seriously, don't buy a Halfords bike

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Simon Bennett wrote:
>
>> Lidl! Another false economy!
>
> actually I got a replacement last month (what goes around comes
> around!)
>
> TBF the Lidl vice was an extreme Dangerous Brother moment; I'd bought a
> brand new alloy frame off eBay (£10) which the seller had not realised
> had a RH BB thread both sides(and he had 30 of them!) {1} . When I told
> him he apologised profusely refunded me and sais scrap it so I thought
> what the hell? and tried to re-tap the BB into the frame, when it got
> too stiff I used the vice approach.
>
> {1} someone will probably come along in a moment and say that you can
> actually get a BB that's threaded that way ;-(

You can. Italian standard. Not uncommon - most Colnagos have them, for
example.

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

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

 

[mb]

MartinM wrote:

>
> Simon Bennett wrote:
>
> > > {1} someone will probably come along in a moment and say that you
> > > can actually get a BB that's threaded that way ;-(
> >
> > Um. That's an Italian BB. I've got one on the Merckx.
>
> well I had also tried to shorten the steerer tube so it would fit the
> forks (by eye with a hacksaw!) so it was probably past saving anyway.
> So an Italian BB is the same thread both sides? and the same pitch
> etc? he did say it was a Raleigh frame even though it had no markings
> whatever; perhaps they got a batch of them and it was easier to scrap
> them than order new BB's.

Not the same width, not sure about the pitch. I also don't think
Raleigh made any frames with an Italian BB.

--
Mike

 

[MartinM]

mb wrote:

> Not the same width, not sure about the pitch. I also don't think
> Raleigh made any frames with an Italian BB.

I raised this here at the time; it wasn't as simple as just buying a
new BB: they were apparently faulty frames (they never re-appeared on
eBay).

Strange how such completely incompatible things can co-exist in a
supposedly standardised (and probably all from the same factory in
China) world.

 

[MartinM]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> MartinM wrote:
>
> > So on a sealed one you can clamp the tool onto the spline with a crank
> > bolt? thanks, will try that next time. The last time I had a stiff one
> > (fnaar fnaar) I rather lost it and hit the spanner with a large
> > hammer; result, one splineless tool ;-(
>
> Or if a crank bolt doesn't suit, you can use a QR skewer & spacers through
> a hollow-axle BB, or a Tacx tool that screws into the axle.

in the Olde Dayes when I had a screw on freewheel I took the removal
tool everywhere, hoping I would find a conveniently spaced drain cover
if I ever I needed to use it. With a cassette it's just too much jollop
to have to take with you. Haven't needed to change a spoke since then.
I do often wonder how folk manage when many 100's of km's from a LBS.

 

[Paul - xxx]

MartinM came up with the following;:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>
>> Purrrlease ... 3 or 4 years is a good lifetime for any mountain bike
>> bottom bracket, let alone one on a cheap, **** bike.
>
> £299 a cheap **** bike?

Yup ... as your post seems to be at pains to point out.

> it doesn't matter how long it lasted, if it can't be removed it's
> useless;

But in other posts you did remove it, so where's the problem? 3 or 4 years
without maintenance is bloody good going for any bottom bracket, whatever
the cost/make/origin.

> how would you remove something with about 2mm of spline?

Probably similar to how you did it, by bolting it up but I'd use my vice ...


> probably a good thing it wasn't sealed as otherwise I would not have
> been able to get a bolt through it.

Quite. You _did_ get it out so where was the problem?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[MartinM]

Paul - *** wrote:

> Quite. You _did_ get it out so where was the problem?

the part was not designed to be removed, or maintained, but to look
good in the shop. Halfords did not want to know, on their own bike.
That to me is the problem.

 

[Jim Price]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> You can. Italian standard. Not uncommon - most Colnagos have them, for
> example.
>

Are you calling Colnagos common?

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

 

[Pete Biggs]

Richard richard at percival dot demon dot co dot tld for united kingdom

>> Get a proper Record vice,
>
> I can second that recommendation for Record. After bending some
> no-brand bolt-on vice, I bought a Record and, so far, it's taken
> everything I've thrown at it.

My Record vice has gone wobbly and the threaded rod has bent. Still works
though!

~PB, never noticed the brand name before

 

[Paul - xxx]

MartinM came up with the following;:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>
>> Quite. You _did_ get it out so where was the problem?
>
> the part was not designed to be removed, or maintained,

How do you know that? You appear simply to not know what you were dealing
with. There are many different types of BB, you seem to have not come
across this type before.

> but to look
> good in the shop. Halfords did not want to know, on their own bike.

I thought you said it was a Carrerra? I don't think Halfords design and
spec them (or do they?) but simply sell them. If you're expecting premium
kit and service from a (mostly) car accessory outfit then you will probably
find them somewhat lacking.

> That to me is the problem.

The problem also appears to be you.

You've broken tools, vices and not known how to do the jobs you're setting
out to do (acc. to your postings in this thread) and yet you still insist
it's Halfords fault.


--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Andrew Templeman]

Ib <[email protected]> wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > If it's a decent frame, it's worth it. If not, not.
> >
>
> Well it's certainly steel, because it rusts... Apart from that, it's a
> Falcon 'Shane Sutton Special'. My tyres and tubes are 700C, but maybe I
> just made them fit. My central heating engineer remarked he hadn't seen
> one of them for a while - I don't know whether that is good or bad, but
> turns out he once rode in the Commonwealth Games...
>
> Ib.


He was a pro for the falcon team that competed in the Criteriums (such
as the Kellogs series) that were Pro racing in the UK in the 80's.

His brother Gary was also a Pro at the same time.

Shane is now part of the GB coaching team, track sprinting in
particular. You can see more buried on this page
<http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/gbr/EventReports2006/20060
415_D3_M_Sprint.asp>


As for the frame, I don't remeber them. Does it have any stickers
indicating Reynolds tubing (531 for example)? If so, it might be worth a
shot-blast and new coat of paint.


--
Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>> So they replace the one manufactured from reject Brie with another made
>>> from reject Brie... might as well put in something that at least aspires
>>> to being merely adequate.
>>>
>> These Carbon-Helium-di-Einsteinium alloys are not all they are made out
>> to be ;-)
>
> It's the selenium impurities. Very hard to get rid of. They are often
> found with Phosphorus.
>

Tends to get eaten up by Molybdenum-Uranium-Selenium alloys if you're
not careful


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> You can. Italian standard. Not uncommon - most Colnagos have them, for
>> example.
>>
>
> Are you calling Colnagos common?

Well, they are among my friends! No, I was only citing them as an
example.

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

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

 

[Tony Raven]

MartinM wrote:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>
>> Quite. You _did_ get it out so where was the problem?
>
> the part was not designed to be removed, or maintained, but to look
> good in the shop. Halfords did not want to know, on their own bike.
> That to me is the problem.
>

I'm not aware of any standards on what a bottom bracket should look
like. The fact you assumed it was sealed and it wasn't was your
mistake, not theirs. The fact it lasted four years is, as I and many
others have said, pretty good. That a bike seller didn't want to know
about a claim on a four year old component is totally unsurprising. I
have other issues with Halfords but your experience is not one of them

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[wafflycat]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


>I appreciate that on this group anything that doesn't burn a hole in a
>years salary is automatically classed as ****, > Bill
>


Au contraire, mon ami. What I think comes across is a dislike for bikes
which are not fit-for-purpose being sold as fit-for-purpose, such as in too
many a supermarket special made of lead piping with components of cheese,
when sadly, the ignorant of cycling are lured into getting something which
is not fit-for-purpse, as has been seen in many a past thread with parents
ending up buying kids bikes that are too big, with brakes that can't be
adjusted, etc., etc. and stuff that brakes quickly when it was not bought
with the expectation that it would break quickly...

There's also a love of a bargain and an appreciation of something that is
high-end spec and is, indeed *lovely*

But this does not equate to 'anything that doesn't burn a hole in a years
salary is automatically classed as ****'

Cheers, helen s

 

[MartinM]

Paul - *** wrote:

> I thought you said it was a Carrerra? I don't think Halfords design and
> spec them (or do they?) but simply sell them.

Carrera is a Halfords brand, built by Merida IIRC

If you're expecting premium
> kit and service from a (mostly) car accessory outfit then you will probably
> find them somewhat lacking.

I'm sure Halfords are also one of the UK's biggest bike retailers; just
because they sell car bits as well does not excuse them from a bit of
after sales support.

> You've broken tools, vices and not known how to do the jobs you're setting
> out to do (acc. to your postings in this thread) and yet you still insist
> it's Halfords fault.

I've broken tools etc due to having a stuck part; I'll know better
next time (I was trying to remove/fit parts from/to junked frames,
where it would have been easier in hindsight to leave them). I'm sure
many people have similar experiences. None of the other BB's I've
removed have required the tool to be bolted on. I'm not blaming
Halfords for not being able to remove this part or any part.

I know several makes of BB; they are either sealed or non-sealed. I'm
sure the non-sealed ones are all supposed to be adjustable. Thus the
part that was fitted was IMO unsuitable. If anyone disagrees and thinks
fair dos on Halfords then ignore my warning and go and buy a bike from
them, simple.

 

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> But this does not equate to 'anything that doesn't burn a hole in a
> years salary is automatically classed as ****'
>

Vide thread on Lidl/Aldi cycling stuff

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Tony W]

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> I appreciate that on this group anything that doesn't burn a hole in a
> years salary is automatically classed as ****,

is the wrong answer. Anything unlikely to make it to the end of the street
before something breaks is classed as ****.

You will often see the advice of 'look at buying second hand' given to those
wanting budget cycling. This often has the advantage of getting a much
better product for even less money than the £69.99 suppermarket special.

> but why should I spend hundreds to pootle to work each day, and if it got
> nicked, who cares,

But, as sport's coaches are apt to say, form is temporary, class permenant.
A good old bike is likely to be better than a **** new bike whatever the
cost. If chosen well it will be more comfortable, more efficient and
cheaper to run. All in all more smiles per mile.

> doubt I would even report it to the police.

You should -- even if they only give you an incident number. Firstly, it
prevents them claiming 'crime down by x% ' when all that has happened is
that crime has risen, the local chavs have lost any respect they may one
have had for the law and everyone has given up reporting it and locks
themselves in at sunset in fear of the boogymen.

Secondly, plod can add it to his data base and see 'hotspots' -- I refain
from using the term 'police inteligence' much loved of local plod as that is
clearly oxymoron.

Finally, one of my favourite bikes cost me £35 (on Delhi market and a shed
load more to ship home). Its ****. It weighs as mcuh as a small lorry,
handles like a pig, has virtual brakes that help you think you might be
slowing down and a transmission with automatic, random gear changing and
chain shedding. I keep it as a memento of a fantastic holiday and use it
whenever I need to leave a bike at the station or similar on the grounds
that no-one would nick such a pile of dingo's.

It is, however, a comfortable ride and a very significantly better bike than
the £69.99 rubbish that a friend asked me to help him service a few months
back. Lighter, more agile, better speced.

Servicing comprised taking it to the tip and leaving with a nice Raliegh of
unknown age and providence that scrubbed up a treat.

The choice is yours.

T

 

[MartinM]

wafflycat wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> >I appreciate that on this group anything that doesn't burn a hole in a
> >years salary is automatically classed as ****, > Bill
> >
>
>
> Au contraire, mon ami. What I think comes across is a dislike for bikes
> which are not fit-for-purpose being sold as fit-for-purpose, such as in too
> many a supermarket special made of lead piping with components of cheese,
> when sadly, the ignorant of cycling are lured into getting something which
> is not fit-for-purpse, as has been seen in many a past thread with parents
> ending up buying kids bikes that are too big, with brakes that can't be
> adjusted, etc., etc. and stuff that brakes quickly when it was not bought
> with the expectation that it would break quickly...
>
> There's also a love of a bargain and an appreciation of something that is
> high-end spec and is, indeed *lovely*
>
> But this does not equate to 'anything that doesn't burn a hole in a years
> salary is automatically classed as ****'

I think that (and the refernces to Aldi/Lidl) is a very good and
accurate synopsis of the general opinion on this group; especially the
bit about being "fit for purpose" which is what I was trying to make
the OP.

 

[Tom]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Tom
> ('Don'[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> My Mercian Audax special will be celebrating it's 20th birthday
>> sometime this year.
>>
>> http://toomanybikes.com/twenty.htm
>
> Nerd score of 71%? Pah! I got 96%.

You are Ernest Cline AICMFP

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://toomanybikes.com/address.jpg

 

[David Martin]

Tom wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>, Tom
> > ('Don'[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >> My Mercian Audax special will be celebrating it's 20th birthday
> >> sometime this year.
> >>
> >> http://toomanybikes.com/twenty.htm
> >
> > Nerd score of 71%? Pah! I got 96%.

Only 90%, but some of the questions didn't have an appropriate answer.

...d