Show us your bicycles!

[Smitty2k1]

Birthday camping trip back in November. Been in a bit of a riding funk since then.

 

[Smitty2k1]

And one from my last metric century, October 2021

 

[pierre]

I really like this one: light, rigid, fast and fun down.

 

[MRC01]

...

Thus, the big change has been heavier, stronger rims. Many are deep to provide a blade shape for reducing aerodynamic drag, which makes them much stronger in bending. And if the cross-section is greater (and it is), it will provide more tangential compressive strength allowing tighter (more heavily biased) spokes.

We used to race on very light box-section rims with no bead, using tires that are sewn together to contain the inner tube and then glued to the rim. Now, we use beaded tires, and the rim has more material to provide the bead. Even without the blade shape, modern rims are heavier and stronger.

Spokes are not much stronger than they used to be. I was using DT stainless steel spokes 50 years ago, and they still sell them. But stronger rims permit heavier gauges and higher tensions. My race wheels in the mid-70’s were 36h, three-cross, 15-17-15 butted Trois Etoiles spokes with brass nipples (which are still much better than aluminum nipples) on Dura Ace hubs. I still have them. Current wheels are 32h, two-cross, 14-15-14 butted DT stainless spokes in Campy Chorus hubs. But the rims on the new wheels are heavier and have twice the section depth.

The key is that spokes must be tight. We did not used to tighten them enough, and many still don’t. They really should be tightened to a high percentage of yield strength—75-80%. The highest stress on a spoke is when the wheel is unloaded, because the bias tension should be higher than compressive stresses, which can only reduce tension in the spoke.

An impact makes a wheel collapse either by buckling the rim or by momentarily unloading enough spokes so that the rim can no longer impart compressive strength and it becomes unstable. When spokes break, it’s because of fatigue, and fatigue cracks are more likely if spokes are not over-tensioned briefly when the wheels are built to force any residual internal stresses to yield. Those internal residual stresses provide roots for fatigue cracks. Good builders always squeeze pairs of spokes together—hard—to perform this function.

We used to think that increasing the number of crosses made a wheel more comfortable, but that’s mostly myth. Increasing the crosses does permit slightly greater spoke tension, however, which makes the slightly wheel stronger.

Rick “fewer spokes are more aerodynamic, too” Denney

I'm a cycling enthusiast and have been building bikes & wheels since the 80s.

My tandem (an old Santana) has 40 spoke wheels with 4-cross pattern. VERY strong. 20 years and thousands of miles, still perfectly round & true. The only time I've ever had to true them was the rear wheel, when someone once ran into us from behind. Even then it was just a slight burble, a 10 minute job.

My first road racing bike was a Vitus 979 with Campy super record and Mavic E2 rims. The rims were so weak I had to retrue the wheels after every long ride. After a year or two I got tired of doing that and built a new set of wheels with Mavic G40 rims. MUCH stronger; after the first 100 miles I never had to true them again. Standard 36 spoke 3-cross in both cases.

My MTB has Reynolds AM carbon rims (27.5" tubeless). Strongest wheels I've ever seen, several years and thousands of miles on rugged terrain and the wheels don't even go out of true. After 6-7 years the rear wheel showed a defect along the rim, the carbon had delaminated in one section. Problem was, I had a big ride coming up only 1 week away. I sent a photo to Reynolds and they said, "lifetime warranty, pick any wheel in our catalog." But their normal warranty process is you mail your broken wheel to them, they rebuild it with a new rim & spokes and charge you $150 for parts & labor. I only had a few days. So they mailed me a new rim in a box. I got a new set of spokes and rebuilt the wheel myself the day before the big ride. The new wheel's breakin was day 1 of the 5 day ride. It's been flawless.

Another problem I've found with carbon rims is aluminum spoke nipples. When I rebuilt that MTB wheel, all the spoke nipples were corroded and half were cracked. I asked my chemistry friend and he says it's a gradual redox reaction between aluminum and carbon. I rebuilt it with brass nipples which should avoid this problem. While I was at it, I rebuilt the front wheel with brass nipples so I won't have to worry about it. Nobody should be using aluminum spoke nipples with carbon rims, but it's still commonly done. I guess manufacturers don't care, because aluminum nipples enable them to brag about the wheel being a few grams lighter, it takes several years for the damage to occur and the wheel's out of warranty by then. However, some manufacturers are aware of this and do it right. Vision is one of them; their carbon wheels come with brass spoke nipples from the factory. That said, aluminum spoke nipples have been fine on road bikes with metal (non-carbon) wheels. I've seen them last for decades and many thousands of miles. I would still use brass for mountain bikes and tandems where you need the strength.

Regarding the question of tension vs. compression, here's a video on a guy who built a wheel with rope spokes.

 

[rdenney]

Rope spokes will carry a compressive load if they are sufficiently biased by enough tension. There is a difference between stress and load.

Brass is much more ductile than aluminum, and therefore self-lubricating enough to (mostly) avoid galling on steel spokes. I’ve always used brass nipples when I’ve had a choice.

Rick “yes, strong rims carry the bending load better” Denney

 

[MRC01]

What do you think of this prototype idea for a bike?

designer stephan henrich prototypes an all-wheel beach & city bike dubbed 'the infinity'

www.designboom.com

To me it looks neat but might be a mechanical nightmare. Violates the rule of "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

 

[somebodyelse]

What do you think of this prototype idea for a bike?

designer stephan henrich prototypes an all-wheel beach & city bike dubbed 'the infinity'

www.designboom.com

To me it looks neat but might be a mechanical nightmare. Violates the rule of "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

It's like a concept car - it's not meant to be practical. As a visually striking and mechanically interesting thing it's a win. As an everyday alternative to a conventional bike it's worse in pretty much every respect.

 

[antcollinet]

It's like a concept car - it's not meant to be practical. As a visually striking and mechanically interesting thing it's a win. As an everyday alternative to a conventional bike it's worse in pretty much every respect.

Which would be true except for...

is still a concept at its stage, the designer believes that, with enough money and investment, his bike model can turn into a sellable product for users to ride.

Definitely though, a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist, while introducing some additional ones in the process.

 

[Tks]

Moots RSL and Passoni Titanio - my current stable.

Got some dentists in the house

 

[antcollinet]

Hi and sorry for the reviving. What is the brand and model of this trike? I'm stuck in the middle - on the one side, I've always been interested in similar rides, on the other hand - my wife is a fan of tricycles and advised me of this model. A decent one, but what to choose finally. Can you tell me more about the pros and cons?

Ice trikes, a UK manufacturer. They do sell into the USA, but they are not low cost.

ICE Recumbent Trikes - Bikes, E-Bikes, 3 Wheel Adult Folding Tricycles, Adult Tricycle, Adaptive Cycling

ICE Recumbent Trikes, Inspired Cycle Engineering, E-Bike, 3 Wheel Adult Folding Tricycles, Adult Trikes Tricycle, Adaptive Cycling

www.icetrikes.co

Main advantage of the "recument" (lie back) style is stability and hence speed potential. It is a different pedalling style though and uses different muscles (or the same ones in a different way) It takes some months to build up the strength.

Crank it up to the top of a hill and let it go on the downside, and it is massive fun. Like the best go-cart you could have imagined as a kid.

Main disadvantage is the price.


For alternate brands just search for "recumbent trike"

I think Catrike are USA Based.

Catrike Recumbent Trikes

Catrike designers and manufacturers of premium recumbent trikes. Catrike where passion meets engineering. Made in the USA.

www.catrike.com

 

[LTig]

Main advantage of the "recument" (lie back) style is stability and hence speed potential.

... due to less wind resistance, and seating comfort, no stress for the neck and the hands.

It is a different pedalling style though and uses different muscles (or the same ones in a different way) It takes some months to build up the strength.

The rule of thumb is to ride 1000 km in flat terrain before attempting to climb longer hills or mountain roads.

 

[Marc v E]

Wonderful thread!

I have two bikes for completely different purposes (pictures will follow):

*Bianchi Jab 27.3 MTB in yellow

*Gazelle cargo in black for biking the kids to school

I sold my day to day driver because we just had to many bikes in the shed:

A small bike for my daughter
A wooden balance bike for my son
A bike for my wife
And an extra bike to get around for visitors.

The mtb I changed quite a few things on: wider tires for better grip and comfort, changing the saddle for a more comfortable one (the design coming from a scientific study, a rare thing in the world of saddles apparently), cutting the steering bar to a width I felt more comfortable with, changing the grips for ones with good shock absorbing properties.

 

[Doodski]

cutting the steering bar to a width I felt more comfortable with

Wowowow. Myself I put wide downhill racing bars on my mountain bike. Extra wide for more leverage when stomping on it and when climbing and just more stability. It's interesting that we find opposites work.

 

[Marc v E]

Wowowow. Myself I put wide downhill racing bars on my mountain bike. Extra wide for more leverage when stomping on it and when climbing and just more stability. It's interesting that we find opposites work.

Ah yes. I might explain it by the difference in terrain (maybe?). In Holland we've got some hills but not that high; the trails I ride are narrow and the ground covered with pine roots. Usually there are lots of potholes in the sandy ground from braking by fellow mtb riders.

That's also why I changed to wider tires. Tbh if I'd choose again it would probably be a 29-er: more comfortable over potholes. I might even consider a fat mtb bike.

 

[Nabussan]

Nice to see a bunch of recumbents on this thread. These are front wheel drive “moving bottom bracket” bikes from Cruzbikes.

I'm currently learning to ride a Cruzbike T50. With the front wheel drive it's like being 6 years old again ...

 

[Doodski]

Ah yes. I might explain it by the difference in terrain (maybe?). In Holland we got some hills but not that high; the trails I ride are narrow and the ground covered with pine roots. Usually there are lots of potholes in the sandy ground from braking by fellow mtb riders.

That's also why I changed to wider tires. Tbh if I'd choose again it would probably be a 29-er: more comfortable over potholes. I might even consider a fat mtb bike.

I bought a Kona mountain bike with narrow 650 tires and it was horrible. It rode like a hard stone, cornered poorly and the tubes went dead flat in ~14 days. All in all compared to my 26" wheeled mountain bike with 2.25" wide tires the 650 tired machine sucked. I think taking that experience and having a bigger rim like the 29'er with the wider tire will be very comfy to ride on. I think a fat mountain bike will be slow at accelerating and require lots of power to keep @ speed. I have never tried a fat mountain bike this is just my best guess from observation and from reading. So many trade-off and benefits at the same time.
26" versus a 29'er.

 

[digitalfrost]

I think a fat mountain bike will be slow at accelerating and require lots of power to keep @ speed. I have never tried a fat mountain bike this is just my best guess from observation and from reading. So many trade-off and benefits at the same time.

A co-worker of mine commutes to work 40kms total every weekday (25mi in freedom units). One year he spent like 25k on bikes and accessoires. He has a lot of first hand knowledge. He had everything, cyclocross, gravel bike, 650B MTB, 650B Plus, Fatbikes...

One of his fastest, easiest and most comfortable commutes was with a fully fat bike. The reason being, you don't have to look where you drive. It doesn't matter. You can simply plow over everything. That was a real eye opener for me as you'd think a Cyclocross would be much faster. He tracks his expenses and rides so that is not anectodal evidence, he has the data.

I went from 26" MTB of my youth to a 27.5". I eventually fitted 2.4" tires which is the max size it allows. I have to say, I think my sweet spot would be probably the 27.5+ category with 2.6" to 2.8", but I'm not gonna buy a whole new bike for that.

I wanna point you to some explanation from Schwalbe about rolling resistance:

Rolling Resistance of Bicycle Tires | Schwalbe

You can find all information on the subject of rolling resistance of bicycle tires and how it influences the riding behaviour at schwalbe.com. Find out now ►

www.schwalbe.com

"Tires with a smaller diameter have a higher rolling resistance with the same inflation pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally greater. The tire is flattened more and is “less round”.

Wider tires roll better than narrower tires. This statement generally invokes skepticism, nevertheless, with tires at the same pressure a narrower tire deflects more and so deforms more."

Personally, lower tire pressures were a really interesting concept to explore. It also caused me a dent in a rim, but still I like it. I will say while still running tubes this caused me a lot of snakebites, but since I went tubeless it was totally worth it. I could not run the pressures I run with tubes.

This calculator is quite good https://www.biketinker.com/tire-pressure-calculator/
You'll be surprised how low pressures it recommends, but I have to say it works.

This is based on old article in Bicycle Quarterly from Frank Berto, but I think the science still stands. Article here: https://www.velonerd.cc/wp-content/2020/10/Frank_Berto-All_About_Tire_Inflation.pdf

If you look here https://www.bikecalc.com/wheel_size_math you will see a 650B wheel with 2.40" tires has a circumfence of 2217.71mm while a 700c/29er 1.75" tire has a circumfence of 2233.36mm. So the difference is not that big. Also in acceleration its not much.

I would rather go wider than taller. And definitely tubeless.

 

[Doodski]

One of his fastest, easiest and most comfortable commutes was with a fully fat bike. The reason being, you don't have to look where you drive. It doesn't matter. You can simply plow over everything.

I observed riders with fat bikes doing this exact thing in summer and winter. It does appear to be a good ride over bumpy stuff. We get iced up here for about 5 months of the year and it can be a pretty bumpy ride. So a fatty would be excellent in those conditions. As well the roads are a work in-progress with the constant freezing/thawing cycles creating potholes and snakes in the road. There I can see a fat bike being really good.

Personally, lower tire pressures were a really interesting concept to explore. It also caused me a dent in a rim, but still I like it. I will say while still running tubes this caused me a lot of snakebites, but since I went tubeless it was totally worth it. I could not run the pressures I run with tubes.

How is a tubeless at speed? Say 50 km/h downhill. Is the balance of the rim and tire assembly better? Does anybody even balance these things?

 

[Chrispy]

Wonderful thread!

I have two bikes for completely different purposes (pictures will follow):

*Bianchi Jab 27.3 MTB in yellow

*Gazelle cargo in black for biking the kids to school

I sold my day to day driver because we just had to many bikes in the shed:

A small bike for my daughter
A wooden balance bike for my son
A bike for my wife
And an extra bike to get around for visitors.

The mtb I changed quite a few things on: wider tires for better grip and comfort, changing the saddle for a more comfortable one (the design coming from a scientific study, a rare thing in the world of saddles apparently), cutting the steering bar to a width I felt more comfortable with, changing the grips for ones with good shock absorbing properties.

Yeah handlebar width has sure changed over the years (back in the day I used fairly narrow bars, now I'm fairly wide but stems have changed a lot too), and varies a lot on what bikes are equipped with but these days they tend to come pretty wide. What was the width before/after?...tried to find a spec on it but couldn't find one.

I observed riders with fat bikes doing this exact thing in summer and winter. It does appear to be a good ride over bumpy stuff. We get iced up here for about 5 months of the year and it can be a pretty bumpy ride. So a fatty would be excellent in those conditions. As well the roads are a work in-progress with the constant freezing/thawing cycles creating potholes and snakes in the road. There I can see a fat bike being really good.


How is a tubeless at speed? Say 50 km/h downhill. Is the balance of the rim and tire assembly better? Does anybody even balance these things?

Never had problems with tubeless on my mountain bikes whatsoever (and just did a ride hitting the high 40s a couple times on the downhills). Balancing is same essentially, altho I think with tubes out of the equation they're probably more in balance in general depending on the tire quality.

(ps and I can run lower pressure without the tubes)

 

[digitalfrost]

How is a tubeless at speed? Say 50 km/h downhill. Is the balance of the rim and tire assembly better? Does anybody even balance these things?

I haven't noticed a difference. I mean nobody balances their bicycle wheels right? As long as the sealant is fresh or you use the bike it's no problem. If you didn't use it during winter and do the first ride in spring it can be a bit bumpy because the sealant will have dried out and the solid parts of it are sticking to some part of the tire which makes it imbalanced, but that fixes itself in the same day just by riding it.

The most challenging thing for me going tubeless was to get the inital seal. I usually remove the valve insert from the stem and put a compressor to it to get that first "bang" that pushes the tire bead into the rim. It's exactly like a car tire really. If you don't have a compressor, you'll need a good pump with a big cylinder (I use a Topeak) but even with that I've pumped until I was sweaty and exhausted and it wouldn't seal YMMV.