Re: Northampton, buying etc

[NC]

PJ wrote:
> DNQs = Dumb Newbie Questions...
>
> I'm contemplating returning to vanilla, 'transport' cycling after a
> decade on four wheels....

> For the time being, my bike buying budget cannot exceed 100ukp.
> Preferably less (heck - I'm slighty worried I can't even afford a
> bike! ). I'm tall, and need the 'off-road' capabilities of a
> mountain bike (lots of muddy paths to negotiate). Do I try and find
> something second-hand, or do I buy new? Brands to look out for or
> avoid?

Second hand, and unless you are mechanically minded, find a friend who has
half-a-clue about bikes. There are some fairly basic things to look for on
wear/tear/abuse which are best avoided. Brands are hard to recommend
universally, as either you've got the problem of them being very upmarket
(and out of budget) or there will be a mix of decent and not-so-decent
cycles in there. That said, Ridgeback and Giant seem to be fairly decent at
the lower prices of their ranges.


But.... off-road in Northampton ???
I would suggest that unless you need to "mud plug" over an almost ploughed
field, or if its intended as a "fun" bike to go round off-road built
coarses, that a mountain-bike is well over the top. The mountain-bike will
be significantly less good on any tarmac roads than alternatives.
You will probably get on fine with what's often called a "hybrid", having
tyres of about 32mm (1.25inch) width. I ride an ancient bike which would
fit the modern "hybrid" description to the local station, including a
half-mile stretch over a bridleway which is a mixture of mud, some sand and
stones. Also, because it lacks wide nobbly tyres and has decent mudguards,
my "hybrid" doesn't throw mud all over me and the bike, unlike my Mountain
Bike (which is a darned good machine on proper mountains).

Also, I think you'll get more "hybrid" for your money than mountain-bike as
they are less fashionable. They tend to come with sensible things like
mudguards, and sometimes lights.




> My preference is to buy from a 'proper' cycle shop, staffed by
> courteous, alert people who actually know what they're talking about.
> The leaflet lists ten cycle shops in the Northampton area - any
> particular ones you'd recommend?

Good idea, but your budget is too low. However, no harm in going in and
asking. Some might have secondhand bikes.


> The leaflet also shows a fair number of 'cycle parking' sites around
> the town centre - again, any particular ones you'd recommend, or
> suggest I avoid, given that I'd quite like to find a space when I
> arrive, and my bike still there when I return?

Can't help on that - years since I was in Northampton.

However, don't forget that you'll need a decent lock (or it won't be there
when you get back) and some lights at night.



- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, PJ
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <BE06B767.7063%[email protected]>, David Martin
> <URL:mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You *don't* need really knobbly tyres. A standard hybrid style tyre
>> would be fine.
>
> Right. And the knobbly-ness is what makes them unsuitable as road
> tyres? Just from a comfort point of view, or are we talking about
> significant performance issues too?

About 5% or more on performance, plus noise, plus greatly accelerated
wear, plus considerably reduced grip. There are some reasonable
compromise tyres which have a continuous central ridge with knobbly
shoulders; these run OK on tarmac while still offering reasonable grip
on mud, but they're dodgy on cornering so take that easy.

Basically the better a tyre is on mud the worse it is on tarmac (and, of
course, vice-versa).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

 

[David Martin]

PJ wrote:
> In article <BE06B767.7063%[email protected]>, David Martin
> <URL:mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You *don't* need really knobbly tyres. A standard hybrid style tyre would
>>be fine.
>
>
> Right. And the knobbly-ness is what makes them unsuitable as road tyres? Just
> from a comfort point of view, or are we talking about significant performance
> issues too?

Both. The knobbles don't ride as smoothly (assuming a really aggressive
tyre tread) and take energy to deform to the road shape. They also don't
grip as well. (Grip is determined by the amount of rubber contacting the
road) So they are noisier, grip less well and take more energy to move
*on road*. On hardish paths the same is true though as the mud gets
deeper the treads come into their own.

>
>>The advantage of MTB is that they are cheap and widely available. As
>>regarding lights, why not use a head torch? It will also be very useful off
>>the bike.
>
> Aha! Another good idea! I do need something that will illuminate my path, not
> just show other people where I am.

The cheap LIDL one is good enough (just) to ride by, but I don't trust
the clip. I have also used the Petzl one. The main problem I found on
towpaths is the security lights of adjacent buildings can dazzle and put
the path into deep shadow.

>>A muddy, rigid MTB

> I was planning to avoid suspension like the plague.

Good idea.

>
>>that looks well worn with obviously home made bodged mudguards will only
>>require a light lock. A bit of chain and a padlock will be cheaper than a
>>'proper' bike lock and work just as well.
>
>
> Okay. This sort of thing had crossed my mind, in a, "who would be desperate
> enough to try and nick the sort of bike I can afford?!" sort of way...
>
> Noting that one of my 'talents' is an ability to pick most cheap 'n' cheerful
> barrel locks. I read the (not) MIT Lock Picking Guide a long time ago...
>
>
>
>>A rack is very useful, great for carrying stuff.
>
>
> Indeed. I was thinking of fabricating something out of offcut sheel ally
> (which is free to me, usually), that I can get a Tescos visit worth of
> supplies in. Would be useful. Stability may well become an issue, though.

What ever you get, make sure you can demount the bags/baskets easily for
getting through gaps in fences.

Racks are very useful and should be easy enough to scrounge from the
local tip (which may be a good source of bikes.) If you have the right
tools, (and you seem to have the aptitude), trawling police auctions or
the dump would be a good place to get a bike. The rest of the budget can
be spent on Things That Matter, new brakes, new BB, load carrying,
headtorch. If you can find one with a front hub dynamo, so much the better.

>
> Thanks again everyone. Responding to each post is a waste of bandwidth, but
> your advice is much appreciated - I'm much better off than I was a couple of
> days ago...

I'm reasonably aware of the bikes on boats scene. My inlaws had a
narrowboat until recently and live next to the K&A near Trowbridge.

...d

 

[Tony W]

"PJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Right. And the knobbly-ness is what makes them unsuitable as road tyres?
Just
> from a comfort point of view, or are we talking about significant
performance
> issues too?

Knobbles wail like the banshee so are a pain in the ear. They are
inefficient over hard, relatively smooth surfaces so you will need to pedal
harder but most important, they put less rubber onto a hard surface so may
provide less grip. My experience is that they can be particular 'fun' on
wet ironwork (but then any tyre can be).

I would suggest that it is not a question of life and death and that you can
ride with knobblies with care (but again, you need care riding any bike).
If you cannot afford an upgrade yet then wait a bit but make it an early
upgrade. >
>
> > The advantage of MTB is that they are cheap and widely available. As
> > regarding lights, why not use a head torch? It will also be very useful
off
> > the bike.
>
> Aha! Another good idea! I do need something that will illuminate my path,
not
> just show other people where I am.

Try Lidl and/or Aldi for cheap cycling bits. A light fixed to the bike is a
legal requirement after dark and s also less confusing for a motorist that
an impression of the X-files with a beam sweaping back and forth.
Personally, I would go for the fixed light first.

T

 

[Graeme]

PJ <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Err, well - to a point. <snip some interesting stuff>

Part of the reason for knobblies not having as good a grip isn't because of
contact area size. It's because that contact area is on the end of a fairly
flexible piece of rubber connected to the body of the tyre, rather than
being part of the tyre itself. This really only comes into play when
cornering quickly on roads etc. when the knobbles will allow the tyre to
"walk" sideways across the road.

I didn't think this effect was noticeable until I started riding road bikes
again after years of having only a mountain bike. There is a difference,
but then again that feeling may be down to the fatter tyres (even when
pumped up rock hard). I have torn off several knobbles on a rather scary on
road downhill once (scary as in "who put that hairpin bend there -
agghhhh!!!!!")

Graeme

 

[Tony Raven]

PJ wrote:
>
> Err, well - to a point. Tyre grip is a complex, sometimes counter-intuitive
> business, arguably not properly understood by anyone, but only well
> understood by very few and I'm not one of them. Writing in Racecar
> Engineering, Paul Van Valkenburgh suggested that, "It's possible that all the
> increased contact area contributes is better control over the absorption and
> dissipation of heat energy. In other words, is it possible that a skinny tyre
> would provide the same traction as a wide tyre (of the same compound) for
> that brief period when its surface temperature was the same?" He then goes on
> to present supporting evidence and to suggest ways in which mechanical tyre
> grip may be increased without changing the compound or increasing the size of
> the contact patch.

That's for race tyres for car which run very hot - you ever noticed the
tyre heaters while they're waiting to be fitted and the commentator
comments about tyres coming up to temperature after a pit stop.

>
> What relevence this has to bikes,

None unless they are motorbikes

> I don't know, but the primary reason why
> knobbly tyres do not grip as well in this context may not be due only, or
> even mainly, to the size of the contact patch. I wonder what sort of readings
> a pyrometer would give on a bicycle tyre?
>

Unreadably low unless you have just locked and slid your wheel at speed
to generate friction heating

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

PJ wrote:

>
> Indeed - this issue had occured to me. But I wonder how good fixed lights are
> at illuminating the road, or pitch-black path, ahead?
>
>

Especially at the legal limit of 2.4W

Tony

 

[Tony W]

"PJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Indeed - this issue had occured to me. But I wonder how good fixed lights
are
> at illuminating the road, or pitch-black path, ahead?

There are lighting systems that can put enough light on the road to turn
night into day -- cheap systems can be had at about 30 quid but the good
ones tend to be above my pay grade :~(

Typically they use a combination of a wide angle 'flood' and a tighter angle
'spot' (flood & spot being very loosely defined here).

An alternative (and more tradition) approach is to mount the lights low --
down on the forks. This puts more light on the road -- but the pool is
relatively small so you do tend to need to go slow enough to react inside
that.

Most of the problem of night cycling is not the dark. If it is dark
relatively little light in the right place is sufficient to light your way.
The problem is that cars and security lights can put so much light into your
eyes that any night vision is destroyed -- suddenly you can see SFA. You
can cycle a country lane with a single glow worm powered Never Ready --
until plonker in a BMW comes at you with mega-joules of lighting energy
without dipping. Suddenly you have no idea where the road, road edge etc
are -- all you can do is aim to the left hand side of the lights and pray.

T

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, PJ
('[email protected]') wrote:

> As a side question, looking as suspension bikes with motorsport eyes
> (and noting that I know next to bugger all about competition
> motorbikes, with which bicycle suspension no doubt has more in
> common), how much setup and adjustment do serious competition riders
> do? You have adjustable damping (seperately for both bump and
> rebound?), but what about spring rates and preload? Do the springs get
> changed depending on the course conditions?

Most serious cross country racers use air suspension units; this is at
least partly for weight reasons (air is lighter than steel) but also
because air units are much easier to tune. Good units these days have a
very wide range of adjustment. In addition to the things you mention
there is also the issue of pedal bob - the shock needs to react
instantly and smoothly to lumps and bumps in the track without reacting
to the rider's pedalling. Current generation suspension units
increasingly have 'stable platform valves' or equivalent technology
which is intended to tune out the lower frequency pedal bob while still
responding rapidly to higher-frequency movement. In addition suspension
lockout is a common feature (because suspension is not needed and not
beneficial when on smooth hard surfaces) and on-the-fly adjustable
front travel is increasingly common to cope with the different needs of
climbing and descending.

Remember that while the weight of the rider is under 50% of the total
vehicle weight of most sporting motorcycles and under 20% of the total
vehicle weight of most sports cars, it's 85%-90% of the total vehicle
weight of a cross-country mountain bike. Consequently effective
suspension tuning is even more important on mountain bikes than on
motor vehicles.

This is a large part of why good mountain bikes are getting so
expensive.

<URL:http://www.dtswiss.com/index.asp?fuseaction=rshocks.bikedetail&id=3>
<URL:http://www.magura.com/english/frameset/default.htm?http://www.magura.com/english/gabeln/04_federbeine_odinplus.htm~Hauptframe>
<URL:http://www.foxracingshox.com/website/.
\BackOffice\UploadedFiles\OwnersManual\shox_en05.pdf>

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

 

[David Martin]

PJ wrote:

> Oh, and as a cycling boater, one thing I *will* be fitting to my bike is an
> audible warning device - the number of times I've had to jump out of the way
> of cyclists zooming up quietly behind me, devoid of a bell, or even a
> shout...

I have been tempted to fit a 3" ships bell ;-) Now that *would* be
different.

...d

 

[David Martin]

PJ wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W
> <URL:mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>A light fixed to the bike is a legal requirement after dark and s also less
>>confusing for a motorist that an impression of the X-files with a beam
>>sweaping back and forth. Personally, I would go for the fixed light first.
>
>
> Indeed - this issue had occured to me. But I wonder how good fixed lights are
> at illuminating the road, or pitch-black path, ahead?

That depends on the lights and the speed at which you are travelling.
I was out last night riding in the dark and wet, and a standard 2.4W
light (OK, the low power side of my SMART) was fine for up to 15mph. You
won't get close to that on a towpath, especially loaded, unless you are
seriously hammering along.

Generally fixed lights work well because they cast a more visible
shadow, making the bumps visible. With a head torch you get very flat
light, so seeing the bumps can be a bit harder. Then again, you could
always ride slower ;-) On a bright moonlit night you could probably get
away with not using lights on the towpath. Obviously that would be
illegal on road.

...d

 

[Clive George]

PJ wrote:

> I haven't done the sums, but my only idea was to ditch the coil
> spring in favour of a torsion bar at the point where the rear control
> arm (or whatever you call the bit that attaches the rear wheel to the
> frame - 'scuse my total lack of appropriate terminology), pivots off
> the rear of the frame. This should be lighter than a coil spring,
> with the advantage that it could be changed simply by sliding it
> sideways out of the pivot assembly, without having to strip the
> suspension unit down.

Couple of problems here : first is that the actual spring isn't much weight
at all. All the other gubbins for doing the actual shock absorbtion/damping
would still need to be there.

And don't forget a coil spring is merely a wound up torsion bar.

However, having a flexible bit of metal instead of a bearing at that
location is quite a good idea in some ways - see eg cannondale scalpel IIRC.

BTW Changing the springs in our forks is a completely trivial matter should
we wish to do it. They're held on with two bolts - the forces involved are
much smaller than with cars, and there's no preload to speak of (this
happens with 'sag'.

cheers,
clive

 

[David Martin]

This all starts to get rather technical..

I used to have front suspension on my MTB/commuter (RST231 forks).
They are still on there but have rusted solid (again) and I can't be
faffed to strip them down and fix them. The elastomers got quite a
battering running at -15C.

Any recommendations for cheap, reasonable front sus forks (ideally with
both disk and canti mountings) that have a 1" threaded steerer?

Hmm.. thought not.. Might be better to get a new MTB set up for off road
and swap the front forks on the MTB/commuter for lightweight road ones..

...d

...d

 

[Jon Senior]

David Martin wrote:
> This all starts to get rather technical..
>
> I used to have front suspension on my MTB/commuter (RST231 forks).
> They are still on there but have rusted solid (again) and I can't be
> faffed to strip them down and fix them. The elastomers got quite a
> battering running at -15C.
>
> Any recommendations for cheap, reasonable front sus forks (ideally with
> both disk and canti mountings) that have a 1" threaded steerer?
>
> Hmm.. thought not.. Might be better to get a new MTB set up for off road
> and swap the front forks on the MTB/commuter for lightweight road ones..

If you can find some that have a 1" threadless steerer, and beg / borrow
/ steal a threadcutter, you can soon have a set. Keep an eye on eBay.

Jon

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
> This all starts to get rather technical..
>
> I used to have front suspension on my MTB/commuter (RST231 forks).
> They are still on there but have rusted solid (again) and I can't be
> faffed to strip them down and fix them. The elastomers got quite a
> battering running at -15C.
>
> Any recommendations for cheap, reasonable front sus forks (ideally with
> both disk and canti mountings) that have a 1" threaded steerer?
>
> Hmm.. thought not.. Might be better to get a new MTB set up for off road
> and swap the front forks on the MTB/commuter for lightweight road ones..
>
> ...d
>
> ...d

ISTR that Marzocchi will still do a 1" steerer if you contact the
importer. They are also the standard suspension fork and even the cheap
ones are pretty good.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
> This all starts to get rather technical..
>
> I used to have front suspension on my MTB/commuter (RST231 forks).
> They are still on there but have rusted solid (again) and I can't be
> faffed to strip them down and fix them. The elastomers got quite a
> battering running at -15C.
>
> Any recommendations for cheap, reasonable front sus forks (ideally with
> both disk and canti mountings) that have a 1" threaded steerer?
>
> Hmm.. thought not.. Might be better to get a new MTB set up for off road
> and swap the front forks on the MTB/commuter for lightweight road ones..
>
> ...d
>
> ...d

ISTR that Marzocchi will still do a 1" steerer if you contact the
importer. They are also the standard suspension fork and even the cheap
ones are pretty good.

Tony

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
David Martin <[email protected]> typed:
> This all starts to get rather technical..
>
> I used to have front suspension on my MTB/commuter (RST231 forks).
> They are still on there but have rusted solid (again) and I can't be
> faffed to strip them down and fix them. The elastomers got quite a
> battering running at -15C.
>
> Any recommendations for cheap, reasonable front sus forks (ideally
> with both disk and canti mountings) that have a 1" threaded steerer?
>
> Hmm.. thought not.. Might be better to get a new MTB set up for off
> road and swap the front forks on the MTB/commuter for lightweight
> road ones..

Pace ones were availabe with 1" steerer last time I looked, but I guess
they're not cheap.

A