nor dies wd40 make good ‘cutting lube’. it makes a good cutting coolant. just to be clarify that one for you.

northwind – I apologise for my lack of specificity. I meant wd40 is not a product that actually be used as a lubricant, in this context. nor would water be considered appriopriate. :?

as for your experience with KMC, I am slightly surprised and am wondering if they meant ‘a bike specific lubricant that is also more suitable to the application you are using it for’ ie winter conditions. 2 miles is very not far.

I’ve heard some of thos chinese carbon forks have a harsh ride…have you ridden on the fork yourself?

bloke at work is getting a ktm off wheelies website with nexus 8 spd hub and dynamo front. think its v brakes…

btw…how did you stand on the pedals when the bike was upside down?

or is it an integrated headset – they all do that sir.

what type of bb is it? I had similar with a sq taper unit and while the bb was fine, the insert on the nds was slightly loose (couldn’t feel any play – noise only showed up under reasonable load). you say “crank splines” so i’m wondering if it’s isis or octalink….

whyte charing cross for racing

charge filter hi for road work

no point replacing spoke after spoke if the wheel isn’t retensioned at the same time

WD40 is not a lube; doesn’t even try to claim to be and will strip off any lube that is on your chain. loosens seized stuff at low speed but provides no high speed lubrication and the links on a chain whip round each other at a fair lick. WD40 attracts grit and grind away your drivetrain. It is the rivets wearing that causes the chain to stretch, so to say that a poor lube doesn’t have time to do any harm before the chain is stretched is missing the point. It won’t stretch as fast with a decent lube.

IMO GT85 works, is dry enough not to hold onto grit, but simply does not resist being washed off. To rely on GT85 means constant re-application in the damp season (ie all the time).

I use a sticky lube when I’m feeling rich and 3-in-one the other 99% of the time.

WD40 IS good for cleaning the chain however, and dissolving old grease inside hubs etc.

Makes me laugh on reviews and forums when people complain how hard it is to remove “the sticky stuff that my new chain came covered in” – probably the only time those chains will actually be lubricated is while they’re still in the packet

…and the three-in-one flung onto my rim provides a nice bit of brake squeal that is better than having a bell…the stuff on the tyre is not as useful….

1) no. there are massive differences
2) in some cases you can but it is not a general rule.
3) no way. the bearin races are not designed to come out of a cup n cone hub and even if they did it would be only by massive coincidence if the external diameters were compatible.

you’re best bet is to see if you can swap the hubs over entire (unless it is the hub that is broken on the newerr wheel). for this, the flanges where the spokes attach need to be the same distance apart and have the same spoke hole pcd and the same number of spokes. then you can reuse your original spokes.

if you’re unsure, come back on the forum with as much info as you can get on he hubs and someone may be able to help. a new set of basic spokes would be about £18 on crc iirc.

all this is assuming you want to have a go at wheel building. there are plenty of youtube tutorials…..some even help….and it is a very satisfying skill to have. good luck

double post

could be a bent or broken tooth. I had this prob on a cassette where the damage was really difficult to see. one slightly twisted tooth on the smallest rear sporcket. also had a similar situation with a tooth broken off the large front chainring. that was easy to see – I just wasn’t looking in the right place!

+1 for a thorough clean of cables, chain, cassette and derailer; lube chian and mech; then resetting adjustments before doing anything else – could be a random lump of grit

two rigid bikes. one setup for wet weather, one for dry (ie when it hasn’t rained for day or two). wet = mud round here. wet tyres are mud biased xc rear for drive/climbing (2″) and a fatter, knobblier wet/loose conditions tyre for steering (2.2″).

dry bike has lower profile treads for speed. 2.3 to cushion big bumps up front. 2.2 with soft compound and texture between the treads for traction. climbing is about more than just technique when it comes to wet stone, roots and cobbles (witton weavers way – even when it’s dry it can be wet)

not a cotic owner but the roadrat has the same bb drop and they claim that is suited to either size. I run 40-559 slicks (rubino pro) on my commuter and love them. they would be well within the the range you would expect a cyclocross to take and they feel fat to me. not as comfy or as grippy as the previous conti sport contact 33-559, but tougher…

on this site it says your frame takes a 56mm lower shell diameter headset:

http://www.ninerbikes.com/emd9

here it says that the mixer fits the C456 and uses a 49.6mm shell:

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/FROOC456P/on_one_carbon_456_frame

So my guess is no.

sorry, my last post was in response to thisisnotaspoon but it took me too long

that is something slightly different to what we were talking about but the principal remains. in this case, the bulk of the energy is turned into gpe as you have talked about. this is achieved through a deformation (or rearrangement might be a better word) of the mass.

it is a similar move to a wheelchair user performing a standing wheelie. yes, the energy comes from the propulsion force; yes the cog rises; yes, the gain in gravitational potential energy must be equal to the energy imparted to the wheel – assuming a skillful enough performer to not require a braking force compensation. but if the wheelchair wheelieer, er wheelyer…..wheelier (?) were to sit inert like a sack of spuds, then they would be tipped on their arse. to perform the trick, they need to shift forward in their seat, thus raising their mass. the rotational energy of the chair is counterbalanced by a relatively small rotation in the much heavier human being. thus momentum is conserved while the thrust energy is being converted to gpe.

the bike and rider rotate about the axle. in opposite directions. the bike moreso because it weighs less. the mass of bike and rider rearrange, causing a vertical shift in combined cog, absorbing the thrust.

picture the rider performing the manoeuvre with the wheels set in concrete and you can see that his own centre of mass does rotate about the axle.

my brain’s getting a sweat on! :-)

another way to look at it is that the centre of the axle is the only point whose direction of motion matches their acceleration. therefore it has mo rotational element.

I see what you’re saying this is not a spoon: the cog moves and the angle of the mass changes. the same argument could be applied to say that the bike pivots around the front wheel, or the saddle or the brake pad….

the problem is that the movement of the cog cannot be described by a single linear direction hence it is not a translation, but many translations, or a constantly changing translation.

the motion of the axle, however is purely straight line.

sorry tracker1972 and thisisnotaspoon but you’re both confusing translation with rotation. the bike ALWAYS pivots only about the rear axle. when rolling, the relative forward push of the bike acts on the rear wheel but the effect on the front wheel is offset by the bikes rotation, thus reducing the amount by which the front wheel is accelerated horizontally relative to the rear.

in the case where the rear brake is locked, the bike rotates about the rear axle and is translated backwards: ie it rolls over as a whole. you wouldn’t say that a single rolling wheel has a centre of rotation that is subterra simply because it is moving horizontally as well as rotating.

any suspension action simply provides deformation of the mass being rotated. this will affect the rotational momentum and impact the ease with which the wheel may be lofted, but does not affect the centre of rotation

it definitely the axle. when riding there is also a translation (linear movement) of the rear wheel forwards when manualling.this is why you have to press forward on the pedals to ‘kick’ the bike forwards underneath you. the reason it is easier on the trainer is that the clamp is providing a horizontal reaction force at the pivot which effectively replaces this kick (in crude terms).

http://www.reliablespring.co.uk/products.htm

just a thought

done

found this on ebay, listed for another day and 20 hrs. I’ve got the older version of the shogun cult in 14″ as a practice stunt/trials bike (not sure who I think i’m kidding with that one). mine looks a LOT like the kona shred dirt jump bike. it’s very light. most of the parts are crap but how good does a bar/stem need to be to get you going? the frame is good, but as I say I have the older one. had a look at some other pics online and can confirm that both versions are disc compatible. hope this helps:

ebay item: 181147919336

EDIT – VERY SORRY BUT JUST NOTICED THAT THE EBAY BIKE IS DIFFERENT TO ONE I LOOKED AT PICS OF, AND IT MAY NOT BE DISC COMPATIBLE AFTER ALL.

my mistake. btw sc-xc, do you any recommendations for rear mudguard arrangements to accommodate track ends?

I mean to make roadside repairs easier…

I get on well with mine. need to get on the hoods to shift of course but if you’re not racing I don’t see this as a hardship. mine have been through two winters, 10,000 miles one replacement set of cables, three unintentional horizontal excursions with the cover window missing off the left shifter for the majority of this. still shift like new. the braking ergonomics and comfort are pretty good too. btw mine are 2010 but I think it’s the same.

(whispers) on-one pompetamine. although you’d need p clips for the rack and (even quieter) you’ll have to wait until they decide to make some more of them…

+1 for rubino pro 3. used them in 23 and 25. I prefer the 25 for comfort with very little speed sacrifice on smooth. in fact they are faster on broken tarmac (which is about all I seem to find). not the fastest or grippiest but reasonable and with excellent puncture resistance.

just to be different – possibly worn jockey wheel bushes. how much ‘rocking’ play is there in the upper jockey wheel? found this solved my probs once with a sora and once with an alivio.

:oops:

sheldon brown :$

sheldon cooper has a lot to say on this and links to a page with a list of appropriate musical pitches your spikes should twang at. as tension rises so does the pitch. and all the spokes on one side of any given wheel should twang to the same pitch. check that first. multiple breakages like yours are probably down to uneven tension, causing one spoke to take more than it’s fair share.

you’re turning it into a commuter-cum-pedallo for there are too many ducks on the canal towpath?

bike locker users club. seems to be only out of town unfortunately but may be worth a look:

http://cycling.tfgm.com/cycling-bluc.htm

fwiw horwich parkway is excellently sited for rivington.

bencooper and pdw, thanks for your patience. I felt there was something wrong with what I was saying – “maximum difference” made it clear.

okay, I’m with those guys. now how do I add a smiley using my phone?…

B-)

but wouldn’t that mean that we could all break our chainstays simply by trying to pedal with the rear brake locked on, or by stalling on a really steep hill? I’m confused, but I’m coming back to thinking that it has more to do with the sudden reduction of momentum caused by the drivetrain locking up

hang on… I take it back… the advantage is not stepped up by the gear ratio. the maximum tension I can put into my chain is my weight times the crankarm length divided by the effective radius of tha chainring. hence about 148kgf for an 80 kg rider. maybe more if you count the additional force from pulling on the handlebar.

that’s a gross overstatement of the mechanical advantage but I agree with the principle. assuming an effective radius of about 95mm for 50t ring, my crankarm gives me about 35:19 advantage at the chain on the chainring. this is stepped up at the cassette by the gear ratio (in this case 50:25 so double) giving 70:19 mechanical advantage. for 80kg rider this gives approx force of 295kg equivalent. something will break.

the b tension screw is not a total red herring as failure to adjust it properly could easily cause the upper jockey wheel or mech cage to collide sideways during a shift onto a larger cassette sprocket. this would happen regardless of the chainring being used, however.

I’m with pdw on the cause of the stay snappage.

so how’s this for a theory:

setup out due to cage adjustment screw or chain length. mech reluctant to shift as upper jockey wheel is forced to try and occupy same space as large sprocket, as dales rider suggests. in this case though, the jockey wheel cracks under the stress and locks the drivechain. this then pulls on the cage (through rider effort) and twists it into the spokes. carnage ensues as previously described.

?