events, Roller Derby, indoor bicycle races, horse races, speed skating, merry-go-rounds and other carnival rides, revolving doors, the chariot race in Ben-Hur, the customary flow of people around an ice-skating rink, the usual direction in which people spin Hula Hoops, the base runners in baseball, cable-operated model airplanes, and tornadoes and hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere. ...
On the theory that there might be some dark link to our primeval past, Morris asked several distinguished anthropologists, but no luck. He morosely concludes, "the bias toward moving our whole bodies in counterclockwise cycles undoubtedly can be traced back to the right-handedness of our species and of every human society yet discovered, but how the one led to the other is unclear."

I didn't find it in the general UCI track rules, but it's in the track rules (PDF) of the UCI's World Cycling Centre in Aigle, Switzerland:

All riders must ride in an anticlockwise direction.


Quarq Dfour Fit Problem I recently buy my first Quarq Dfour power meter to replace my crank Shimano Ultegra 6800. but I have the problem that the quarq spindle its too short ( 106 mm quarq vs 109 mm shimano ultra ). I don't know if I buy the correct quarq ( GXP or BB30 ) and I don't know if I need change my bottom bracket ( actually I use Kogel Press Fit BB30 to 24 ceramic.)

I want use the quarq but I don't know how fix this issue.

Do I need change my actual bottom bracket to another ? ... que quarq dfour its correct for my frame ? ( my bike is a Felt IA2 2016 ) ...

@Victor this can be made to work.

The new crank has a GXP interface spindle, you can notice that by a notch before NDS arm splines start, which serves as a stops against inner bearing race, and the fact that splines are on non-drive side (SRAM BB30 splines are on drive-side). Since GXP is a Truvativ/SRAM variation on 24mm spindle, it should fit everywhere Shimano 24mm Hollowtech II fits. The spindle length is no problem, BB30 bottom bracket shells are the narrowest (68mm, FC-6800 is designed around 86mm bearings stance), so with the right bottom bracket you could install almost any crank, so all you need is a BB30 to GXP bottom bracket.


Changing Scott Scale 960 2019/2020 rear hub to thru-axle? I'm interested to buy Scott Scale 960, but I would like to change rear hub from QR to 10 or 12mm thru-axle. Is it possible with or without changing rear hub? What kind of hub would it fit in case it would be needed to change?

You're unlikely to get hubs that convert from QR to thru-axle as part of a complete factory bike, though a good number of after market hubs are available which can be swapped between the different standards using end caps. I say unlikely but it's not impossible, the best thing would be to contact Scott directly or your local dealer with the enquiry.

The problem you have though, is that the frame is designed around a QR axle. It has vertical dropouts, spaced 141 mm apart (boost QR) and no threads for a thru axle. Thru axles just don't fit in the same frames, so you can't fit a thru axle hub in the bike anyway.

Unless... it has been designed with this swap in mind, as Fred(tMWD) has commented previous models have featured. I'm inferring that Fred's was a premium model though.  Screenshot below of the current design of 960, looking to me like a traditional qr hanger design. In particular, the aluminium frame is inboard of the hanger, leading to a fixed geometry (O.L.D.), making me think this frame is designed with boost QR in mind only.

So again, unlikely on the frame being dual-compatible, but not for me to say impossible. An email to Scott could confirm.

Further reading on hubs: https://www.halowheels.com/frame-spacing-hub-o-l-d-information/


Convert Cannondale CAAD9 to a hybrid style...? Can a road bike be "converted" to a hybrid/more upright bike? Flat bars and the shifters/brakes should be simple enough, but will the shifters adapt to my Ultegra set?

Yes, there are no issues with doing this beyond economy and ensuring you use the right controls. You must use flatbar road shifters that match the actuation ratios and gear numbers the rest of your drivetrain needs, but Shimano, SRAM, and Campy have made them for all their mechanical systems for a long time now. (For the electronic groups, EPS has no options, with eTap you can do it with Blips, and with di2 you can just mix and match mountain and road.)

The full conversation of what compatibility differences exist between flatbar road and other flatbar controls across all group and speed generations has become fairly convoluted. Importantly, front derailer actuation ratios have always been different between road and mountain for both Shimano and SRAM. Pre-ten-speed Shimano mountain rear derailers and right shifters use the same actuation ratio that Shimano road has always used (except for 8-speed Dura Ace), but Shimano mountain split off into its own compatibilities completely starting with ten speed.

For the brake levers, you have to get ones that match the cable pull your brakes want. For caliper brakes that means no linear pull (V-brake) levers, and if the brake uses Shimano's Super SLR pull ratio then the new lever should too (the simple clue here if the bike was stock is whether the old STI had under-tape shift cable routing).


9 speed derailleur on 7 speed cassette? I currently have a 7 speed cassette, 7 speed derailleur and 7 speed shifter from Shimano. Unfortunately, my rear derailleur (Shimano Tourney) broke, so I want to replace it with something better. The problem I'm facing though is that I'm finding only 9 speed derailleurs that fit what I'm looking for and where I don't have to pay stupidly high shipping fees (I was looking at the Shimano Alivio line).

That's why I'm wondering if a 9 speed derailleur works with a 7 speed cassette and shifter. Would it work with the chain I have right now or does a derailleur only work with chains rated for the same amount of gears?

Yes, all 9-speed Shimano rear derailers share the same actuation ratio as all Shimano 7-speed ones,  except for pre-7700 Dura Ace.

I've never seen a 7-speed chain rub inside a 9-speed RD cage. If somehow that were an issue, an 8-speed chain would work fine.


Hydraulic brake bleed fail - try again or replace? I bled and completely replaced the fluid on a set of Tektro Orion hydraulic brakes, using Shimano mineral oil.  Before bleeding, one worked a little bit, and the other didn't at all.  In my impression, these are shit brakes.
Problems while bleeding:

The fluid was dripping everywhere- when I loosened the bleed nipple to fill the brakes, the bleed nipple gasket was either locked on, or so loose that the fluid would just drain out of the threads while trying to fill it.
The lever bleed port is on the side (makes for difficult syringe tube angle) and, despite being screwed in all the way, was also very leaky.
I did not have Tektro bleed blocks.  I used the bleed blocks I had, which seemed perfectly fine.
I was thoroughly unhappy with how poorly the syringe hose attached to the bleed nipple.  I'm using the proper kit, but it would barely stay on- I had to hold the hose in place on the bleed nipple the whole time

Despite these issues, I was able to bleed the lines and top them up.  Upon securing the bleed nipple and caliper bleed bolt back into place, everything seemed fine.  After riding for ~100 meters, they were useless.
Repeated 3x, same result.
Questions and concerns:

Used shimano fluid instead of Tektro, but that shouldn't matter.
Can I remove the bleed nipple and screw in an adapter instead?  I would need to order one to do this.
Should I try to get new bleed nipples and caliper bleed screws?
My suspicion is that the gaskets are shot and I should replace them.  Is it worth the effort?

I'm a mechanic- but three senior mechanics told me to trash these brakes and replace them with a better model.  I agree with this advice, but the owner of the bike doesn't agree.  On the one hand, I don't want to waste my time on shit brakes.  On the other, I am stubborn and like to get things to work.  What would you do?  I'm feeling a bit hopeless about trying to bleed them again- I'm curious if I am missing some trick or technique to deal with really finicky bleeds.
Update:
There is excess lever travel - the pads just don't clamp on the rotors.  The pads are fine and don't need to be replaced.
I'm using a BBB mineral oil bleed kit.  I've ordered a better shimano and jagwire one.

I'm only going to answer an aspect of your question; you can apply it to your brake how you wish.
Firstly, Certain Tekro models are fiddly to bleed but also feel like they need bleeding if the pads are worn down, so if you haven't put new pads in, I suggest you do that first.
When something like this comes into a commercial workshop and this amount of time has effectively been wasted, there's a strong argument for replacing the brake, giving better value for the customer and putting the mechanic's time back into another job that pays the bills.
When you are in another scenario where conservation of materials is important and you are time rich, you can play with bleeding this as long as you like, though you may already have learned all you need to know.
Meanwhile, SRAM Level, Shimano's entry-level hydro brakes and even new Tektro brakes are easy to set up, easier to bleed and don't cost very much, especially when compared to a workshop hourly rate.