Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Non-Thorn Related / Re: Brooks Conquest springs
« Last post by JohnR on Today at 12:52:13 pm »
Regarding mudguards/fenders I've been using some SKS Velo https://www.sks-germany.com/en/products/velo-47-trekking/ (other sizes available) with a mudflap made from 2mm sheet rubber to extend the front one and this has kept the bottom bracket failry clean on filthy English winter roads. They are small enough to possibly fit into baggage. There are optional stays but I've found that they aren't necessary although the end of the front mudguard does move a bit from side to side.
2
Non-Thorn Related / Re: Brooks Conquest springs
« Last post by mickeg on Today at 11:43:52 am »
Sounds like the Conquest is it.

Bummer about the Stronglight crankset, I thought those were good.  I am surprised how non-concentric it went.  I would definitely contact Stronglight, or the dealer, or both with photos on how bad their product is.  If it was defective, they may offer to make it right.

I did a 43 mile (~60 km) ride yesterday on my light touring bike with the Redshift seatpost.  At the same time I installed it, I installed a Kinekt suspension stem that I had bought used on Ebay.

Very happy with both.  The stem is about 3 years old, there is a bit of play in it, I assume that is wear from the previous owner, but that does not bother me.  Initially one of the pins was not held in tightly and it started to slide out, I had to disassemble part of it to find the loose setscrew.  Used some removable threadlocker on all four set screws that hold the pivot pins in to make sure that does not happen again.  That is one downside of buying used.

Most of my miles were on a rail-trail, former railroad grade converted to a gravel bicycle path, only difference between that and a tow path is the converted railroad grade trails often have a shallow slope.

I found I was less careful about hitting the bumps than I normally would be, which suggests that my bike now will be subjected to more shocks on bumpy trails than before.  And I suspect that when I get on one of my other bikes that there will be a steep learning curve to avoid bumps.

***

I like the Conquest for the springs, but I find that the springs do not really help much on bigger bumps, I think they take the buzz out of rough roads and nothing more.  The suspension seatpost has much more travel, thus the bigger bumps are less noticeable with it.

I have toured with and without fenders (mudguards) and the fenders are definitely the way to go.  Their downside is that I can't fit them into my luggage when I fly somewhere, which is why I have toured without them sometimes. 
3
Non-Thorn Related / Re: Brooks Conquest springs
« Last post by Andyb1 on May 15, 2024, 09:41:39 pm »
I rode 78 miles yesterday to the South coast and back on the Sherpa to check it all out - great until the last 20 miles when the gearing went wrong and I could not use the big chainwheel.   Looking at it today the ‘Strong and Light’ 42/34/24 chainwheel set I had fitted had somehow gone eccentric, with about 1/4 inch run out of the big cog.  I had been powering up a few steep hills, but it seemed it was neither Strong nor Light and had lasted only 300 miles from new.  An old Shimano CT92 was hiding on the shelf so I have fitted that.  It must date from the 1990s but has had little use and the alloy web from the cranks holds the sprockets much better than the design of the failed crank.
The Conquest was comfortable over Somerset and Devon’s potholes, with 1.75 front tyre and 1.5 rear tyres giving some additional cushioning so I will stick with that.
I rode without mudguards and discovered how much their loss slowed me down as I seemed to be constantly braking when riding through shallow flooded sections of roadway that I would have whizzed through if the mudguards had been on.   So bikes with mudguards are faster!
4
Thorn General / Re: bike case
« Last post by mickeg on May 15, 2024, 02:05:35 pm »
One more thing.

Someone on this forum many years ago commented that water had accumulated in a downtube above the S&S coupler and had cause rust and frame damage.

The small screw hole in the downtube for a waterbottle cage under the downtube where spray from the front tire can spray it, make sure that there is a bolt in that hole.  A friend of mine that has volunteered time as a bike mechanic has commented to me that even a bolt won't stop water from getting in, capillary action can.  Thus, grease the bolt.

And, there should be a piece of tape inside the head tube that covers the holes over the downtube and top tube.  You do not want any rain water that gets into the head tube to get into the top tube or downtube, the tape is intended to stop that.
5
Thorn General / Re: bike case
« Last post by mickeg on May 15, 2024, 01:52:09 pm »
I use the S&S Backpack case.  More info here.
https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13407.0

My bike is a 590M size.

Once you have successfully packed it, when you unpack it take many photos so that next time you need to pack it, you know exactly what works for you.

I do not recall if I mentioned this earlier, but my Nomad Mk II and the case exceed allowable luggage weights for most or maybe all airlines.  I use a luggage scale to make sure I am in compliance.  The rear rack will not fit in the case with the bike, the rear rack and some other heavy items are removed from the case to get the weight do an allowable amount.  But my tool kit might include a knife, so the toolkit is checked, not carried on.

My past trips, I checked two bags, the S&S Backpack case and another bag because I had enough camping gear that it exceeded carry on luggage volume.  So, it was easy for me to put some of the excess weight in the other checked bag.

It is my experience that airlines are much more stringent on weight but a case that is slightly oversize often flies without an oversize charge.  I have never seen a ticketing agent pull out any form of measuring tool.  My point is that if you get a case that is slightly oversize, you might get lucky.  For example Ritchey Break Away cases exceed the commonly used size criteria by a small amount but they rarely incur oversize fees.  But I do not know if a Nomad Mk II would fit in a Ritchey case, I use that as an example.

Luggage scales will pay for themselves with one saved overweight fee.
6
Rohloff Internal Hub Gears / Re: oil puddle during sprocket change
« Last post by mickeg on May 15, 2024, 01:36:21 pm »
If you did not ride it at all after the sprocket removal, if it was me I would be tempted to add a few ml of oil.  But if you rode it a short distance so that the fresh oil could coat all the internal parts, then I would not worry about the oil loss.

I use big wrenches, not a vice, but if I lacked such wrenches, I would be inclined to use a vice like you did.  (See photo.)

In the future, once you get it loosened to the point that a smaller wrench will work, that might be a good time to change the orientation of the hub so minimal oil is lost.
7
Non-Thorn Related / Re: Brooks Conquest springs
« Last post by mickeg on May 15, 2024, 01:25:30 pm »
I weigh between 80 and 85kg.

Have never broken a spring or a Brooks rail, but I am aware that others have.  I think Dan has.

Before I decided which to take, a B17 or a Conquest, I would decide which one is more comfortable.  The B17 is a bit wider and flatter in back.  Both have parts that can break, but the shape is different and I think the feel on long days in the saddle is a more important factor to consider than the potential of a broken part.

If I was going to ride more of an upright position, I find a B17 feels pretty good.  The Conquest and Brooks Pro have a nearly identical shape.  I find that when I use the drops on drop bars, the B17 (or its sprung equivalent, the Flyer) does not feel right for me, for using the drops I prefer the shape of a Pro or Conquest.

***

I recently put a Redshift suspension seatpost on my light touring bike.  That bike has tires that are 37mm wide, so it can transmit the bumps to my hands and bum more than bikes with wider tires.  The Conquest has rails that are far from horizontal, the seatpost did not have enough range of seat angle to use the Conquest, so I put a Pro on that bike.  So far I have only about 25 miles (~40 km) of riding with it, but so far I like that suspension seatpost.  Their instructions gave a setting by weight for "comfort" or "performance"  I set mine up for performance and am quite happy with that setting. 
https://bikepacking.at/media/pdf/a2/29/0b/Instructions-ShockStop-Seatpost-Rev-1.pdf

The Redshift is not cheap.  I got a 25 percent discount on a limited time sale.

If you consider a suspension seatpost, Dan has much more experience than I do.
8
Thorn General / Re: bike case
« Last post by in4 on May 15, 2024, 09:23:01 am »
Mickeg, of this parish might offer some useful suggestions.
9
Rohloff Internal Hub Gears / Re: oil puddle during sprocket change
« Last post by JohnR on May 15, 2024, 08:43:05 am »
Thanks for the clarification - I wondered if you had added 25ml (or thereabouts - I agree that 12.5ml is somewhat precise). One approach to deciding if you need to add more oil to compensate for that which escaped is to drain the oil in the hub and see how much is there (then put the oil back in the hub). If less than 12.5ml then add some more.
10
Rohloff Internal Hub Gears / Re: oil puddle during sprocket change
« Last post by E-wan on May 15, 2024, 08:10:34 am »

I used 13 mL of oil during the change 12.5 is hard to measure

Don't quite see how they expect you to be able to change the sprocket without it facing downwards given that the easiest way to do so is by holding the wheel stationary in a vice rather than with a spanner.

I suppose I could mount a vice to the ceiling, but then it wouldn't be very useful for much else.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10