Wheel/gear upgrade

Peter Clinch said:

Pete Biggs said:

All right, a person 60 Kg heavier on an upright bike. Most of that
extra weight ends up on back wheel. A good wheel can be strong &
reliable enough to take it, especially for short distances.

It /can/ be, yes, but "good wheel" and "£25 off the peg wheel" are not
freely interchangeable terms. A good wheel costs money which may well
be better off going towards a trailer, which is a plain better way of
shifting 40 Kg of cargo than sticking it on the back of the bike.
Aside from the wheel's life, you'll improve the handling of the bike.

But will actually make hill climbing slightly harder because of the weight
of the trailer itself. Not to mention all the practical issues of parking
and storing the thing. I do agree good wheels aren't cheap but it is
sensible to get a good strong rear wheel for a touring bike anyway, even
if it's not going to take massive loads--just for the sake of sheer
reliability and peace of mind. The spec I suggest is strong enough for
the full load without being over the top for unloaded riding.

Quoted message said:

And if you don't want a trailer it's still a bad way to do it. Heavy
loads are best split about 60/40 front rear, not all piled on the
back, unless you like making life unnecessarily difficult for
yourself.

Yes the load would be better split that way but it's actually less hassle
to use two bags rather than four (if they can take what you want),
especially if you don't want to leave the bags on the bike while you're in
the shop. Also the front rack won't be needed for all the lighter-loaded
riding, and there's the initial expense of the extra rack & panniers to
take into account as well.

As for the handling problems, that's overstated. It's really no big deal
to ride with all the weight on the back once you're used to it, for short
distances at least. The more important issue is wheel and frame strength
and stiffness.

Quoted message said:

See Chris Juden's article on loading bikes a couple of
issues of Cycling back.

(I personally don't see any Cycling issues as I've never felt the need to
join the CTC).

Quoted message said:

It's a bit like the recent thing on hanging bags off the bars. It
isn't that it can't be done, it just isn't too clever to do if it's a
regular fixture of the loading. If it's a regular thing, do it the
easy way rather than beef up stuff to let you get away with the bad
way.

I agree in theory but there are practical reasons for drawing a line
sometimes, for not doing things the *very* best way, especially if one
bike has to do more than one thing. "Good enough" isn't that bad!

~PB

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]=20
says...

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

Good wheel + some of your time retensioning ~=A350 Trailer ~ =A3150.

=20
It's not too hard to find one for rather less than that. Philips Mule=20
is =A3100, will do 40 Kg and features hard base and rain cover. Much=20
easier to load as well compared to piling things on the back. A quick=20
Google revealed a new Eco trailer for =A360, which will take 40 Kg and ha=

s=20

Quoted message said:

an easy to load cargo bin.
This is before we start looking second hand, where it shouldn't be too=20
hard coming in well under your =A350.

The same approach can be applied to the wheel. The rear wheel on my bent=20
cost me just over =A330 and is a cheap disc usable wheel. There are=20
economies of scale that apply to wheels that trailers cannot take=20
advantage of due to the niche market.

Quoted message said:

Trailers aren't actually that big. You'd need a very major space crisis
not to have room for one. Not to say nobody will have such a crisis,=20
but no indication it's a problem here.

They're big enough! I live in a rather small one-bedroom flat. I already=20
have too many bikes for my flat. Fitting a trailer in as well would be a=20
unique challenge. I'm not alone in this situation.
=20

Quoted message said:

Bor Yueh lowrider rack is =A315, doesn't need any braze ons.

Should also have mentioned the extra bags (=A338 for a pair of EBC=20
symmetrics or significantly more if buying a Name!)

Jon

Pete Biggs said:

But will actually make hill climbing slightly harder because of the weight
of the trailer itself.

There is more to getting up hills than total weight. Balance of the
bike has a lot to do with how easy it'll be if it's a Real Hill. Which
is why a freight bike is easier than lashing a load of stuff to a light
bike, even though the total weight is more.

Quoted message said:

Not to mention all the practical issues of parking
and storing the thing.

I can't help but feel you're over-emphasising the negatives. Arthur
doesn't seem to have a problem and I've seen him suggest trailers as
Wondrous Things on more than one occasion. I've never seen him suggest
he's overburdened with storage space though.

Quoted message said:

sensible to get a good strong rear wheel for a touring bike anyway, even
if it's not going to take massive loads--just for the sake of sheer
reliability and peace of mind.

I quite agree, but if you want to be as sensible as possible then it
makes sense not to handle 40 Kg of luggage by just piling it on the back!

Quoted message said:

Yes the load would be better split that way but it's actually less hassle
to use two bags rather than four (if they can take what you want),
especially if you don't want to leave the bags on the bike while you're in
the shop.

So throwing this argument straight back at you, it's actually less
hassle if it all goes in one box which you put directly onto a
trailer... Packing 4 bags isn't really any harder than packing two, and
though it does take twice as long to mount them that still amounts to
time periods on the order of /a/ minute.

Quoted message said:

I agree in theory but there are practical reasons for drawing a line
sometimes, for not doing things the *very* best way, especially if one
bike has to do more than one thing. "Good enough" isn't that bad!

A trailer isn't the best way, even a very good trailer, compared to a
purpose built freight bike. A very good trailer is significantly more
than a cheap trailer, but even a cheap trailer is probably better than
putting 40 Kg on the back of the bike.
One of the great things about trailers is they don't require
over-specialisation of the bike, so it's free to do more than one thing
just by unhitching the trailer.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Jon Senior said:

The same approach can be applied to the wheel. The rear wheel on my ben=

t=20

Quoted message said:

cost me just over =A330 and is a cheap disc usable wheel. There are=20
economies of scale that apply to wheels that trailers cannot take=20
advantage of due to the niche market.

But this is rather ignoring the point that you can get a cheap trailer=20
for not that much money (i.e., cheap), and trailers are a better way to=20
routinely move heavy loads (and 40 Kg is a heavy load in this context)=20
than piling it on the back of a bike.

Quoted message said:

They're big enough! I live in a rather small one-bedroom flat. I alread=

y=20

Quoted message said:

have too many bikes for my flat. Fitting a trailer in as well would be =

a=20

Quoted message said:

unique challenge. I'm not alone in this situation.

But does Theo live in a one bedroom flat with too many bikes? He might, =

but OTOH he might not. And if he doesn't have a storage problem and=20
regularly gets 40 Kgs of groceries home by bike then a trailer will=20
probably make a net improvement for him.

It might be that a trailer isn't his best solution, but OTOH if he=20
doesn't have storage limitations and can afford a cheap trailer then I=20
think it's better to deal with the underlying problem (40 Kg is a big=20
load for the back of a bike) rather than trying to deal with the symptoms=
=2E

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

Peter Clinch said:

Pete Biggs said:

All right, a person 60 Kg heavier on an upright bike. Most of that
extra weight ends up on back wheel. A good wheel can be strong &
reliable enough to take it, especially for short distances.

It /can/ be, yes, but "good wheel" and "£25 off the peg wheel" are
not
freely interchangeable terms. A good wheel costs money which may
well be better off going towards a trailer, which is a plain better
way of shifting 40 Kg of cargo than sticking it on the back of the
bike. Aside from the wheel's life, you'll improve the handling of the
bike.

But will actually make hill climbing slightly harder because of the
weight of the trailer itself.

You'd think so, but I have to say that's not my experience.

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

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

But this is rather ignoring the point that you can get a cheap trailer
for not that much money (i.e., cheap), and trailers are a better way to
routinely move heavy loads (and 40 Kg is a heavy load in this context)
than piling it on the back of a bike.

But comparatively you can get a cheap_er_ wheel. I'm not criticising
your suggested solution, I was playing devil's advocate against your
(initially) uncompromising suggestion. Sorry! ;-)

I was not "concentrating on the negative aspects" as you accused Pete
Biggs, simply showing that there are some negatives.

Quoted message said:

But does Theo live in a one bedroom flat with too many bikes? He might,
but OTOH he might not. And if he doesn't have a storage problem and
regularly gets 40 Kgs of groceries home by bike then a trailer will
probably make a net improvement for him.

Probably... see above.

Quoted message said:

It might be that a trailer isn't his best solution, but OTOH if he
doesn't have storage limitations and can afford a cheap trailer then I
think it's better to deal with the underlying problem (40 Kg is a big
load for the back of a bike) rather than trying to deal with the symptoms.

The start of that sentence is the disclaimer that I was after. We went
through this one over racks. Something about horses and courses? :-)

Jon

Peter Clinch said:

But this is rather ignoring the point that you can get a cheap trailer
for not that much money (i.e., cheap), and trailers are a better way to
routinely move heavy loads (and 40 Kg is a heavy load in this context)
than piling it on the back of a bike.

But does Theo live in a one bedroom flat with too many bikes? He might,
but OTOH he might not. And if he doesn't have a storage problem and
regularly gets 40 Kgs of groceries home by bike then a trailer will
probably make a net improvement for him.

Building a trailer is on my list of long term projects that might get done
someyear. I do tend to cart a lot of Stuff around though it's more physical
shape than weight that's the problem (eg computers don't strap/bungee very
well to the rack). The 40kg was a one-off (it was Christmas shopping) and
the wheel had been sickening for some time previously, so it was just the
final straw. FWIW I only weigh 60kg so I'd imagine the stress wasn't that
much more than a heavy person (though perhaps heavy people and thin wheels
are not ideal companions).

Which was more to say that I need a new wheel that can take moderate
thrashing rather than I want something to take 40kg every day. I agree that
a 25 pound mass produced wheel isn't it. Monday's spoke break was merely
cycling along a flat cycle path when I heard a clunk - it wasn't caused by
any abnormal stress other than that I've been cycling a lot more in the last
few weeks.

Theo

Theo Markettos said:

Building a trailer is on my list of long term projects that might get done
someyear. I do tend to cart a lot of Stuff around though it's more physical
shape than weight that's the problem (eg computers don't strap/bungee very
well to the rack).

Bulk is something trailers do /much/ better than a rack.

Quoted message said:

Which was more to say that I need a new wheel that can take moderate
thrashing rather than I want something to take 40kg every day. I agree that
a 25 pound mass produced wheel isn't it.

That's something that a retension and true from someone who can Do
Wheels can probably solve to a large degree though. I don't have the
talent or confidence for this, but my LBS does a nice job of it for a
few quid. Money well spent IME, though the more you spend on the rim
and spokes the better it'll stay round and happy.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Pete Biggs said:

Stainless steel spokes are stronger as well as being corrosion resistant,
certainly worth getting. Some mail order/online suppliers don't charge
for buidling, by the way.

Thanks. I notice http://www.merlincycles.co.uk/acatalog/Custom_Wheels.html
are doing 36 pound handbuilt wheels (or more for upgrading components). I
see various people on here have had problems with their wheelbuild, but if I
used this as a way to get a partially assembled wheel which I could tweak
would that be sensible? That page slightly puzzles me as there doesn't seem
to have a means to enter rim or wheel size.

Quoted message said:

Cassette hubs aren't expensive and your frame could probably be "spread"
to accommodate a wider hub so maybe you should reconsider. Cassette hubs
are stronger, more versatile and it's much easier to get the sprockets off
them.

If I'm going to replace the sprockets, I suppose it makes sense.

Quoted message said:

You could get tempted onto the slippery slope of an expensive major
rebuild, but that first step of a decent pair of wheels would be a good
investment. They could be used for years to come, on future bikes as
well.

I suppose it's worth my while looking at new bikes just to compare. JOOI
(not that I've done any looking yet) do any new tourers in the 200 pound
bracket have decent components? I somehow get the feeling that 'tourer' and
'200 pounds' are mutually exclusive though :-(

Thanks
Theo

Theo Markettos said:

I suppose it's worth my while looking at new bikes just to compare. JO=

OI

Quoted message said:

(not that I've done any looking yet) do any new tourers in the 200 poun=

d

Quoted message said:

bracket have decent components? I somehow get the feeling that 'tourer=

' and

Quoted message said:

'200 pounds' are mutually exclusive though :-(

IMHO =A3200 is really the bottom end of acceptable if everything is as=20
basic as possible. Something like the Ridgeback Speed is an okay=20
looking bike, and it's at /least/ as nice in just about all respects as=20
the tourer I bought in '89 for =A3250 (which was a lot more back then, of=
=20
course) but which I've covered a lot of miles on, both longer rides and=20
utility trips. I can't see any reason you couldn't go touring on=20
something like that, even though it isn't sold as a "tourer".
The "tourer" marketing niche is for more expensive bikes being sold for=20
a more serious purpose. They are better, yes, but don't forget that=20
okay =A3200 hybrid is still a lot better than things people were doing=20
very, very serious tours on a few decades ago. This year's models=20
tourers you'll be looking at ~ =A3400 start and sky's the limit at the=20
top. You can pick up last year's models a bit cheaper if you leaf=20
through the ads in the rags, but you'd be lucky to do much better than=20
about =A3350 for, say, a Dawes Horizon.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Theo Markettos said:

Thanks. I notice
http://www.merlincycles.co.uk/acatalog/Custom_Wheels.html are doing
36 pound handbuilt wheels (or more for upgrading components). I see
various people on here have had problems with their wheelbuild, but
if I used this as a way to get a partially assembled wheel which I
could tweak would that be sensible?

That would be fine, though I thought Merlin had a good reputation. The
handbuilt wheel my brother bought from them was built well enough
(although you can never tell if spokes have been stress relieved
properly).

Quoted message said:

That page slightly puzzles me as
there doesn't seem to have a means to enter rim or wheel size.

They specialise in mountain bike equipment -- all listed rims are 26",
hubs are 135mm. They offer exceptional value for money, IMO. You have to
pay quite a bit more for road and touring wheels elsewhere, unfortunately.
I don't know if Merlin would be willing to order different components
especially but perhaps worth asking.
Re: 130 (road) v 135 (MTB) mm hubs: Your frame could perhaps (be made
to) take a 135 but the chainline is likely to be better with 130. The
further out the sprockets are, the more likely it is that you'll need a
longer bottom bracket to put the chainrings out to line up. That might be
necessary anyway with a 130, depending on crankset.

Article on fitting modern wheels to old bikes:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

Quoted message said:

I suppose it's worth my while looking at new bikes just to compare.
JOOI (not that I've done any looking yet) do any new tourers in the
200 pound bracket have decent components? I somehow get the feeling
that 'tourer' and '200 pounds' are mutually exclusive though :-(

Yes they are mutually exclusive. Just a handful of decent components cost
the maunfacturer 200 pounds so we can't expect them to produce a complete
decent bike for that sort of money. Decent bikes in the first half of the
20th century cost several week's average-wages. They're actually cheaper
now in real terms, but not /that/ much cheaper.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Decent bikes in the first half of the
20th century cost several week's average-wages. They're actually cheap=

er

Quoted message said:

now in real terms, but not /that/ much cheaper.

My first "proper bike" cost just over =A3200 (it was =A3250 including a D=
=20
lock, lid and toe clips) in 1989. It had Shimano SIS 2x6 gears and=20
Weinman sidepull brakes and a high tensile steel frame. Never mind the=20
change in value of the pound, even if you just limited yourself to =A3200=
=20
you'd be hard pushed to find anything with nearly that low a level of=20
componentry if you tried!

My brother's first MTB cost ~ =A3350 in '87. I bought mine for the same =

figure (in real terms rather less) 10 years later. /Everything/ about=20
it is better, the frame as well as the components. It's lighter and far =

more capable. And it's pretty hopeless compared to what =A3350 would buy=
=20
you today.

As well as costing less, an entry level bike today is a much, much, much =

better entry level bike than what you'd get in the 1980s, never mind the =

1920s. And you should take that into account as regards what it will=20
do. Though my tour a couple of weeks back was on a bike with a 4 figure =

price tag I don't see any reason you couldn't do it on a good basic=20
hybrid at the =A3200 level if that was all you had.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Pete Biggs <[email hidden]> wrote:
[Merlin]

Quoted message said:

They specialise in mountain bike equipment -- all listed rims are 26",
hubs are 135mm. They offer exceptional value for money, IMO. You have to
pay quite a bit more for road and touring wheels elsewhere, unfortunately.
I don't know if Merlin would be willing to order different components
especially but perhaps worth asking.

Hmm... I suspected there was the usual tourer inflation. That makes the
100ukp ballpark figures LBSs are quoting slightly more reasonable.

Quoted message said:

Re: 130 (road) v 135 (MTB) mm hubs: Your frame could perhaps (be made
to) take a 135 but the chainline is likely to be better with 130. The
further out the sprockets are, the more likely it is that you'll need a
longer bottom bracket to put the chainrings out to line up. That might be
necessary anyway with a 130, depending on crankset.

OK. I suspect my frame is 126 (it's quite a tight fit as it
is for 6 speed) so I'd need to cold set it for 130. I think going for
135 is pushing it a bit far.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose it's worth my while looking at new bikes just to compare.
JOOI (not that I've done any looking yet) do any new tourers in the
200 pound bracket have decent components? I somehow get the feeling
that 'tourer' and '200 pounds' are mutually exclusive though :-(

Yes they are mutually exclusive. Just a handful of decent components cost
the maunfacturer 200 pounds so we can't expect them to produce a complete
decent bike for that sort of money. Decent bikes in the first half of the
20th century cost several week's average-wages. They're actually cheaper
now in real terms, but not /that/ much cheaper.

So in which case spending 50-100ukp on a wheel/gearing isn't that bad as
with two good wheels the only major mechanical bits left are derailleurs,
front gears, shifters, frame and brakes. And I can swap out the wheels if I
replace the bike, so I haven't lost much if I take them to something newer.

Thanks,
Theo

Pete Biggs said:

Theo Markettos said:

And if
I'm buying a rim (700c) can anyone recommend a not-too-expensive but
reasonable quality rim - my current rims are 15mm, but I see St
John's St lists lots of rims to 'fit tyres 19-28mm' which I'm
guessing wouldn't fit?

No, that width should be all right. I'll pass on recommending any
inexpensive rims for the moment because I don't know of any that I'm happy
to call "reasonably decent" :-(
(I use Open Pros on my road bike; MA3 front and A719 rear on tourer:
MA3 is cheap but not great for rear wheels, IMO).

Hmm... the A719 looks interesting. Though I'm slightly puzzled by the 19mm
rim. OK, so the difference isn't great, but are rims smaller than this
really not manufactured any more? I'm just wondering how much play I have
on my brakes to take a larger rim size...

(current rim is 15mm across the outside, tube and tyre 23mm I think)

Theo

Theo Markettos said:

Pete Biggs said:

Theo Markettos said:

And if
I'm buying a rim (700c) can anyone recommend a not-too-expensive but
reasonable quality rim - my current rims are 15mm, but I see St
John's St lists lots of rims to 'fit tyres 19-28mm' which I'm
guessing wouldn't fit?

No, that width should be all right. I'll pass on recommending any
inexpensive rims for the moment because I don't know of any that I'm
happy
to call "reasonably decent" :-(
(I use Open Pros on my road bike; MA3 front and A719 rear on tourer:
MA3 is cheap but not great for rear wheels, IMO).

Hmm... the A719 looks interesting. Though I'm slightly puzzled by the
19mm
rim. OK, so the difference isn't great, but are rims smaller than this
really not manufactured any more? I'm just wondering how much play I
have
on my brakes to take a larger rim size...

(current rim is 15mm across the outside, tube and tyre 23mm I think)

Theo

My tourer has Mavic T520s which I have been more than happy with.

--
|C|H|R|I|S|@|F|A|S|T|M|A|I|L|.|F|M|

Theo Markettos said:

Quoted message said:

(I use Open Pros on my road bike; MA3 front and A719 rear on
tourer: MA3 is cheap but not great for rear wheels, IMO).

Hmm... the A719 looks interesting. Though I'm slightly puzzled by
the 19mm rim. OK, so the difference isn't great, but are rims
smaller than this really not manufactured any more? I'm just
wondering how much play I have on my brakes to take a larger rim
size...

(current rim is 15mm across the outside, tube and tyre 23mm I think)

My A719 actually measures 25mm accross the outside (sidewall outside to
outside). I don't know (or care, frankly) what exactly the "19" refers
to. It is indeed quite wide for a 700c rim--one big reason I chose it.
The width, combined with the shape, sockets at the spoke holes and the
alloy, makes it strong. It's no problem for my Alhonga dual-pivot caliper
and I would guess average side-pull/centre-pull/canti brakes could cope.
You'd need to unattach your brake cable to see how far the arms can open
up.

Narrower rims are available, eg. MA3 is marked "15", measures 20mm
overall. It can take 20mm tyres and the width should suit all rim brakes,
so no reason to have rims narrower than that.

Tyre width is more of an issue. I'm using a rear tyre that measures 29mm,
which is a bit on the narrow side for this rim but wider would be pushing
my luck when it comes to frame and mudguard clearance. Oddly, I have a
wider tyre on the narrower MA3 rim on the front (without problems; rims
can take quite a range of tyres, more than the manufactuers say).

Your rim may have been slightly wider when it was new! (Before it was
worn down by braking).

~PB

Chris Davies said:

My tourer has Mavic T520s which I have been more than happy with.

I believe A719 is just the new name for T520, despite the "20" implying
1mm wider. "A" stands for Ashpalt--so much more sensible than "T" for
Touring, eh? ;-)

~PB

I typed:

Quoted message said:

I believe A719 is just the new name for T520, despite the "20"
implying 1mm wider. "A" stands for Ashpalt--so much more sensible
than "T" for Touring, eh? ;-)

or even Asphalt. ...I've never like that word.

Quoted message said:

~PB