Chain lubricating practices
08/09/24 18:21 Filed in: Gear
In a Facebook group on cycling, I recently got into an argument about the best way to lubricate a chain.
I stated a simple enough message. That frequent lubrication is the pathway to a quickly worn-out chain; probably faster than any other option. I've seen it first hand and I can support it with a mechanism. When I worked in a bike shop we had numerous customers who only took away the message that they needed to lubricate their chain. So they did. Some after every ride.
Particularly back when I worked in a bike shop, there were more bad options than good ones for lubricant. Any "oil" is a prime candidate for rapid wear. The problem isn't the lubricating properties of the oil itself. After all, motor oil keeps a very complicated internal combustion engine running for hundreds of thousands of kilometres. The problem is that it is sticky; a characteristic that helps it do its job inside the confines of an engine. But one that confounds its role on a bike chain. We ride around in the outdoors where there is all manner of fine dust and grit that sticks to the sticky oil. Look at just about any bike chain that has some use, it has some dirt stuck to the outside.
The problem arises when more oil is applied. It washes that dirt from the outside (where it does no harm) to the inside - the moving surfaces of the chain (where it can do a great deal of harm).
Grinding paste (such as for making a glass lens, or polishing a nice stone, or a concrete floor) is essentially some fluid (like the oil) and some grit (like that stuff stuck to a chain).
Once inside the chain, every time the chain bends around a chainring or cassette, it is being abraded by the paste.
I've seen a chain go from new to beyond worn in as little as 600 km due to frequent lubrication.
You'd get markedly better life just from a good wipe of that dirt prior to re-lubing.
This is where the bike industry tried to outsmart the dirt (not that the dirt is actually smart - just ubiquitous) with self cleaning lubricants. Early ones didn't work so well. The cleaning part of the mix attacked the lubricating part so it required frequent reapplication, sometimes in the middle of a ride. Eventually the chemists came up with some formulae that worked. I used Rock N Roll Gold for at least a decade with great results. Good lifespan for the drivetrain, low effort on my part, good shifting and didn't run out in the middle of a ride. It wasn't so much self cleaning as easy cleaning.
When I was a kid there were some cyclists I knew who dipped their chain in melted paraffin wax. Because the wax dried hard, and it was waxy, nothing stuck to the chain. And it didn't run or splatter in use. Unfortunately, it wasn't a great lubricant and it couldn't mobilise inside the chain. Once the wax on the articulating surfaces inside the chain was worn away, it was time to redip the chain. Most lubricants are runny enough to continually replenish the moving surfaces with fresh stuff in use. [Interesting little aside here, if you take a chain link and place it on top of a drop of liquid and bend the chain side to side, the motions of the pieces will suck up the liquid and push it out the top - chains in use do this all the time.]
Waxing is back. But now it is not simply paraffin wax, but some clever chemists have added numerous extra goodies to the waxy stuff so that it provides good lubrication for your chain. Silca even makes a specific bike chain station with hanging arm so you can simply immersion-wax a chain.
While chemists were playing with waxes, several came up with an emulsified option (if you've ever used oil & vinegar dressing you'll have noticed that oil and water don't mix - the best science can offer us is a liquid where the oil is held in the water in extremely tiny droplets: an emulsion). These emulsified waxes can be dripped onto the chain, the water penetrates (some more than others - more on that in a minute), delivering the waxy lubricant inside the chain where it can do some good. Eventually the water evaporates and the only thing left behind is the desired wax.
As I wrote above, I used Rock N Roll for about a decade. I got a sample bottle of Squirt at a bike race in my goody bag. I tried it on a few MTB rides and found it was good. I went through a couple of bottles of Squirt before I learned that Smoove was similar, but better. They provide good shifting and easy application along with low dirt. But not the best lifespan for chains because whatever solvent they use to get the wax into suspension isn't drawn into the chain as easily as one might like.
Zero Friction Cycling tests chains to destruction. They have established a protocol of clean then dirty use that tests either chains or lubricants for effectiveness. Both Squirt and Smoove do better in the testing after a period - where the lubricant finally makes its way inside. I'm not sure how much it helped, but whenever I applied one after learning about this, I used a heat gun to warm up the chain and help mobilise the lube inside.
Two lubricants that perform better than the Squirt/Smoove twins are also a bit of twinsies themselves: Silca Super Secret drip wax and Effetto Mariposa flowerpower drip wax. Both test well at Zero Friction and behave similarly in my garage testing. Because the solvent is water for both of them, it runs into the chain "just like water".
I had the pleasure of talking to Josh Poertner from Silca for about an hour online when I was reviewing some Silca products. Josh puts out loads of YouTube videos about Silca products and about best practices he and his team have found. Josh tells me that SSS wax is about 70% wax and 30% water. Thus, on one application, I add a drop of SSS to each roller on the chain and pedal backwards a little to draw the suspension inside the chain. Then I leave it for a day. The water evaporates leaving behind 70% wax fill and 30% voids. A second application will fill those voids with emulsion and evaporate once again. Only this time the chain is 91% full of wax. A third application (a bit of overkill without a lot of pay-off in my testing) leaves the chain about 98% full of wax. Which is about the same as immersion waxing with the Silca hot wax which is the same formula as the drop wax in a different format.
The wax in these four lubricants is not sticky. It doesn't promote grit sticking to the chain. But some sticks anyway.
I can't be bothered doing a full re-wax every time the chain requires a top-up. Instead I wipe the chain as much as I can such that it appears clean (I know some grit is lurking in places I can't wipe) and then drip on some more wax. A single top-up will almost double the interval between cleanings. I know it is speeding up the wear rate on my chain slightly, but in a return on investment (of time or money) I think it's OK.
The beauty of the waxy chain is that it can be completely removed with some boiling water. This was Josh's idea and it is brilliantly simple. Chain on big ring. Bike in work stand. Full kettle of boiling water. Move chain backwards, pour hot water on chainring. Two minutes later you have an incredibly clean chain with some water in it. I suspect drying it out first would fully load the chain with the 70% wax load, whereas dripping water onto an already wet chain won't displace all the water with waxy water [editorial note - I noticed Zero Friction Cycling expressly demands drying out the chain after the cleaning step, so I will have to revise my approach in future]. But it is much easier that way and I don't have so many days to relubricate a bike I use every day to ride to work.
If I do the boiling water thing on Saturday morning, the second lubrication on Sunday morning, I can ride a silent bike to work on Monday morning.
It is even simpler with any other bike in the quiver - they don't get ridden so often so the cleaning and lubricating can take place over a week or more.
The proof, they say, is in the pudding. My Campagnolo 12-spd chain that never got lubricated when dirty according to the above (but not the boiling water clean as I didn't know about that then) had 13000 km on it when I retired it. I wouldn't have done so were I not replacing the frame. It wasn't worn out yet, just very worn. The Campag 12-spd chain on my race bike only has 3500 km on it to date, but it measures "new" because it rarely gets ridden in wet conditions and that's when a lot of wear occurs. Now that I have Red 12-spd on my commuter, I'm at 6000 km and can't accurately measure any wear on the chain (it might be half the thickness of the scribe marks on my metal 12" ruler). I have heard of Red chains worn out in 4000-5000 km. At this rate I should get at least 12000. Wear is not linear in chains, once you go through the surface hardening it speeds up quickly.
On my various mountain bikes, the chains (all SRAM, mostly 12-spd - the DH bike is 7-spd but that is actually an 11-spd chain) last crazy amounts of time. And if we look at Zero Friction chain wear statistics, the Eagle chain is about the longest lasting chain ever tested. Couple a long-lasting chain with careful lubrication and they last almost forever.
Which brings me back to where I started. Some guy got angry with me for suggesting that frequent lubrication leads to premature wear. It doesn't have to. But it routinely does.
My old boss at the bike shop used to counsel lazy customers to not lube their chain at all. Better dry than worn out he used to offer. He had a deal with one customer who rode the most of anyone we knew - 600-1000 km per week most weeks. That's pro sorts of distances. He offered her free service for the life of her bike if she promised to never do anything to her bike. And after that deal was accepted, she went from a chain per week to a few per year.
Thus I stand by my statement. Lubricate a dirty chain at the peril of your pocketbook.
I stated a simple enough message. That frequent lubrication is the pathway to a quickly worn-out chain; probably faster than any other option. I've seen it first hand and I can support it with a mechanism. When I worked in a bike shop we had numerous customers who only took away the message that they needed to lubricate their chain. So they did. Some after every ride.
Particularly back when I worked in a bike shop, there were more bad options than good ones for lubricant. Any "oil" is a prime candidate for rapid wear. The problem isn't the lubricating properties of the oil itself. After all, motor oil keeps a very complicated internal combustion engine running for hundreds of thousands of kilometres. The problem is that it is sticky; a characteristic that helps it do its job inside the confines of an engine. But one that confounds its role on a bike chain. We ride around in the outdoors where there is all manner of fine dust and grit that sticks to the sticky oil. Look at just about any bike chain that has some use, it has some dirt stuck to the outside.
The problem arises when more oil is applied. It washes that dirt from the outside (where it does no harm) to the inside - the moving surfaces of the chain (where it can do a great deal of harm).
Grinding paste (such as for making a glass lens, or polishing a nice stone, or a concrete floor) is essentially some fluid (like the oil) and some grit (like that stuff stuck to a chain).
Once inside the chain, every time the chain bends around a chainring or cassette, it is being abraded by the paste.
I've seen a chain go from new to beyond worn in as little as 600 km due to frequent lubrication.
You'd get markedly better life just from a good wipe of that dirt prior to re-lubing.
This is where the bike industry tried to outsmart the dirt (not that the dirt is actually smart - just ubiquitous) with self cleaning lubricants. Early ones didn't work so well. The cleaning part of the mix attacked the lubricating part so it required frequent reapplication, sometimes in the middle of a ride. Eventually the chemists came up with some formulae that worked. I used Rock N Roll Gold for at least a decade with great results. Good lifespan for the drivetrain, low effort on my part, good shifting and didn't run out in the middle of a ride. It wasn't so much self cleaning as easy cleaning.
When I was a kid there were some cyclists I knew who dipped their chain in melted paraffin wax. Because the wax dried hard, and it was waxy, nothing stuck to the chain. And it didn't run or splatter in use. Unfortunately, it wasn't a great lubricant and it couldn't mobilise inside the chain. Once the wax on the articulating surfaces inside the chain was worn away, it was time to redip the chain. Most lubricants are runny enough to continually replenish the moving surfaces with fresh stuff in use. [Interesting little aside here, if you take a chain link and place it on top of a drop of liquid and bend the chain side to side, the motions of the pieces will suck up the liquid and push it out the top - chains in use do this all the time.]
Waxing is back. But now it is not simply paraffin wax, but some clever chemists have added numerous extra goodies to the waxy stuff so that it provides good lubrication for your chain. Silca even makes a specific bike chain station with hanging arm so you can simply immersion-wax a chain.
While chemists were playing with waxes, several came up with an emulsified option (if you've ever used oil & vinegar dressing you'll have noticed that oil and water don't mix - the best science can offer us is a liquid where the oil is held in the water in extremely tiny droplets: an emulsion). These emulsified waxes can be dripped onto the chain, the water penetrates (some more than others - more on that in a minute), delivering the waxy lubricant inside the chain where it can do some good. Eventually the water evaporates and the only thing left behind is the desired wax.
As I wrote above, I used Rock N Roll for about a decade. I got a sample bottle of Squirt at a bike race in my goody bag. I tried it on a few MTB rides and found it was good. I went through a couple of bottles of Squirt before I learned that Smoove was similar, but better. They provide good shifting and easy application along with low dirt. But not the best lifespan for chains because whatever solvent they use to get the wax into suspension isn't drawn into the chain as easily as one might like.
Zero Friction Cycling tests chains to destruction. They have established a protocol of clean then dirty use that tests either chains or lubricants for effectiveness. Both Squirt and Smoove do better in the testing after a period - where the lubricant finally makes its way inside. I'm not sure how much it helped, but whenever I applied one after learning about this, I used a heat gun to warm up the chain and help mobilise the lube inside.
Two lubricants that perform better than the Squirt/Smoove twins are also a bit of twinsies themselves: Silca Super Secret drip wax and Effetto Mariposa flowerpower drip wax. Both test well at Zero Friction and behave similarly in my garage testing. Because the solvent is water for both of them, it runs into the chain "just like water".
I had the pleasure of talking to Josh Poertner from Silca for about an hour online when I was reviewing some Silca products. Josh puts out loads of YouTube videos about Silca products and about best practices he and his team have found. Josh tells me that SSS wax is about 70% wax and 30% water. Thus, on one application, I add a drop of SSS to each roller on the chain and pedal backwards a little to draw the suspension inside the chain. Then I leave it for a day. The water evaporates leaving behind 70% wax fill and 30% voids. A second application will fill those voids with emulsion and evaporate once again. Only this time the chain is 91% full of wax. A third application (a bit of overkill without a lot of pay-off in my testing) leaves the chain about 98% full of wax. Which is about the same as immersion waxing with the Silca hot wax which is the same formula as the drop wax in a different format.
The wax in these four lubricants is not sticky. It doesn't promote grit sticking to the chain. But some sticks anyway.
I can't be bothered doing a full re-wax every time the chain requires a top-up. Instead I wipe the chain as much as I can such that it appears clean (I know some grit is lurking in places I can't wipe) and then drip on some more wax. A single top-up will almost double the interval between cleanings. I know it is speeding up the wear rate on my chain slightly, but in a return on investment (of time or money) I think it's OK.
The beauty of the waxy chain is that it can be completely removed with some boiling water. This was Josh's idea and it is brilliantly simple. Chain on big ring. Bike in work stand. Full kettle of boiling water. Move chain backwards, pour hot water on chainring. Two minutes later you have an incredibly clean chain with some water in it. I suspect drying it out first would fully load the chain with the 70% wax load, whereas dripping water onto an already wet chain won't displace all the water with waxy water [editorial note - I noticed Zero Friction Cycling expressly demands drying out the chain after the cleaning step, so I will have to revise my approach in future]. But it is much easier that way and I don't have so many days to relubricate a bike I use every day to ride to work.
If I do the boiling water thing on Saturday morning, the second lubrication on Sunday morning, I can ride a silent bike to work on Monday morning.
It is even simpler with any other bike in the quiver - they don't get ridden so often so the cleaning and lubricating can take place over a week or more.
The proof, they say, is in the pudding. My Campagnolo 12-spd chain that never got lubricated when dirty according to the above (but not the boiling water clean as I didn't know about that then) had 13000 km on it when I retired it. I wouldn't have done so were I not replacing the frame. It wasn't worn out yet, just very worn. The Campag 12-spd chain on my race bike only has 3500 km on it to date, but it measures "new" because it rarely gets ridden in wet conditions and that's when a lot of wear occurs. Now that I have Red 12-spd on my commuter, I'm at 6000 km and can't accurately measure any wear on the chain (it might be half the thickness of the scribe marks on my metal 12" ruler). I have heard of Red chains worn out in 4000-5000 km. At this rate I should get at least 12000. Wear is not linear in chains, once you go through the surface hardening it speeds up quickly.
On my various mountain bikes, the chains (all SRAM, mostly 12-spd - the DH bike is 7-spd but that is actually an 11-spd chain) last crazy amounts of time. And if we look at Zero Friction chain wear statistics, the Eagle chain is about the longest lasting chain ever tested. Couple a long-lasting chain with careful lubrication and they last almost forever.
Which brings me back to where I started. Some guy got angry with me for suggesting that frequent lubrication leads to premature wear. It doesn't have to. But it routinely does.
My old boss at the bike shop used to counsel lazy customers to not lube their chain at all. Better dry than worn out he used to offer. He had a deal with one customer who rode the most of anyone we knew - 600-1000 km per week most weeks. That's pro sorts of distances. He offered her free service for the life of her bike if she promised to never do anything to her bike. And after that deal was accepted, she went from a chain per week to a few per year.
Thus I stand by my statement. Lubricate a dirty chain at the peril of your pocketbook.
Shoe lifespan
24/08/24 00:31 Filed in: Gear
How long does a cycling shoe last? Obviously the answer is "it depends". But what does it depend on?
For road shoes it's subtle. With plastic soles, the sole declines in stiffness with use and age. This is demonstrable by comparing a brand-new pair with a well-used pair. Carbon soles will not do this - they should be as stiff at ride 1000 as at ride 1. If you walk in them much, however, they can get very scratched up. Most new carbon soles are incredibly shiny and well finished. That doesn't impact actual riding, however.
On my moderately wide feet, I tend to stretch out the (usually narrow) front part of the shoe with use to the point they feel loose. I try to have a new pair on hand at all times - just in case - and when I can discern a difference between the in-use pair and the new pair, it is time to retire the older shoes.
On more traditional shoes with velcro straps, the cling of the velcro was usually gone before the shoe was. With buckles and now dials, that doesn't apply.
I recently got 2 years out of a mid-range Northwave shoe that I never really liked that much before I called it a day and demoted my race shoes to commuting duty and promoted my in-the-box shoes to race duty. And yes that means I have no back-up shoes at the moment. Northwave has radically changed their shoes and the supply of new-old-stock obsolete models has dried up. I might have to try the new model or swap brands... Back to the retired shoes - that was 2 years of 30 km per day commuting duty, rain or shine, until I could really tell that the well loved shoes I had for racing were much more comfortable than the 2 year old ones with the faux carbon sole - the only carbon in it is the small circle where the cleat attaches that appears to be glued into a cavity in the plastic sole. That was a much shorter run than the full carbon soled shoes seem to last - almost everything was better about the high-end shoe compared to the mid-range shoe. They both had 2 dials to adjust the fit - these dials are identical on any Northwave that uses a dial. But the plastic sole, the fabric upper - even the reflective materials used (are shinier on the high end shoes than on these ones I recently retired).
For cleated MTB shoes, the end for me is usually when the tread is gone. Manufacturers tend to put so little rubber on the sole that what is there takes a high load and a beating every time you put them on. I've also seen a fair few pull the cleat out of the sole - that's a definitive end of lifespan issue. Like road shoes, it can be the shoe stretching too much, or the velcro losing its grip - but usually the shoe dies prior to anything like wearing out. MTB is hard on shoes!
For flat pedal shoes the end is usually, but not always, when the sole is so torn up by the pedal spikes that the insole is visible. These are generally lace-up shoes and new laces are easy. The shoe itself is usually the toughest of all cycling shoes too. Those grippy rubber soles erode on the pedal pins rather quickly. And that depends a bit on how rough the ride is - riding smooth singletrack doesn't push feet around on the pins like storming down rugged trails in a bike park off the chairlift does!
I guess the bottom line in shoe life is that changes are subtle and slow. Without the references to wear (poor fit, being able to see through the bottom of the shoe, etc) it would be easy to drag use out. Many riders do run their shoes longer than their feet might like.
For road shoes it's subtle. With plastic soles, the sole declines in stiffness with use and age. This is demonstrable by comparing a brand-new pair with a well-used pair. Carbon soles will not do this - they should be as stiff at ride 1000 as at ride 1. If you walk in them much, however, they can get very scratched up. Most new carbon soles are incredibly shiny and well finished. That doesn't impact actual riding, however.
On my moderately wide feet, I tend to stretch out the (usually narrow) front part of the shoe with use to the point they feel loose. I try to have a new pair on hand at all times - just in case - and when I can discern a difference between the in-use pair and the new pair, it is time to retire the older shoes.
On more traditional shoes with velcro straps, the cling of the velcro was usually gone before the shoe was. With buckles and now dials, that doesn't apply.
I recently got 2 years out of a mid-range Northwave shoe that I never really liked that much before I called it a day and demoted my race shoes to commuting duty and promoted my in-the-box shoes to race duty. And yes that means I have no back-up shoes at the moment. Northwave has radically changed their shoes and the supply of new-old-stock obsolete models has dried up. I might have to try the new model or swap brands... Back to the retired shoes - that was 2 years of 30 km per day commuting duty, rain or shine, until I could really tell that the well loved shoes I had for racing were much more comfortable than the 2 year old ones with the faux carbon sole - the only carbon in it is the small circle where the cleat attaches that appears to be glued into a cavity in the plastic sole. That was a much shorter run than the full carbon soled shoes seem to last - almost everything was better about the high-end shoe compared to the mid-range shoe. They both had 2 dials to adjust the fit - these dials are identical on any Northwave that uses a dial. But the plastic sole, the fabric upper - even the reflective materials used (are shinier on the high end shoes than on these ones I recently retired).
For cleated MTB shoes, the end for me is usually when the tread is gone. Manufacturers tend to put so little rubber on the sole that what is there takes a high load and a beating every time you put them on. I've also seen a fair few pull the cleat out of the sole - that's a definitive end of lifespan issue. Like road shoes, it can be the shoe stretching too much, or the velcro losing its grip - but usually the shoe dies prior to anything like wearing out. MTB is hard on shoes!
For flat pedal shoes the end is usually, but not always, when the sole is so torn up by the pedal spikes that the insole is visible. These are generally lace-up shoes and new laces are easy. The shoe itself is usually the toughest of all cycling shoes too. Those grippy rubber soles erode on the pedal pins rather quickly. And that depends a bit on how rough the ride is - riding smooth singletrack doesn't push feet around on the pins like storming down rugged trails in a bike park off the chairlift does!
I guess the bottom line in shoe life is that changes are subtle and slow. Without the references to wear (poor fit, being able to see through the bottom of the shoe, etc) it would be easy to drag use out. Many riders do run their shoes longer than their feet might like.
Bad bunnies
16/08/24 20:19 Filed in: Riding
Lots of animals freeze when exposed to a headlight. I've had close encounters with deer and other large mammals on the road when my car headlights scared them into not moving.
But the Canberra rabbits are totally unpredictable. They might freeze. They might bolt. And if they run, it might be away from you or perhaps towards you. The other night on the bike path along the river I was riding along in the dark. Two rabbits ran straight at me and turned as I met them so as to hit my front wheel.
Bunny number one bounced off the spokes and kept running. I assume he is OK (I say he because these were both big rabbits - but maybe not?). My front wheel is a Campagnolo wheel with G3 spoke pattern. That means that the spokes run in parallel triplets from hub to rim with large gaps between the 3. The second rabbit followed the first but didn't bounce off of spokes. Instead the mudguard was pushed into the tyre and it crumpled up against the fork crown. And I ended up with rabbit fur everywhere on the bike. But zero blood. So the spokes didn't cut into the poor creature; merely abraded off clumps of fur which ended up stuck to my wheel, my fork, my downtube, my seat tube, my bottle cage, my shoes, my pannier and rack and even my rear mudguard. Like everywhere!
I had to stop. The front tyre didn't roll very well in this state. I was able to stretch the guard back out and while it was quite twisted, the wheel was free to spin. So I rode home. I removed the mudguard and using a pair of spanners, bent the metal pieces back into shape so that reinstalling the guard found it sitting almost in the correct location again. Yes it had a twist in it, and marks from where it acutely folded. Also, the tip that protrudes from the fork had a burn mark on it from the top touching the moving tyre tread under it - I don't know how that occurred.
I fear the second bunny ran off into the brush and died. Rabbits are quite fragile. This one had a heck of a fright. Someone I know with a pet rabbit lost the lovely bunny when a dog barked at it too aggressively, it died of fright. Maybe the river rabbits are made of sterner stuff than this pampered pet, but I haven't seen any bunnies with a big bald patch running around on the path in the ensuing days.
I will replace the mudguards with new ones now. The rear already had a lot of marks on it from mounting it quite differently on the first Checkpoint. And now that the front is disfigured, it is time for a fresh pair. These Bontrager mudguards have been the best ones I've ever had for durability. On my Cannondale I used to lose pieces of the mudguard regularly. The first to go was the small piece that sticks forwards of the fork crown. It would vibrate so badly that it shook itself free in about 6 months. I had numerous warranty replacements and eventually gave up. Sometimes the rear would also split in two where the brake bridge support piece hangs it up - I think that is a position that usually alters the arc of the unit (the slotted hole that connects it to the brake bridge is never long enough to get it where it needs to be). No issues with the Bonty mudguards after 4+ years of use. I even had some Esge fenders that rolled up around the bottom stay attachment point when a stick ran up the back of the front tyre and pulled the guard into the tyre.
I don't like the aesthetics of the "no cut stays" because there are 2 plastic blocks on each fender stay. They look awkward and unaero. But they sure are easy to adjust and like the name, you don't have to cut anything to make them fit.
But the Canberra rabbits are totally unpredictable. They might freeze. They might bolt. And if they run, it might be away from you or perhaps towards you. The other night on the bike path along the river I was riding along in the dark. Two rabbits ran straight at me and turned as I met them so as to hit my front wheel.
Bunny number one bounced off the spokes and kept running. I assume he is OK (I say he because these were both big rabbits - but maybe not?). My front wheel is a Campagnolo wheel with G3 spoke pattern. That means that the spokes run in parallel triplets from hub to rim with large gaps between the 3. The second rabbit followed the first but didn't bounce off of spokes. Instead the mudguard was pushed into the tyre and it crumpled up against the fork crown. And I ended up with rabbit fur everywhere on the bike. But zero blood. So the spokes didn't cut into the poor creature; merely abraded off clumps of fur which ended up stuck to my wheel, my fork, my downtube, my seat tube, my bottle cage, my shoes, my pannier and rack and even my rear mudguard. Like everywhere!
I had to stop. The front tyre didn't roll very well in this state. I was able to stretch the guard back out and while it was quite twisted, the wheel was free to spin. So I rode home. I removed the mudguard and using a pair of spanners, bent the metal pieces back into shape so that reinstalling the guard found it sitting almost in the correct location again. Yes it had a twist in it, and marks from where it acutely folded. Also, the tip that protrudes from the fork had a burn mark on it from the top touching the moving tyre tread under it - I don't know how that occurred.
I fear the second bunny ran off into the brush and died. Rabbits are quite fragile. This one had a heck of a fright. Someone I know with a pet rabbit lost the lovely bunny when a dog barked at it too aggressively, it died of fright. Maybe the river rabbits are made of sterner stuff than this pampered pet, but I haven't seen any bunnies with a big bald patch running around on the path in the ensuing days.
I will replace the mudguards with new ones now. The rear already had a lot of marks on it from mounting it quite differently on the first Checkpoint. And now that the front is disfigured, it is time for a fresh pair. These Bontrager mudguards have been the best ones I've ever had for durability. On my Cannondale I used to lose pieces of the mudguard regularly. The first to go was the small piece that sticks forwards of the fork crown. It would vibrate so badly that it shook itself free in about 6 months. I had numerous warranty replacements and eventually gave up. Sometimes the rear would also split in two where the brake bridge support piece hangs it up - I think that is a position that usually alters the arc of the unit (the slotted hole that connects it to the brake bridge is never long enough to get it where it needs to be). No issues with the Bonty mudguards after 4+ years of use. I even had some Esge fenders that rolled up around the bottom stay attachment point when a stick ran up the back of the front tyre and pulled the guard into the tyre.
I don't like the aesthetics of the "no cut stays" because there are 2 plastic blocks on each fender stay. They look awkward and unaero. But they sure are easy to adjust and like the name, you don't have to cut anything to make them fit.
Saddle shopping
19/07/24 22:33 Filed in: Gear
I am often asked how one finds the best saddle to put on a bike. I wish there was an easy answer. Many brands offer a variant on the "ass-ometer" that measures the distance between the sit bones in order to select the appropriate width amongst a single saddle available in multiple widths. But that still doesn't tell you which model to pick in the first place. Both Specialized and Trek offer a few saddles to pick from, in various quality levels and in multiple widths. The sitting gauge will tell you which width, but not if the saddle itself is suited. There is often little guidance about how the different levels might affect comfort either. The carbon rails are MUCH stiffer than the titanium rails, with the steel rails in the middle. Carbon shells are very tunable, so not necessarily stiffer than a nylon shell - but different shell materials in the same model of saddle definitely impact comfort. And softer is not better for everyone.
There is one rule that has enough research behind it to use as an actual rule: saddle flatness is related to rider flexibility. A flexible rider is capable of moving around on the bike and therefore requires a flat saddle to move on. An inflexible rider benefits from being locked in place. A saddle-shaped saddle helps keep the pelvis at the bottom of the "bowl" and works best with an inflexible rider.
How flexible? For Fizik it is a very low bar. If you can't reach much past your knees, you are a Bull - an inflexible creature - and you should have the saddle-shaped option. If you can reach past your ankles, then you are a Snake - a flexible creature - and you should have the flat-topped option. In between you are semi-flexible and should have a slightly curved saddle - the Chameleon option. For a while they even produced three seats called Bull, Chameleon and Snake. These were variations on the three saddles they've had for 20+ years: Aliante for Bulls, Antares for Chameleons and Arione for Snakes.
Another complication is that different levels of saddles have different types of foam, different rail materials and therefore sit quite differently across the models. The top-line carbon rails are very stiff. The next level titanium rails are very flexible. Steel rails are in the middle. Nylon shells have some give to them. Carbon shells generally have very little give.
This takes me to the second rule of comfort: the longer you plan to ride in one outing and the more often you plan to ride, the less plushness you want on the seat. This also goes a little bit with the position of the torso. If you ride sitting up, you need a wider/softer seat. If you look like one of those "Tour de France guys" then you must have a narrower/firmer seat.
Examples:
Fabric offers all their saddles in different rail materials, different flatness profiles for the same plan shape and different foams across the different profiles. I test rode a steel-railed Fabric saddle and thought it was OK. I purchased a titanium-railed one and never quite gelled with it.
Fizik R5 and R3 level saddles have nylon shells. The R1 and 00 levels have carbon shells (which I believe are different between the two as well). The 00 is extremely light, and extremely stiff. It doesn't ride like an R3 (on titanium rails) or an R5 (on steel rails), which are themselves subtly different due to the rail flex.
Specialized also has each saddle at different price points by virtue of the materials used in the seat and rails. I've liked one level of Specialized saddle but not liked an otherwise-identical variant. The whole of the saddle matters.
And now many companies have a 3D printed variant. The plan and profile shapes are the same, but the foam and cover are gone in favour of a plastic lattice. Specialized offers 3 models in 3D printing, two of which can be had with carbon rails or titanium rails. Fizik offers perhaps 4 models in 3D printing, again with carbon or titanium rails. And also with or without a groove up the middle for the Antares at least.
Around 20 years ago I was selling lots of the Fizik Arione to people and most liked it. It seemed to only disagree with people who sat too upright or were too inflexible. I used Arione from about the time they were released until quite recently. The problem is that there is a new model which is not nearly as accommodating as the old model. It lacks the flexible sides that Fizik called wingflex. This was actually some slots cut in the shell where the pedalling leg brushes the saddle (allowing movement in the "wings"). Wingflex was also the death of all my Arione saddles - eventually one of the slots would crack into the shell and then all support was gone. The new saddle should last better, but it lacks the comfort for me of the older model so it doesn't really matter how long it lasts!
The prompt for writing this was my journey on trying to find a replacement seat. I bought a saddle from Trek with the 30-day comfort guarantee. It didn't pass the comfort test and went back to the shop. It was close, but not close enough.
I'm currently trying out an out-of-production Trek seat. If I like it, I cannot get another one. Which makes liking it a risk! But I'm getting quite desperate to find something comfortable. If this one passes muster, it really just postpones the inevitable of finding a wholly new saddle I can put on several bikes. There are certainly a LOT of options out there.
There is one rule that has enough research behind it to use as an actual rule: saddle flatness is related to rider flexibility. A flexible rider is capable of moving around on the bike and therefore requires a flat saddle to move on. An inflexible rider benefits from being locked in place. A saddle-shaped saddle helps keep the pelvis at the bottom of the "bowl" and works best with an inflexible rider.
How flexible? For Fizik it is a very low bar. If you can't reach much past your knees, you are a Bull - an inflexible creature - and you should have the saddle-shaped option. If you can reach past your ankles, then you are a Snake - a flexible creature - and you should have the flat-topped option. In between you are semi-flexible and should have a slightly curved saddle - the Chameleon option. For a while they even produced three seats called Bull, Chameleon and Snake. These were variations on the three saddles they've had for 20+ years: Aliante for Bulls, Antares for Chameleons and Arione for Snakes.
Another complication is that different levels of saddles have different types of foam, different rail materials and therefore sit quite differently across the models. The top-line carbon rails are very stiff. The next level titanium rails are very flexible. Steel rails are in the middle. Nylon shells have some give to them. Carbon shells generally have very little give.
This takes me to the second rule of comfort: the longer you plan to ride in one outing and the more often you plan to ride, the less plushness you want on the seat. This also goes a little bit with the position of the torso. If you ride sitting up, you need a wider/softer seat. If you look like one of those "Tour de France guys" then you must have a narrower/firmer seat.
Examples:
Fabric offers all their saddles in different rail materials, different flatness profiles for the same plan shape and different foams across the different profiles. I test rode a steel-railed Fabric saddle and thought it was OK. I purchased a titanium-railed one and never quite gelled with it.
Fizik R5 and R3 level saddles have nylon shells. The R1 and 00 levels have carbon shells (which I believe are different between the two as well). The 00 is extremely light, and extremely stiff. It doesn't ride like an R3 (on titanium rails) or an R5 (on steel rails), which are themselves subtly different due to the rail flex.
Specialized also has each saddle at different price points by virtue of the materials used in the seat and rails. I've liked one level of Specialized saddle but not liked an otherwise-identical variant. The whole of the saddle matters.
And now many companies have a 3D printed variant. The plan and profile shapes are the same, but the foam and cover are gone in favour of a plastic lattice. Specialized offers 3 models in 3D printing, two of which can be had with carbon rails or titanium rails. Fizik offers perhaps 4 models in 3D printing, again with carbon or titanium rails. And also with or without a groove up the middle for the Antares at least.
Around 20 years ago I was selling lots of the Fizik Arione to people and most liked it. It seemed to only disagree with people who sat too upright or were too inflexible. I used Arione from about the time they were released until quite recently. The problem is that there is a new model which is not nearly as accommodating as the old model. It lacks the flexible sides that Fizik called wingflex. This was actually some slots cut in the shell where the pedalling leg brushes the saddle (allowing movement in the "wings"). Wingflex was also the death of all my Arione saddles - eventually one of the slots would crack into the shell and then all support was gone. The new saddle should last better, but it lacks the comfort for me of the older model so it doesn't really matter how long it lasts!
The prompt for writing this was my journey on trying to find a replacement seat. I bought a saddle from Trek with the 30-day comfort guarantee. It didn't pass the comfort test and went back to the shop. It was close, but not close enough.
I'm currently trying out an out-of-production Trek seat. If I like it, I cannot get another one. Which makes liking it a risk! But I'm getting quite desperate to find something comfortable. If this one passes muster, it really just postpones the inevitable of finding a wholly new saddle I can put on several bikes. There are certainly a LOT of options out there.
3D printed saddle - part 3 (off road)
06/07/24 16:12 Filed in: Gear
Back in October 2022, I wrote about saddles and wanting to try a 3D printed saddle.
And then in November I wrote how I'd found one on sale and purchased it for my commuter bike.
In April 2023 I reported in after 30 hours of use that it wasn't doing it for me.
Then I put the Arione back on the commuter and the 3D saddle on my Ibis Ripley (because the Fabric saddle I thought I liked on that one was hurting my butt).
Now, more than a year later I can report on the 3D printed saddle on the Ibis.
In short, it is fine.
The complaints I had about it as a road bike saddle where it had only a few millimetres of fore-aft adjustment for a supported pelvis do not apply on the dirt. I'm always standing and sitting and shifting my weight and hitting bumps. With all that going on, the cushion it provides and the support it offers both seem adequate. I have little doubt if I went and ground out 4+ hours on smoother trails that it would fail. But that's not how I ride the Ripley. It is 1-3 hour blasts around in a forest and for those, it is fine.
I still want to try another 3D printed saddle on the road. Fizik Antares is not the best model for me in the conventional construction style, so there is no reason to think it would be the best model for me in the 3D printed style. Fizik recently announced the Aliante in an Adaptive (Fizik's word for 3D printed construction) model. That leaves my Arione as the only road saddle from the trio of long-term models not to be produced in Adaptive. Also, I realise that the model I have is "Versus" which means it has a big groove down the middle. There is an Antares Adaptive that is not Versus - lacking the big channel. That might well be better too. I've always found a hole or a groove squashes too much under my weight. What is fine for a 70 kg average cyclist is not necessarily fine for a tall/heavy guy like me. Finally, there is the newer short nose style Argo in Adaptive build to try.
Plus all the Specialized 3D printed saddles.
Not to mention the less well known brands and the fact that Selle Italia now 3D prints saddles too.
Hopefully there will be a part 4 at some point.
And then in November I wrote how I'd found one on sale and purchased it for my commuter bike.
In April 2023 I reported in after 30 hours of use that it wasn't doing it for me.
Then I put the Arione back on the commuter and the 3D saddle on my Ibis Ripley (because the Fabric saddle I thought I liked on that one was hurting my butt).
Now, more than a year later I can report on the 3D printed saddle on the Ibis.
In short, it is fine.
The complaints I had about it as a road bike saddle where it had only a few millimetres of fore-aft adjustment for a supported pelvis do not apply on the dirt. I'm always standing and sitting and shifting my weight and hitting bumps. With all that going on, the cushion it provides and the support it offers both seem adequate. I have little doubt if I went and ground out 4+ hours on smoother trails that it would fail. But that's not how I ride the Ripley. It is 1-3 hour blasts around in a forest and for those, it is fine.
I still want to try another 3D printed saddle on the road. Fizik Antares is not the best model for me in the conventional construction style, so there is no reason to think it would be the best model for me in the 3D printed style. Fizik recently announced the Aliante in an Adaptive (Fizik's word for 3D printed construction) model. That leaves my Arione as the only road saddle from the trio of long-term models not to be produced in Adaptive. Also, I realise that the model I have is "Versus" which means it has a big groove down the middle. There is an Antares Adaptive that is not Versus - lacking the big channel. That might well be better too. I've always found a hole or a groove squashes too much under my weight. What is fine for a 70 kg average cyclist is not necessarily fine for a tall/heavy guy like me. Finally, there is the newer short nose style Argo in Adaptive build to try.
Plus all the Specialized 3D printed saddles.
Not to mention the less well known brands and the fact that Selle Italia now 3D prints saddles too.
Hopefully there will be a part 4 at some point.
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022