Johan Bornman

No. A cartridge bearing or a cup and cone bearing could have an ID that's too small for the 15mm standard. The two issues are unrelated. Previous-generation American Classic wheels for instance use cartridge bearings and don't have a large enough ID (internal dimension) to accept a larger axle. Modern Shimano wheels have cup and cone bearings and are large enough to accept a 15mm standard. Don't confuse the issue. Secondly, the seal has nothing to do with it either. You can unsealed and sealed cartridge bearings just like you get sealed and unsealed cup and cone bearings.

Some of the cheaper crank pullers have such a socket built in. They call it a 3-in-one. Look for it at cheapo bike shops and supermarkets. Don't start grinding your 16 until you're sure it is a 16. The purpose-built double-sided Suntour track spanner I have here is 14 and 15mm. You may not even have a 15mm socket in your set. They're somewhat odd.

Also good to know.

It is a bit difficult to explain, but let me explain what OLD is first. It is the width of the hub as seen by the bike. In other words, from the outside of the left jamb nut to the outside of the right one. The jamb nuts are those knurled nuts that grip the frame. On Eastons they could be called "end caps" of you like since they are effectively the two ends of the axle. It is difficult to measure it on a complete wheel since you have to weave a vernier in between the spokes etc. Since frames can flex outwards/inwards a bit at the rear triangle, it doesn't really matter if it is 129mm or 131mm. But more than that and it becomes difficult to fit the wheel. Road bikes have a rear OLD of 130mm, MTBs are 135mm. Front wheels on MTB and RBs are 100mm and newer 20mm through axles on front wheels are 110mm. Tandems have a rear OLD of 145mm and new-fangled rear MTB through-axle thingies are 142mm. Easton decided on its own standard - 129mm and when you're playing with very limited space like on an 11-speed bike, you run out of clearance. Dawie O once told me that anyone with a CAD system can design a standard.

Thanks for the link Astrieks. It looks to me like the modified body has a small built-in spacer att he innermost end of the splines. That's basically what I've done with a custom spacer. Yet, on the one I have here, the cassette then didn't clear the jamb jub, wih the 11 hitting the frame. Hence my 1mm spacer on the axle. I'm still keen to know what the OLD on your wheel is.

Covie, what do you mean by "slightly better rolling"?

I have a case like that here in my workshop right now. Same wheel, same problem. I carefully measured a whole bunch of stuff on one wheel that did work and the Easton that didn't. In the end, I discovered that the Easton's OLD (over locknut diemension) is only 129mm instead of 130mm. I then machined a spacer to extend the right side of the axle by 1mm. I redished the wheel to move the rim -.5mm to the right. There is now a little bit of clearance between the right jamb nut and 11 sprocket but how much I don't know yet because the bike is with its owner and I only have the one errant wheel here. From my measurements and guestimates, this will solve the problem. Have a look if your wheel's OLD is also just 129mm. I'd like to know if this is common on these wheels.

LC is a subtle setting and I think you're looking for its effect in the wrong place. The Tokai incident you describe involved high speed compression. The two channels are completely independent. LC works, as its name implies, slowly as in when you're going down a steep hill and hanging onto the front brake. If the LC was too low in that instance, the fork would slowly compress and go lower and lower leaving you with an unbalanced feelilng as if you're going over the bars. The other place I can think of where LC works is when you're doing a long berm. If the berm is long enough and you are going fast enough, without LC you will eventually have reduced travel, with the front end low and in compression. The rear could of course do the same if it doesn't have LC, but we're talking front here only. It is very subtle to feel LC in action when the bike is stationary. Me, I have to take alcohol before I can BS myself that I can feel it.

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.

You say it like there is a franchise pizza that's better? Impossible. Saints is good. It is my standard hungry man dinner when the wife is on her travels and I'm suppoed to cook for myself. They aren't licensed but keep a Windhoek for me in the fridge - the one that I forgot there last time, if you know what I mean.

Guys, stop guessing and speculating. In one of the pinned articles right at the top of the Tech Q&A section there is an attachment on Everything you Need to Know about Bicycle chains. There answers are in there.

I did refer to the Giant frame. It is alu. I mention it simiply 'cause it is old and you'll pick one up cheap cheap and, it already has all the hardware sewn in - just fit the panniers and go. Other such frames may also be available but I can't name them. My point is that a frame transplant will be far cheaper than a brazing job. I can do the brazing for you but remember, Im in Jhb. the lugs have to be imported from the UK and and and and. It is expensive. However, if you want to pursue it, contact me via e-mail and I'll put you in touch with the suppliers of such lugs. Start shopping around for a steel MTB fork.

Chains and cassettes don't see age, they just see miles overlaid by cleanliness. My aunt Edna has a bike in teh garage that is 42 years old with the original chain and cassette, both in perfect condition. You have one that is 7 months old but did many miles more than aunt Edna's bike. Provided they measured the chain in an honest way and did an honest assessment of why the new chain won't work with the old cassette, this is normal.

Poverty and frame modifications can't be used in the same sentence. Sorry. I suggest you find an old Giant ATX 870 or 890 frame somewhere and build your components over. That will give you all the right braze-on fittings on the rear which will be sturdy enough for the job. These are aluminium frames. Now for the front, start looking for a second hand steel fork with the said fittings already brazed on. Brazing on thin bike tubing is not a job for the average tradesman. It requires skill and an understanding of bicycle tubing. Cycling racks are expensive. Cycling bags even more so.

There are two issues to consider when attempting to put bigger wheels on a bike designed for smaller wheels. The first is obvious - will it fit in the frame? And not just fit, but is there enough mud/crud clearance without scraping the paint off the frame? The second issue is ride height. Ride height is generally expressed as BB drop - how far the bottom of the BB is from the floor. On a road bike it is slightly less than on a MTB for obvious reasons. those of you with a road bike and MTB will notice how much easier it is on a RB to put your foot out at the robot. On a MTB you are on tiptoe - whether it is a 29" or 26" MTB (since they're designed with the same BB drop). Now, should you fit larger tyres, you'll have to do a ballerina pointing move at the robot. It may or may not be an issue, but do consider whether the discomfort is worth it. You'll obvioiusly also be riding higher with your centre of gravity a bit higher.

I assume you're loading all this stuff all at once? The only way to successfully attach carriers to the front wheel is by way of a fork that has brazed-on sockets for capscrews. This can be done but it will be far cheaper for you to source a fork with all of that already on there. Failing that, I'll direct you to a place in the UK that sells all the hardware and then someone locally can braze it on for you. However, I won't worry about the stress on the back wheel. Once that fails, have it rebuilt professionally and it will handle the weight without a sigh.

I am just not sophisticated enought to appreciate rhymeless poetry. However, I'm nodding at the message. Oi! Capricorn! Come and defend your afinity for Avids here.

A ten speed chain is a ten speed chain. Road and MTB are exactly the same and the wear rate is the same. Some of the newer Shimano chains are supposedly unidirectional and optimised to work with a certain groupset. Yet, that chain will still work with other systems.

I'm really doubtful about the claimed differences those discs will make. Firstly, consider that discs dissipate heat by radiation and some conduction. Radiation happens into the airstream and conduction into the hub. Now consider the difference in construction between a standard stainless steel disc and an ice tech one. The standard stainless steel one has a solid stainless disc an the ice tech one a stainless-alu-stainless sandwich. We know that aluminium is an excellent conductor of heat and stainless steel a poor conductor. However, the radiation surface on both is stainless, so where does the difference come in? Surely not on the tiny little exposed ridge of alu right around? Radiastion is just a function of surface area and alu and stainless radiate just about the same (but conducts differently). I think the only difference between ICe Tech cooling and standard is ziltch and was post-rationalised when they made the sandwich disc due to its lighter weight. Weight is at the core of it all, not function.

Nice one. Did you manage to moer him?

Alex Harris in Jhb sells Seakskinz stuff.

It's a bit of a mongrel build. It seems as if the wheelbuilder didn't have all the required lengths in stock and just used what he had. Had the choice of spoke been made rationally, the front wheel would have had Revolutions all round and the back wheel a mix of Revos and Comps. However, there is nothing wrong with putting revos all round if the rider is light. Revos are far more durable than competitions due to some extra cold forging and good science. Durability and strength are often confused, as we see in this thread. The strength of a spoke is generally measured in the tensile dimension, in other words, how big a weight can you hang from the spoke before it breaks. In this mode. All spokes - good and bad, are far stronger than we require. However, durability comes in when that same spoke with that same load, has to turn many millions of times and still not break from metal fatigue. That is durability. So, Competition spokes are stronger than Revolution spokes bu so what. Revo's are more durable by a long margin. The downside of Revos is that they're quite thin and therefore the wheel flexes a lot if the rider is heavy. The large the wheel, the larger the deflections. On disc brake wheels it doesn't matter if the wheel flexes - you can't feel it. However, someone riding behind you can see it. I like to suggest a weight cut-off limit for Revo's at 80kgs. This figure is of course arbritary and depends on the stiffness of the rim. Crests are too light for a heavy person if Revo's are used. As for Pillar. Pillar is a Taiwanese brand with no better (or worse) credentials than the other big-brand spoke manufactures namely Sapim (Belgium), Wheelsmith (USA) and DT Swiss (Switserland). All these spoke manufacuters use 18/8 stainless steel that's been vacuum degassed and all of them are equally strong. I use "strong" reservedly here. Only Sapim and PIllar publish cyclical durability but not in the same units. Therefore comparisons are invalid. Having said all that, a good wheelbuilder will extract the maximum durability from the spokes, no matter what brand, by stress relieving. This is the secret of a good wheel and since it requires some understanding of metal fatigue, I'm afraid it remains a secret understood by few.

Paintstripper is easy and painless. Modern water-based strippers aren't that bad. You'll do the job in one hour. Blasting with stuff - soft or beads, will work, but why go to the expense? Some ultra-light aluminium frames were bead blasted as part of the structural process. The bead blasting gave it some surface tension which was supposed to help with frame fatigue. These frames would have their warrantee void if you repainted them. If you sand-blast you certainly remove that and, introduce stress risers. Paint strip is the way to go.

Dear "The V" You can save some considerable electrons by shaving off "The" and only calling yourself "V" Mineral oil, as you point out, is extremely heavy. The best way to deal with that is to move your rear brake lever to your seatpost and thus minimise the hose length. I mounted my front brake on the fork's right stancion. That saved 6 inches of mineral oil and, it also serves as a lockout, which in turn saved more weight. Drill everything, don't use sealant and go for the new 20" wheel standard that makes the bike more responsive, lighter, faster and of course, stiffer. Not only do you save wheel weight, but your cranks can then come down to 117mm, which as you guessed, saves more weight. Toss the saddle, sitting is for sissies. Grips? Are you crazy. I keep some dried contact glue on my bare palms and grip the bare aluminium quite effectively that way. And did you know that aluminium has half the density (weight) of Titanium. My bottle cages are made of alu. Not strong enough to hold a large bottle but then again, those weigh too much. Keep it up, it is about the bike after all.

Only OCD brand bunnies and cocaine dealers worry about weight. Go for a nice long ride and take many photos and put them on your Bookface webthingy. Take some sarmies along and sit under a tree somewhere and appreciate the location. This continuous hunkering after lightweight BBs and bits is almost as silly as Sandton kugels who can't go out because they don't have the latest Mosquito belt or their lipstick is smudged. Stoppit!