The following questions and answers have been collected from the pages of the CTC magazine. The most recently published are at the top of the list. Note the year and month and be advised that some of the older information may now be out of date.

How about a courtesy bike? – 2005.X

My Dawes Streetlife Hybrid bike was bought new in 1998 with a lifetime warranty on frame and forks. At the end of last year the frame cracked on the rear chainstay. I returned it to the dealer who stripped the frame down and returned it to Dawes for repair. Some months later I received a phone call from Dawes to say that they had lost the frame! They have now sent a new one to the dealer who is supposed to be fitting the parts from the old frame. Nearly 4 months later and I still have not had the bike back!

What makes this even worse for me is that I had problems with another Dawes bike which ended up in a claim for compensation from them back in 2003. It is little wonder that I have lost confidence in both Dawes and the cycle dealer and will be claiming against Dawes for the cost of stripping and re-building by the dealer. A cautionary tale for anyone considering doing likewise in the future.

John Wickens – Goring-by-Sea, W Sussex

I've had letters indicating that sort of delay in performing warranty work can occur with bikes of any make, so it's a bit unfair to pick on Dawes. Only Dawes give a lifetime frame guarantee. So rather than just a few years, after which you have no option but to buy a whole new bike – which will cost a lot more, but is available straightaway – Dawes give you a lifetime of opportunities to wait for a free replacement.

Worst are those cases where someone relies on that bike for transport. The bike trade takes its time with the warranty whilst their customer shells out big-time on bus fares. If it was a car of course … Perhaps one should demand a courtesy bike? I'll warrant that would hurry things along!

Chris Juden

Disposable bike – 2005.11

After having bought a Specialized Allez Comp I noticed a warning notice on the inside of the fork. On visiting their website as indicated, I discovered that it was recommended that the forks, handlebars, & seat post be replaced after 3 years (quite an expense). Intrigued as to why, I contacted the shop from which I bought it and rang several dealers countrywide, only to be told that it was because they were carbon. Eventually I managed to contact somebody at Specialized UK by phone who told me that it was a competition machine, and that over 3 seasons of hard use these components, which are liable to several adjustments within that period, should be changed, but that I should not worry about it. As far as I can ascertain other manufacturer's models with similar specifications (e.g. Giant) do not carry this warning. Could you please throw some light on this apparent paradox.

C Clegg – New Milton, Hants

Nobody really knows how long carbon-fibre can be expected to last. It's a new material, relatively untried in bicycle terms. Current designs are probably fine, prototypes will certainly have tested okay or else they wouldn't be on the market; however you never can be certain until a product gets into mass production (always different to making a prototype) and until the general public has used it for a while in their many and varied ways. It looks like Specialized are getting their excuses in early! Telephoned instructions not to worry are worthless. If you don't like the small print, don't buy the product.

And don’t believe that guff about competition. Racers may pull a bit more on the handlebars, but any other sort of riding is just as hard on the forks and seatpost: probably harder, since the forces experienced by these components arise mainly from weight of rider combined with length and roughness of road. Some tourists ride much further in a season than racers, probably on rougher roads, and those who don't may be heavier!

It is apparent that much of the progress toward higher performance bicycles during the past decade has been at the expense of durability. Enjoy it while you can. The price of energy and manufactured goods seems set to rise, promoting a different kind of progress toward longer lasting products.

Chris Juden

’Bent no better – 2005.01

For some time I’ve considered going recumbent, with a view to reducing journey time and increasing comfort on my daily commute. After some deliberation and a test run last Easter, I purchased a custom built tadpole trike, which finally arrived last June. Unfortunately it does neither.

On my road bike with Zzipper fairing I was covering my hilly ten mile commute in about 35 minutes to work and 25 back. On the recumbent it took around five to ten minutes longer each way. There was no question that speeds were slightly higher on the flat, but downhills were no faster (the trike weaved uncontrollably as cadence increased, which would have been less of a problem if they'd fitted the 54 tooth chain ring I specified rather than the standard 48) and I was losing out on the climbs. The response to this from the builders was that I need to allow my quads to develop. Since I've always stayed in the saddle for the climbs my quads are already pretty good. Their final response to my disappointment on the speed issue was: “The ride to work isn't a race, just lie back and enjoy it”. In my initial discussions with them I had specifically asked about road speed and was advised that for same effort and terrain, I could expect around a 5 to 10% improvement.

As for lying back and enjoying it: the carbon fibre seat is “one size fits all” and sadly doesn't. I started to experience numbness in my feet and legs, accompanied by discomfort around the sacral area of my lower back. The manufacturer's response was to buy an inflatable cushion. Personally I don't think this was a satisfactory solution given the cost of the trike (£2700 with mudguards, rack and rear view mirror) and the fact that it is supposed to be customised to the rider. I nevertheless tried the cushion and different seat angles – to no avail. After a week it took only a couple of miles for this short seat to produce excruciating pain in my long back.

After a protracted disagreement with the manufacturer, involving my credit card company and trading standards, they have finally bought back my trike: although this has cost me over £1000 plus a great deal of stress and aggravation.

I'm not saying don't buy a recumbent, they're certainly great fun to ride, but try and hire or borrow one first. Don't rely on a single short test ride.

I'd also be very wary in future of buying something where payment is required in full eight weeks before delivery.

Tim Hogan – Welwyn Garden City

Training wheels – 2004.09

I am keen to get my two and a half year old nephew onto two wheels as soon as possible. I have seen some fantastic bikes for kids for less than £100, like the Ridgeback MX16, which I expect he will be able to ride eventually. The question is, should he get one of these with stabilisers, or does he need something else to learn on? I have been recommended the Like-a-Bike (wooden bike with no pedals) but it seems like an expensive replacement for a set of stabilisers?

Danny Attias – Uxbridge

Whatever you get, it doesn’t want either stabilisers or pedals. It’s best to learn the balance and steering first and the earlier the better. Stabilisers merely delay the acquisition of these skills. That’s the advantage of Like-a-Bike: with neither stabilisers nor pedals to get in the way, kids can happily scoot about just like our ancestors on their velocipedes – it’s evolution on wheels! The wooden construction is also reasonably furniture friendly for indoor as well as outdoor use

You can nevertheless get the same result by removing the pedals (and stabilisers) and putting the saddle down on any small-enough bike. When balance, steering and braking are proficient, add the pedals and eventually raise the saddle – a bit at a time.

Finally junior needs to learn how to start and dismount by standing on a 6 o’clock pedal and coming off the saddle. The bottom-brackets are so high on modern kids bikes (so they don’t bend pedals on kerbs) that to get a proper pedalling action the saddle also has to be high. Generally it has to be too high for the rider to put both feet flat on the floor – only one pointed toe.

Chris Juden

Lightning strike – 2004.09

Summer thunderstorms are about to hit us, so I think it's timely to raise again the question of what to do when you're in open country and exposed to a thunderstorm. It’s one of those subjects that can be quite entertaining to contemplate, until you find yourself on top of a bare hillside astride 30lbs of steel. So what is the latest survival advice? Tips which I've picked up over the years are: 1. Lean the bike against the tallest tree, withdraw a safe distance, and watch the bike get it. 2. Keep riding; bikes enjoy the same immunity as cars thanks to the insulation from the tyres. 3. Keep riding, because if you name's on the next bolt of lightning there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Can the CTC add any more?

Ed Keeling – Llantwit Major, S Glamorgan

It’s rare to be struck by lighting on a bike simply because there are usually plenty more things around that lightning literally finds more attractive. If a storm is approaching and you are one of the highest things around however, it may well be best – as you say – to keep riding, provided that riding will quickly get you down into a valley or some other form of shelter. Best is a large building or a stand of trees. But don’t get near the tallest trees – they may be struck and explode when lightning boils the sap. To avoid flying splinters, seek shelter amongst the lower trees in any group! Also avoid small, isolated buildings.

It’s a myth that rubber tyres protect from lightning. A car protects its occupants by the metal roof and bodywork conducting electricity around them – it easily jumps the tyres.

If caught in the open without a downhill escape route, certainly if you feel your skin tingling or hair standing on end: abandon the bike and crouch down well away from it or any other likely conductors (e.g. isolated trees) with your feet together and hands on your knees. Choose a patch of relatively insulating ground comprising rock and gravel, keeping away from streams, ponds and bogs.

Chris Juden

Bike sizes – 2004.05

When you review a bike, would it be possible to put the available frame sizes in the technical data bit? For those who find it difficult to find bikes big enough, it would be nice to know the range of sizes available. This is more important than chain ring sizes etc, which can always be changed, the frame size is more fixed!

Trevor Cox – Salford

That’s a good point, I’ll make it part of the brief in future. For your information the Hewitt Cheviot reviewed last issue comes in these sizes, designed to fit the following approximate people sizes (all dimensions in centimetres):

Size	Rider Height	Inside Leg
S (49)	up to 160	up to 71
M (54)	160 – 173	69 – 76
L (59)	173 – 185	74 – 84
XL (62)	185+	83+

Chris Juden

Heinzmann’s helping hand – 2004.03

An elderly lady I know has recently moved to my area (Wincanton) from Birmingham. She used to get around in Birmingham on her Pashley trike, but Wincanton is very much hillier and she was wondering if it would be possible to add an electric motor to her trike. Do you know of any such product?

Hugh Stokes – Templecombe, Somerset

The best thing for assisting an existing bicycle or tricycle is the Heinzmann hub-motor. Everyone to whom I’ve recommended it seems to find it does the job well. And one place that can definitely supply it by mail (there may be others closer to you that I don’t know about) is Kinetics in Glasgow. Follow this link: http://www.kinetics-online.co.uk/html/electric_bikes.html or phone 0141 942 2552.

Chris Juden

Shimmy – fridge magnets – 2004.01

Folowing the Q&A on shimmy in the last issue, readers suggest a couple of other things that may trigger this effect.

Bryan Colbourne of Bishops Tawton, Devon associates shimmy with chilly weather. One time he got so cold the bike simply shivered in unison! Another shimmy event (and another bike) involved all the classic factors: hard, narrow tyres (20mm), lightweight frame (notoriously flexible 531-Pro tubing), smooth road, high speed (30+ mph), plus a day too cold and a group too slow for Brian to get warmed up. Brian reckons the other factors have coincided before and since on this bike, without shimmy, which leaves a lack of damping from cold, tense muscles the likely culprit. It’s plausible that cold might have a similar effect to nervous tension.

Bill Byth of Banchory, Aberdeenshire reckons that a wireless computer magnet (that had to be mounted further from the hub) induced shimmy in both his lightweight road bikes. Quote: “My Vitus 'Magic' 997 road bike would start to shimmy between 38 and 43mph and my 7005 winter trainer with Alpino carbon forks would shimmy at 28 to 30mph with and without panniers. I tried both bikes with five different front wheels, all on different 23mm tyres, without curing the shimmy. At the suggestion of the guys in the Edinburgh Bicycle Cooperative in Aberdeen, I tried balancing the spoke magnet with a matching diametrically opposite one. Hey presto, no shimmy! I haven't fully recovered my descending nerve yet, but so far so good up to 48mph”. Having experienced lots of shimmy episodes during his experiments with wheels and tyres, Bill confirms the life-saving efficacy of pressing one leg against the top tube!

Both cases involve something which acts as the “final straw”: an extra factor that when added to bike that is already somewhat prone to shimmy, tips it over the edge. We’d all be safer if bike designers would steer a bit further from that edge to start with!

Chris Juden

Why drive on the right? – 2003.11

Over the years every manufacturer has tried to improve or modify some part of the bicycle for some reason or another. The only thing that has not changed in my lifetime is that the drivetrain (i.e. chainset, chain and sprockets) has always remained on the right hand side of the bike. Is there a reason for this? It can't have anything to do with which side of the road we ride on, as French and Italian bikes are the same as British. Does it stem from track racing i.e. anticlockwise circuits or is it something more sinister like using left hand threads opposite to how we normally have them?

Dave Coupland – Ilkeston, Derbyshire

It’s got to be one side or t’other and most early safety bicycles had their chain on the right so the rear sprocket would simply screw itself onto the hub with a standard right-hand thread. A simple means of attachment was important so you could easily change this wear-prone and gear-altering component. A few early bicycles nevertheless had the chain on the left and some had chains on both sides to provide two different gear ratios.

The left-hand threads on a bicycle, commonly the left pedal and right bottom-bracket cup, have nothing to do with the chain location; you’d need them just the same if it were on the other side. I’ll allow a couple of possible exceptions to that: the lockring for a fixed sprocket or the outer cone of a screw-on freewheel. If the chain were on the left these items would be right-threaded, but the sprocket or freewheel itself would instead be left-threaded: a zero-sum game in which it is generally better for the major component to employ the more straightforward means of attachment. So the chain is on the right – right?

Nothing simply screws onto a modern wheel. Rear sprockets are now attached in ways that could be made to work as well either way around. But ever since a few things became standardised to drive on the right it’s been impractical for anyone to change it and difficult to think of a convincing reason so to do – there's a limit to what even the mighty Shimano can get away with! The one good reason I can envisage would be the creation of a pilfer-proof machine for use in a free city-bike scheme such as they have in Copenhagen.

Chris Juden

Battery bikes and trikes – 2003.11

To Peter Spindler of Woking (letters A/M 2003): battery bikes – or trikes – are great if you don't want to go too far. I bought mine in 2001 and have enjoyed riding it ever since. And to J Harrison of Wigan: your son in law might not get excited about the idea, but has he thought about riding a tricycle?

A year after a motorcycle accident which left my balance compromised and right arm paralyzed, I had turned into a couch-potato until I was given a small tricycle from the Social Services. With the use of this trike I quickly worked off much of the flab and once again could travel much further than I could walk. In 1983 I bought a tricycle with 27" wheels and lots of gears, but I still had to dismount and pull it up steep hills with my left hand, experiencing some hairy moments on narrow lanes with blind bends and no footpath. Then I bought a tricycle from POWABYKE. All I needed to do was change the throttle to be operated by my left hand and attach indicators.

I do not know how far it can be ridden before the battery gives out as I tend to stay quite local, less than 40 miles. As for brakes it has a front calliper brake and the rear wheels are slowed by back pedalling. Try it they're fun!

Tony Lambelle – Houghton-le-Spring, Tyne & Wear

New technology – 2002.09

The trouble with Joe Beer’s assertion that new technology enhances your cycling (in “head to head” July 2002), is that he can only really say how it affects his cycling, which is not necessarily your cycling. Unfortunately Sam Tracy’s opposing arguments also lack a clear explanation of how developments intended to maximise performance of a sport cyclist, perform less well by the different criteria of a transport cyclist.

Joe’s “trickle down” process cannot be relied upon to deliver appropriate goods. It is no more than a happy coincidence that the new sport of racing mountain-bikes off-road, gave us a whole line of componentry that was also pretty good for loaded touring on-road. However: as this equipment becomes more finely tuned to the requirements of the sport, so it becomes less adaptable to other purposes.

Performance is nearly always bought at the cost of durability, easy maintenance and versatility. If you doubt that read these pages for the past decade. There’s a nice example below, where a manufacturer candidly states that one year’s use is as much as you can expect from a high performance component!

Whilst some developments do improve safety, others bring new dangers. Hook-edged rims for example, supposedly needed to retain higher performance tyres, conceal the thinning of the brake track below, so rims now fail explosively without warning. If we accept that everything is nowadays designed for a shorter life, it becomes more likely that some parts will fail whilst still in use. A failure in almost any part of a bicycle brings some risk of injury.

The rate at which “improvements” occur is also a problem. A nice bike used to be an investment, whereas now it can become a liability. Annual product changes render parts obsolete even faster than they wear out. In ten years 7-speed has cascaded from state of the art to bottom of the market. Those who cannot afford to upgrade suffer a drastic reduction in performance when their only choice is one low grade cassette that doesn’t provide the gears they need. (I guess that’s how consumerism encourages us to discard products before they fall apart and hurt us!)

Fewer sprockets mean wider, stronger chains, less dish and less risk of spoke breakage. This rot began a long time ago, when 32/40 spoking was replaced by 36 both ends (trickled down from racing). Since then, far too many cycling holidays have become a frantic tour of the local bike repairers. Some people cling to old technology not through poverty or miserliness, but because it is actually better. I have obsolete SunTour command shifters on my touring bike because with hands mostly on the lever hoods, they are more convenient than anything else. It’s a rare example of something designed specifically for our purpose. That wasn’t so uncommon in the past, which is one reason you find a lot of old stuff on the bikes of experienced CTC members. (Triple chainsets and cantilever brakes, by the way, originated more than 30 years ago with road touring bikes and worked just fine already.)

We’d like new technology a lot better if it were used to make things longer lasting and easier to maintain. For many CTC members cycling is partly about sustainability. The bicycle is a key item of benign technology: something that increases the sum of human happiness not only here and now but in the long-term. But since consumerism joined racing as the twin driving forces of the cycle trade, slightly outmoded bike equipment has joined the tons of other serviceable products pouring into landfill sites. The cyclist who makes their equipment last longer is indeed a better person.

Some of the past 50 year’s developments have been worthwhile, but not many in the last ten. Joe Beer asks if we would all be cycling without them. I don’t see why not. Fifty years ago almost everyone did!

Chris Juden

Unreliable toys – 2002.05

I have read with interest the recent articles in the club magazine about cycles being toys.

I ride a bicycle in place of my car which I sold 3 years ago. This means I go to work on it & shop etc. and never use it just for the sake of riding it. That is called sport. However the bicycle will always continue to be a toy until 'they' can produce tyres that are up to the job of town riding everyday.

On New Years day my bicycle had a flat front tyre when I went out to it. I was late visiting my family. Last week I was late for a meeting at work because I got a puncture en route. Last night I was late home because I got a puncture on the way. This one hurt. It was in a new Continental Top Touring tyre and tube that had done just 26 miles. A shard of glass cut through the tread and carcass and put a generous hole in the tube. After 26 miles the tube and perhaps the tyre are useless.

And so it goes on. Over the last 3 years and about 12,000 miles, having tried various tyres in different sizes, my entire travelling life is always uncertain. When will I get the next puncture? Actually I know: whenever I have somewhere time sensitive to go to!

Until tyre manufacturers realise that roads in built up areas are liberally sprinkled with glass, bicycles can never be taken seriously as an alternative form of everyday transport. They are simply too unreliable.

P.S. I've found the solution! No more problems! I've bought a car again!

M Griffiths – Maidstone

The most puncture proof modern tyres (amongst which I’d count the Conti TT2000, though the Schwhalbe Marathon XR is perhaps tougher still) are certainly more resistant than tyres of a few decades ago. Some further progress may be possible, however I think we are approaching the point where these measures produce such a rigid casing that one might as well use a solid foam tyre. Such tyres do exist. The Green Tyre Company (01642 223322) make them in Middlesbrough. Compared to pneumatics they give a harsh, slippery and sluggish ride, but for those who otherwise suffer desperate problems with punctures it may be worth sacrificing some comfort, safety and efficiency.

The problem lies not so much with manufacturers of tyres, but with a careless society that allows beverages to be sold in non-deposit bottles and gives deprived kids nothing better to do than smash them! The manufacturers of tyres have to cater for the needs of far larger numbers of commuter cyclists in more enlightened countries.

Desperate circumstances call for desperate measures, in which case adopt the old “inner tyre” trick described below. Rolling drag will be much worse of course, but you may save time overall, not mending so many punctures.

Chris Juden

Specialized be praised – 2002.03

I recently purchased a Specialized Sirrus hybrid from The Bike Factory in Chester. After a short time I experienced problems with the rear wheel. Spoke nipples were causing punctures and I discovered it was out of dish by 6mm. With help from The Bike Factory, Specialized offered me a complete set of replacement wheels worth £130.

The Bike Factory and Specialized have both been outstanding. How many other manufacturers would have made such a magnanimous offer?

Alan Mealing – Upton, Chester

Converting MTBs – 2001.07

I enjoyed reading about your family End to End ride in the March Cycle, particularly as some of you rode converted mountain-bikes. how converted were they?

My wife and I, both fifty plus, took up cycling a couple of years ago. After a few months on ex-hire mtbs we bought Marin Nail Trails – aluminium frame, front suspension, disc brakes etc. Last summer we went cycle-camping in Provence. All we did was bolt on a rear carrier then mount a pair of panniers and a handlebar each. I reckon we had about 35lb in the panniers, practically nothing in the barbags, and the only problem I had was the occasional feeling that my back wheel was becoming detached, but everything seemed normal. Might this have been the frame?

We intend to do the same again this year, the only difference I had thought of making was to mount Carradice Limpet panniers in front, to spread the load a little.

Incidentally, it’s nice to see mountain-bikes mentioned in Cycle, we might even renew if it continues!

David Binks – Grange Over Sands, Cumbria

In that case, I’d better reply in public! As we were touring Britain rather than Provence, our mountain-bikes also had mudguards added. The picture of my son’s suspension forks thus equipped (on the January issue) gave rise to quite a few “how did you do that” enquiries. Like most suspension forks these have a brace above the tyre with a hole already in it for attaching a centrepull brake hanger. So no problem there – and if there isn’t a hole there’s usually enough metal to make one. These forks also have a big, flat slab of metal above the dropouts, in the middle of which it was safe to drill and tap a M5 thread. This hole comes in front of the oversize fork legs, so the mudguard stays are spaced out on pieces of alloy tube and attached with long M5 screws. Forks without vacant places to drill can always have stays attached via hose clips etc.

A few people also asked about those funky colour co-ordinated tyres. They’re Vredestein S’licks. They come in red, yellow, blue (and black) and go really well on road. I recently lent a spare pair to a mountain-biking friend (consigned to the road by foot and mouth path closures) who remarked upon the resulting improved grip on tarmac and higher average speed. The knobs on knobbly tyres dig dirt alright, but they’re inclined to twist and squirm on harder stuff – which could partly explain a wobbly rear end.

Whilst a smoother tread doubtless improves stability on tarmac, the main problem will be the amount of weight hung out behind the rear axle – a heavy tail to wag the dog! Mountain-bikes have shortish chainstays which doesn’t help. However the difference is only a few centimetres, the frames are plenty stiff enough and even purpose-made tourers are inclined to wobble a bit if all the load is piled on the back. You’ll doubtless see an improvement when some is transferred to the front. Low load panniers are best, as they add traction to the front tyre and inertia to the steering without trying to turn it further when you lean around corners.

Chris Juden

Super service in Norwich – 2001.07

This morning the rear mech on my winter hack bike gave up the ghost. With broken spring and dangling chain I nevertheless managed to meet my clubmate as arranged and continue the few remaining miles to Norwich, where I hoped that Steve Holland, proprietor of Specialised Cycles, would “save our day”. Leaving the bike with Steve and his mechanic, Andy, we took an early elevenses. Half an hour later Andy had fitted a second-hand mech of the same type and Steve charged only for the labour!

If there was an award for cycle service, Steve and Andy as Specialised Cycles in Norwich would be my nomination. This is by no means the first time they have helped in similar circumstances and always with efficiency, generosity and good humour.

Geoff Mayne – Chairman,Godric CC

Tourer from old racer – 2001.03

I have recently tried a bit of cycle-touring using a rusty old racing bike and would be grateful for your advice on upgrading to something more suitable on a VERY limited budget. The main problem is that bottom gear is too high (47in), but other problems are handlebars too low and obsolescent 27×1¼ wheels. I have considered the following options: a)

Buy an old bike and salvage the gears from it. b)

Buy new gears. c)

Buy a used tourer. But cheap ones, local to me with a 25in frame, seem rare as hens teeth. d)

Buy new, but £425 is the best price I can find for a Dawes Horizon (Claud Butler don’t make them big enough anymore). Any tips on end of season bargains and raising the handlebars? As even the 25in Horizon is a bit low for me.

from an Essex member

Provided the frame is basically sound, just rusty on the surface, upgrading that will be cheapest and quite satisfactory. An old “racing bike” with 27×1¼ wheels is likely to be one of the sports bikes that were made in great numbers during the 1970s and used by all and sundry for everything except racing, just as mountain-bikes are used now. The British public doggedly persists in buying fashionable rather than practical bikes, but be that as it may: a 70s sports bike makes a pretty good basis for a tourer. I suggest you repaint it though, before the rust gets too bad.

You could salvage appropriate gearing from an old mountain-bike, but gear change mechanisms are one of the first things to wear out especially those on really cheap mountain-bikes, so only the chainset is likely to be useful. A basic mountain-bike triple is indeed the best way to transform your gearing. The cheapest ones typically have rings of 26-up (-36,46) or 28-up. That will combine well with your existing rear sprockets (probably none smaller than 14T) and be more durable than a compact drive (22-up) set. The longer 175mm mountain-bike crank length will also better suit someone with your long legs than the 170mm that is customary on road bikes.

You may not need a new bottom-bracket to go with this chainset, since a trend to “low profile” cranks means that today’s triples use similar lengths of spindle to yesterday’s doubles. So try it first, but check your old bearings aren’t worn out anyway. An existing front mech might work okay too, but one that’s designed to go with the new chainset would definitely work better. I’d suggest the Shimano C102 models of each, or maybe a cheaper brand of chainset: e.g. Dotek or Sakae.

You are bound to need a new rear mech, with a long cage to reel in the chain when you drop onto that inner ring. Rear mechs are relatively complex and wear-prone so it pays to choose something a bit higher specification, i.e. Alivio or Acera.

You can probably leave the wheels for now. The time to consider changing them is when you need a new chain – which is sure also to entail new rear sprockets. That gives you the opportunity to upgrade to more gears, a wider range of gears and even indexed gears – if you also buy indexed shift levers (I suggest 8-speed bar-end). Preferably these gears should be a sprocket cassette on a freehub (integrated freewheel and hub) rather than the separate screw-on freewheel you have now. This will be wider than your frame, which should be “cold set” to 135mm between dropouts to accept a standard 8/9-speed mountain-bike freehub. Cold setting is a quick, simple and cheap operation for someone with the right equipment. (Shops who say it harms the frame do so because they don’t have that equipment and would rather sell you a new one!) Have these wheels built with double-butted spokes except in the right-hand side of the rear wheel, which needs 13/14 single-butted spokes. These are thicker to take the extra tension due to dishing of this wheel and especially thick at the hub – where spokes otherwise tend to break under touring conditions.

The slightly smaller 700C rim diameter (622 rather than 630mm) sometimes requires longer reach brakes. I suggest a pair of Alhonga dual-pivot at only £16 from Spa Cycles. The reduction in rim diameter is a good thing as it improves mudguard clearance and makes room for tyres of slightly increased section. You’ll be wanting a 17mm (internal) width rim for touring, which accepts tyres from 28 to 38mm section, I recommend Alesa Endeavour rims.

Handlebar height is easily boosted by fitting one of the up-sloping stems now popular on trekking or hybrid bikes. Various angles and extension lengths are available, but they all have a bar grip diameter of 25.4mm, whereas dropped bars are often 26.0 or 26.4mm. Only the cheaper models of dropped bars are the standard 25.4 diameter. Fortunately that’s exactly what most of those 70s racers were equipped with, so you’re probably in luck. If not then some of these stems – those with a “front opening” design so you can swap bars easily – will also accept the road size at a pinch.

Chris Juden

Rotating weight – 2000.11

As a 43 year old average rider, I have been wanting for some time to buy a pair of wheels for climbing in the Alps. These wheels would be for summer use only and would be shod in light clincher tyres. When not abroad they would be used on roughish Cambridgeshire lanes.

My perception is that a pair of Mavic Ksyriums will improve my climbing, over my 36 hole Open 4 CD & 98 Chorus current wheels. I am aware that reducing rotating weight is a great benefit, but I've forgotten how much it actually does help.

I climb at 8-10 mph on my Roberts compact audax, with a lowest gear of 31inches. I carry a bar bag weighing typically 5-6 lbs.

Will these wheels make a difference at these speeds? Would I save more energy by leaving spare tubes / cape / tools behind, and travelling lighter? Frankly, if I am seeking to justify the expenditure from a technical viewpoint, am I wasting my money? Hope you can help, certainly the magazines cannot!

Phil Pearson – by email

The only things that’ll make one pair of wheels climb significantly better than another are better tyres and a bigger sprocket. It seems like you have very nice wheels already, so I really don’t think you’ll be able to justify a new pair on technical grounds.

Regarding rotating weight: it has been said that an ounce on the wheels is worth a pound on the frame. That’s exaggerated nonsense: concealing however a kernel of truth. When you accelerate, weight at the edge of the wheel not only goes forwards but also goes around at the same speed, acquiring nearly twice as much kinetic energy as it takes to get the rest of the bike moving faster. So an ounce on the wheels is worth two on the frame, but only if it’s in the rim or tyre and only when you’re starting off or sprinting.

Rotating inertia reduces dramatically as you move away from the edge of the wheel. Even the tyre is not quite worth double, more like an extra 90 to 95%. For the rim it’s 85% or so, spokes 33%, down to less than 1% at the hub. Most other parts of a bike don’t spin fast enough to gain much inertia. Assuming you’re in a low to middling (54in) gear: for pedals you can count an extra 6%, cranks 2%, chainrings and chain maybe 1 to 2%. And remember, none of this matters at all when you’re not accelerating.

Once you’ve got it moving, a bit of extra mass in the wheels actually makes it easier to maintain a steady speed, by smoothing out the intermittent action of pedalling. (Special wheels have even been made with added rim weights, for races run at constant speed from a flying-start!) This stop-go effect becomes especially pronounced in the high-resistance, low momentum conditions of hill climbing. On extreme gradients the bike nearly stalls and has to be accelerated almost from a standstill with each pedal thrust. A couple of flywheels sound useful, except that when you’re climbing you don’t want extra weight anywhere! Rotating or not, it all has to be carried upwards just the same.

Aerodynamics become less important as speed drops on a steep hill, with this lifting work taking over as the main energy demand of cycling. Rolling resistance still counts; and the efficiency with which the rear tyre transmits tractive force to the road assumes great importance under low speed, high force conditions. Unfortunately the tractive efficiency of cycle tyres (other than off-road) is an almost unresearched topic. However it’s likely that those which roll easily will also drive efficiently; and nicer tyres are usually lighter tyres, perhaps adding to the mythical powers of rotating weight!

Chris Juden

Why novices push big gears – 2000.07

I read the reply to Stephen Horsfall's letter about larger gears with interest. I think you may be mistaken about the explanation as to why novices tend to ride with lower cadence and larger gears though. Each muscle in the body contains two types of fibre; fast twitch and slow twitch. The relative amounts that each person has are more or less predetermined genetically, and you cannot increase the proportion of "fast twitch" with the sort of training most cyclists do. Nor can you train one sort of fibre rather than the other. Briefly, the difference between the fibres is as follows. Fast twitch can produce high forces, and readily does anaerobic work but therefore tires quickly. Slow twitch muscle is relatively unable to perform anaerobic work, and produces less force, but because it does so almost entirely from aerobic sources it is able to keep working much longer. The minor differences in speed of contraction are unlikely to come into play for the speeds of most cyclists' pedalling. In fact, to achieve the same speed with the smaller forces they have available, those with more slow twitch fibres will tend to pedal more quickly.

So why do novices, even those who are fit from other exercise, try to push large gears slowly whilst regular cyclists spin lower gears faster?

I am not an expert muscle physiologist, but my theory is as follows: in addition to increases in VO2 max etc. from training, the other effect of training is to increase the amount of small blood vessels in the muscle groups which are trained. Cycling uses muscles which are relatively little used by other exercise and the blood supply to the cycling muscles of a regular cyclist is therefore greater than even a fit person who does not cycle. As novice cyclists begin to ride, those muscle groups rapidly move towards anaerobic respiration, which essentially means that their fast twitch fibres have to do all the work. The higher force available lends itself to a lower cadence to maintain a given speed, although the muscles tire quickly. The regular cyclist has much better blood supply to the muscles used by cycling and therefore is able to remain aerobic for long periods (short hills and sprints excepted), if and only if a high cadence is maintained, allowing most of the work to be done by slow twitch fibres. The regular cyclist therefore uses a higher cadence.

I should be interested to hear from any expert physiologist out there!

James Bellringer — Wimbledon

Recumbents – try a few – 2000.03

I was pleased to see C.T.& C. dealing with recumbents, with both the test of the Bike E and Ron Beams’ letter about his electrically assisted recumbent tricycle in the last issue of the millennium. Your reservations about inverse pendulums and seeing over hedges are the same as those raised over a century ago in regard to the transition from the high wheeler to the safety. Indeed they might have prevailed had not the re-invention of the pneumatic tyre come just at the right time to make the safety as comfortable as the high wheeler.

It is the issue of comfort which will cause an ever increasing number of cyclists to choose recumbents. How many of the readers of this magazine can honestly say that after 80 or 100 miles in a day they have no discomfort in their wrists, neck or bottom? Most of those will be recumbent riders. I have had my Pashley PDQ for 2 years and ridden some 5,000 miles and always choose it when I am riding for pleasure.

But the point of my letter is this. If one is contemplating buying a recumbent one should look around. Recumbents are now at the stage that safeties were in the late 1880’s – there is immense variety. There are long wheelbase, short wheelbase and compact long wheelbase – which is what the Bike-E is generally called. There is overseat steering and underseat steering. There are foam seats and mesh seats and combinations of the two and there are bicycles and tricycles. Each option has its advocates and will be best for someone. So one ought not buy the first one that is seen. Most shops that sell recumbents will rent them and most will reduce the price of a new one by the amount you have spent on rental. So you can try various different types without it costing you anything.

You are not likely to learn anything by a ride up and down the road. It is necessary to ride for at least a whole day before you can begin to feel the differences. Many things which feel comfortable when first tried, such as a lower bottom bracket or a foam seat, may not be so when used for longer. The foam seat may be hot and damp while a mesh seat (as on the PDQ) will feel harder at first but will shape itself to your shape and not retain moisture.

You do have to learn to ride a recumbent bicycle (less so a tricycle) because starting and stopping are so different from a conventional bike. So you should allow time for several practise starts and stops in a safe environment. My own view is that SPD pedals are essential to comfortable recumbent riding, and that is more true the higher the bottom bracket. So it is probably a good idea to be familiar with clipless pedals before you start trying recumbents – they are super on any bike.

But one does reach the stage of feeling so comfortable and relaxed that the principal danger is falling asleep.

Tom Culver – Camberwell, London

Design features – 2000.01

Having seen the recent review of the new Dawes 1-Down and the earlier reports on similar offerings from Orbit and Thorn I am moved to write an ‘open’ letter to manufacturers regarding some of the design features included in these new touring/expedition machines. First let me declare an interest as a Dawes Galaxy owner ( both solos and tandem) and as a ‘weekend’ tourist.

1) Direct-pull (Shimano Vee) brakes seem to be mandatory on new models nowadays, but why, when their efficiency has to be cut in half by the need for devices that double cable pull (from a dropped bar lever). No doubt availability, fashion and cost reduction play their part, but the efficiency of cantilevers is certainly adequate and these have the advantage of more reliable centring on release. Both cantilevers and direct-pull brakes rely for their centring on individual return springs, but cantilevers are helped by the straight cable pull from a central hanger. Direct-pull brake centring is heavily influenced by the stiffness of the connecting outer cable.

2) Why does the mountain-bike practice of running the rear brake cable above the top tube have to be carried through to anything with a sloping top tube? This position is more prone to damage and more likely to damage the rider. Dawes don’t do it on the Galaxy, so why on the 1-Down? Full marks to Thorn in this respect.

3) Threadless (Dia-Compe Aheadset) steerer arrangements were presumably introduced for cost reduction reasons on mountain-bikes where a low (straight) handlebar height was required anyway. On a touring cycle there is more requirement for height adjustment which is simply not available from the threadless arrangement. My Galaxy and Galaxy Twin are both fitted with a tall stem (with 90 mm forward reach) the adjustment of which has allowed the riding position to become more upright with age! Lack of this feature alone will deter me from buying a 1-down, (or an Orbit Romany.) Not only that, but Dawes have introduced the same feature on their latest Galaxy Twin (buyers beware).

4) Unicrown forks may be perfectly satisfactory, but again if a high class ‘conventional’ touring frame deserves a cast fork crown, then why not include on an expedition machine?

The manufacturers are to be congratulated on introducing Expedition Tourers which have not previously been available. They should realise however that these machines will only sell in sufficient quantities if they also appeal to ‘club’ riders, who admittedly use them for less onerous duties, but who demand that not all the proven features found on the traditional tourer are abandoned in the name of fashion or ‘value engineering’.

J R Mannall – Bedford

Too cold for you? – 2000.03

Cycling last winter proved to be a major challenge as it was unusually cold by our standards. The coldest I cycled in was –34°C. Yes, minus 34! The bike was like towing a car behind! Then there was a week of between –25 and –30 with the rest of January –10 to –20. This is usually the coldest month: temperatures average –5 to –10 during the rest of winter.

We had up to one metre of snow that only started to disappear in April. During all winter the town’s 130km of bike/pedestrian lanes are kept clear. I leave for work on my bike at 6.15am; and normally, if it’s been snowing, most of the lanes I use will already have been cleared. If there’s a thaw, sand and crushed stone are spread on the bike lanes to reduce risk of slipping.

My bike has Nokian studded tyres: 288 studs in the front and 188 rear. They work very well although a bit heavier rolling than normal mountain-bike tyres. There are 18 speeds but normally I use only the highest 6. Too low makes you spin in loose snow. There’s a rear drum brake to be able to stop despite ice on rims, and mudguards front and rear. Most important is to give everything a drop of oil now and then and grease cables, to prevent water entering and freezing.

We see the sun for less than four hours at midwinter so lights get a lot of use. I have a Vistalight LED rear and a Shimano hub dynamo in front. It seems to run more freely now than when I got it and there’s still no play in the bearings – highly recommended. But there is good street lighting and this white thing on the ground makes it lighter than people may think. For us the darkest period is just before the snow arrives. I pity those living without snow – then it’s really dark.

Mats Nilsson – Umeå, Sweden

And some people say it’s too cold (or dark) to cycle in a British winter!

Real expedition bikes – 2000.01

I recently read your article in August/September 1998 about expedition tourers with interest. I had just returned from an “expedition tour” of 11,000km in the Andes including extended sections of unsealed roads and tracks through remote wilderness. From that experience I learned that I require an “expedition tourer” to provide me with a quantum increase in strength and serviceability in every department. There can be no compromises. The machines you review are not equipped to provide the reliability I needed for my tour.

The most important issue to address in expedition cycle design is load carrying. A long tour in remote wilderness often demands a large load. Add to that 100s of km on gravel roads, and your racks and panniers get a real kicking. That’s why the true expedition bike has tubular steel racks such as Tubus from Germany. They are hardly heavier than aluminium and stronger. All racks break in the end however; and you can get a steel weld anywhere, but finding an aluminium weld can be next to impossible.

Ideally your frame should have an unusually stiff rear triangle to avoid flexing when climbing hills under load. Choose components that are simple, reliable, and can be patched up without recourse to specialist bike shops for the most likely accidents. For example: if you have traditional friction gearing you can carry on riding with a worn chain and a bent derailleur.

Ivan Viehoff – Chesham

Ivan has supplied more detailed notes on this subject which prospective expeditioners will find most informative. Send s.a.e. or request by email (technical@ctc.org.uk , include membership number or postcode).

SJSC are AOK – 2000.01

I would like to say thankyou to St Johns Street Cycles in Bridgewater for their excellent service, building me the perfect bike whilst on holiday in Somerset, and for their excellent after-sales service. When I had a slight problem on my return home they delivered me a new front wheel overnight, so I could complete a Randonnèe. First class people to deal with: in this day and age what a difference! I cannot praise them too highly, thank you again.

Mrs B Wells – Ongar, Essex

A bike from grandad – 1999.03

“They don’t make ’em like they used to” you write, regarding children's bikes in the October magazine. They certainly don’t, as I’ve found out when trying to fit my grandchildren with a decent machine.

The picture shows a girl’s 14in model by Cinelli and imported by Ron Kitching. It cost me the best part of two weeks’ wages in 1958. All three of my children learned to ride on this. It’s so fast I would take them on the grass in the park at first, where they rode more slowly.

After they had grown out of it I didn’t want to part with it and kept the old bike in the shed. So when grandchildren began to arrive I cleaned it up and did an overhaul: proper ball races everywhere, 16cm bracket height, 9cm cottered cranks and weight only 16lb. New cables, brake blocks, inner tubes and pedals (which had been damaged by letting the bike fall) were fitted. I haven’t been able to get 14×1¼ tyres (350×32A) so I cut up old tubulars and inserted the tread inside the originals.

I carry it to school so my eldest granddaughter can ride it home. We go a longer route, about a mile.

Malcolm Bowler — Chesterfield

Sit up and Pedersen – 1999.01

With regard to Mr S J Baker’s letter about back pain and handlebar height (August Technical Forum): I should like to offer him and others a suggestion. Why not use a cycle with the Pedersen type frame?

Back in 1893 Mikael Pedersen designed the frame with the hammock seat because of his lumbar problems and the discomfort he found with contemporary Rover Safety machines. I have recently purchased a Sutton Pedersen cycle and have found it incredibly comfortable. It feels like the handlebars are just under your chin compared to a conventional bike!

I would like to see more of these fine machines on the road, with the spin off of possibly less cyclists’ back pain.

Stephen Hitchens, Sheffield

Pedersen style bicycles are now being imported from Denmark by London Recumbents, SE21, tel: 0181 299 6636.

Bike from Mars – 1999.01

I frequently get involved in repairing bicycles of close friends/ neighbours, mainly of the older styles. Quite recently I was asked if I could look at a ladies bicycle, which belonged to the late German wife of a local parishioner who brought it to this country many years ago. It is called a 'MARS'. Besides repainting, it required a new tyre on the rear wheel and the front (and only) brake mechanism was hanging loose — leaving me to find out how it was supposed to work. I was amazed to find a design which consists of a rubber pad which presses down onto the front tyre. I wonder if you can help me to find answers to the following:

(1) Is this brake mechanism legal in the U.K. I am sure I have it working as intended but it is not very effective.

(2) How popular is or was this design of brake, where and when.

(3) If necessary, could it be changed to a more conventional braking system.

(4) There is only one gear, which is about equal to top gear on a Sturmey-Archer 3 Speed. Would you know if it is possible to change either the crank or wheel sprocket or both.

(5) Finally, any other information you may have regarding availability of spares for this bicycle would be appreciated.

Norman Scholey — Great Easton, Leics

This primitive design is directly descended from the brakes on carts and carriages. They used to be common before the advent of rim brakes, the superior efficacy of which is affirmed by the following quotation from Cycling in the Alps by C L Freeston:

It is pitiful to watch the German or Swiss cyclist, unacquainted as yet with the power of the rim brake, descending this or that ribbon road with plunger brake jammed hard on and back-pedalling with the whole force of his muscular system, while the English wheelman can ride calmly down and even coast where the other is in supreme distress.

This wonderful book was published in 1900 (dedicated to ‘My fellow members of the Cyclists’ Touring Club’) but it’s nonetheless probable that plunger brakes persisted for some time after that in flatter parts on the Continent. In Britain it is nowadays illegal to rely upon such a brake. The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations say that “a braking system shall be deemed not to be in efficient working order if any brake operates directly on a pneumatic tyre”.

I can think of no easy way of converting this plunger brake into something more effective. All I can suggest (that might be vaguely in keeping) would be to build a hub brake into the rim and substitute a modern brake lever.

In one of your photos I can see something that looks very much like the reaction arm of a rear coaster brake. This is operated by pushing the pedals about a quarter turn backwards (much easier than the ‘back-pedalling’ on a fixed gear described above). Have you tried it? Maybe the sprocket on this hub is the standard three-spline Sturmey-Archer pattern, in which case a larger replacement should be easy to come by. If not, or if I am mistaken about the apparent coaster brake, then you might fit a modern three-speed-coaster for lower gears and functional braking. However it’s probably uneconomic to buy so many new parts for such an old machine

Chris Juden

Honking – 1998.11

Regarding p64 of the February/March issue:

You are old father William The young cyclist said And your hair is exceedingly grey But yet you habitually honk up the hills Pray, why do you ride in this way?

In my youth, said the Ancient We all rode fixed wheels There was none of this posh S-I-S So we twiddled like mad down all the descents, And strove up the hills with much stress!

Jerry Attrick

Technical Index – 1997.07

I am a keen reader of your technical columns in the CTC magazine and frequently use them as points of reference. It struck me that an annual index of items could be developed which would make it easier for people who hang onto their magazines, to locate a past item. I’m a relative newcomer to the club, but there may be others who have been in for 10 years or more who could benefit.

Jeremy Fleming, Godalming

Some new members may not have realised that a general CT&C index is available upon request. But because of the way it is compiled, annually and by title rather than content, this is not very useful for tracking down technical information. (I soon learnt not to be too ‘clever’ with the titles of my articles — if I ever wanted to find them again!)

Readers have suggested technical indexes in the past, but I’m afraid that I’ve never had the time to compile one. However, as part of his (voluntary) work in the CTC archives, Lionel Joseph has produced such an index. This I make available to members (send s.a.e.) with not a little trepidation — lest it should result in an avalanche of requests for photocopies of past articles that stops me writing any future articles!

Chris Juden