greatwhite

So a little feedback - got some of the Soudal Protect and Polish and can report it works well. Having done a solid clean before application and applied it, the frame is easier to clean now. Frame is slightly more glossy as a result of the application, but nowhere near as much as I expected (still quite matt). As @Mike Dewing suggested above and subsequent youtubes I found, make sure you cover your disc brakes and rotor. One video removed the wheels and used little 'glad bags' over the calipers. On large sections of the frame I spray directly on the frame (the easy way), but near calipers and other items I don't want polish on, I sprayed onto cloth and applied form there (the harder way). Ultimately I went with Soudal on the basis they do less marketing than Muc-Off but are massive company that wouldn't take risk and get this sort of thing wrong and (bonus), when you look around you can get it for less that R100 a can.

A bit of an oddball questions to all the wheel builders that read this thread: How many and how often do you get to build a dynamo hub front wheel? And have any of you ever had one that has come back to be stripped down and the hub sent off for repairs and if so how old was it when it needed repair? And was the fault bearing failure or something else? And what make was the hub that had failed?

How the world changes - Arc24s were MTB rims when they came out. Now they are being pitched as gravel/road (still too wide for road IMO)

The frame I have is a matt paint system and absolute bitch to keep clean, so I am looking for for some sort of paint sealer/polish for my frame. I'm not too fussed if it looks more glossy after treatment. The 2 products I am aware of are: Muc-Off Bike Protect Spray 500ml SOUDAL Protect & Polish Spray 400ml My questions as follows: 1. Are there any pitfalls/adverse effects to using these products? 2. Are there other alternatives that folks have had experience with and can recommend 3. Of the 2 products above, which is better, if you have experience with both. (I would assume the Soudal product is probably better give that they probably have 10x the R&D budget) Thanks in advance for any help

on a Garmin 530, I think you will find you can use bluetooth or Ant+ As for straps, they all give up eventually the more expensive ones sometimes last longer, but on Rand/km basis, the cheaper one work out better IMO. I've has Polar, Garmin and various no name brands. Currently using a strap I got from Takealot for (I think) R120 on promo (bought 2) with Gamin transmitter (they all mostly have 57mm stud centres so are interchangeable). To give perspective, I do approx 10000km on the bike a year. Polar strap 2 years, Garmin strap 2 years, no name depending from where 6 months to 1.5 years. Care for the strap after use makes the biggest difference IMO. Rinse in warm (not hot) water without bending the sensor pads too much and hang to dry somewhere not in the sun.

I'm in the process of looking a replacement frame. Mine failed just behind the BB - classic cyclic fatigue crack. I did quite a bit of investigation before making the decision not to repair (I have my own TIG welding facilities as well access to specialist welders, which already better positions me to repair than most and still chose not to). In a nut shell, though, it come heat treatment process. If you can't get this done right in any high stress area of the frame, repeat failure will come again fairly soon. The welding is relatively easy. On the the other hand, finding someone that can do heat treatment and also jigging so the frame stays straight etc. becomes a time consuming and expensive task Most modern aluminum frames are made with either 6061 or 7005 then heat treated. The heat treatment processes are different for both with 7005 being less onerous. Information the required processes is on the web and not a great secret, but will take a little time to scratch out. There are many folks who have broken frames and these questions have been answered many times before (even on this site a few times although answers elsewhere were, IMO, more comprehensive). Where the OPs frame has broken, maybe it was a defect in the casting and can be fixed and hold for a while, but personally I wouldn't try my luck. Another thought for the OP: It would appear the 2 parts have now been bent away from each other and taken on a 'permanent set'. When you pull them back to each other and weld them, you will be locking in that force - the 2 parts will always be trying to spring away from each other, but the weld is restraining them. This means there is stress in there even before you get on the bike. A pre-stressed component is not ideal as this makes cyclic fatigue failure easier to happen (again you can google this if you are interested). Heat treatment processes can be used to fix this to a degree or even fully, but then you are back to doing those processes. I know this isn't pleasant news, but still better than next failure which a catastrophic and you take a tumble that easily costs you more on pain, suffering and medical bills than replacing the frame now

Nextie 25mm I/S width 29" 28 Hole Carbon MTB rim. Got a small crack on it. Only discovered it when cleaning the bike. been replaced and up for grabs. Please PM me if interested. Collection ONLY in Kempton Park

Ahhhh, fuel to the fire. I'll get my popcorn - might even cook it on that fire

Or a fat bamboo bike - to make the frame stiffer

Sorry. not trying to kill the passion - saw your earlier post look like you tryin to build your own frame?

Jason Rourke want to sell you steel frame, of course he will tell you this. Not based on any factual data. Even the Reynolds website has very limited data simply stating a UTS of 1750-2050MPa, which is completely useless unless you want to know far you can bend a frame before it suffers catastrophic failure. Where is the yield strength and fatigue data. It hasn't changed in 30 years - as a youngster, I wanted a Reynolds 753 frame because Greg Lemond had used a LOOK 753 in the TDF. I thought is was super strong because they published 1 figure: UTS 1100 to 1200MPa IIRC which was much better than the 800MPa of 531 which I was fortunate enough to have. Then I got to learn a little about engineering and found it was mostly marketing BS. At the end of the day the density and elastic modulus of most steels is about the same, so at the end of the day unless you can make the tubes larger, you can't make the frame stiffer. But to do this you need to thin the tube to compensate for weight. Unfortunately you can't go much thinner otherwise you will buckle or dent the tubes easily (953 is 0.4mm thick). Steel is a victim of it own density. Also, relative to other bike frame material, its technology is probably already the most mature, implying there is more room for growth in other sectors leaving steel further behind. Eldron has it right Steel is for fun, Carbon is for racing - in a few years time carbon might be for fun as well having been eclipse by the next great thing, but I doubt that will ever be steel. No, I'm not a steel hater - I just think is passed it sell by date. Its become a bit of a cult or 'be cool' thing. So to use religious terms I'd be an atheist, not a satanist.

Then I am totally confused - sorry. I thought kermit was the green carbon RDO

Ironic - I new you had had a few Niners (especially Kermit), but wasn't aware you had a scandium one - probably a good call to get rid of is - it was especially the air9 that I have seen so many posts about failures

Problem with scandium frame is the bad rep for fatigue failures

Ah, the voice of reason from someone that is still passionate about steel. Out of curioisty, I would still like to try a Regnolds 953 frame. Will still be 0.5kg heavier than a carbon frame, but they say very similar feel to the better Ti frames but stiffer. Could put a whole bunch of carbon bits on it to get the weight down (oh, the irony).

I guess I'll have to find a steel frame and give a go again - it's been some time. See if a can see any appeal in going retro. As Eldron put: carbon is for racing and steel is for.... I'm not sure what steel is for.... My memory of steel frames is not good. They all break. Reynolds 531c, 531P, 708, 753, Columbus SLX. Only one that didn't was an SPX track frame. Maybe someone can quantity the benefits of steel to me? Other than emotional statements like it is cool because it flexy and has lively ride. For me it's like fat bikes and singles speeds - mostly pointless. The only appeal to me is the stunning paint jobs on some of the colnago/daccordi/somec bikes. At the other end of the scale is the Bianchis in that boring washed out green.... OK, that should have pissed off a good cross section of Hubbers. Start flaming

I'm in the engineering game - if I was making 1000s, I could make for a LOT less than R300. For a 1 off, however, better to pay the R300 - I doubt anyone would bite. For a DIY project, though, it really is quite simple (as long as you have grinder, welder, paint....). Good Luck

That information is already publicly available, little point in making a fuss - if you haven't already, you should consider alerting your client instead - will strengthen your relationship with them and give them a chance to clear things up. I know they are legit having dealt with them on more than 1 occasion, but there are a lot here who are sceptics.

I've bought from them a few times. Their services is actually quite good. They even follow with an email to to see if you are happy wit the product. That said, I suspect they got the crank price in the OP wrong. But I suspect very few people can say they never made a mistake.

Depends on the bike - a lot of current bikes you can often sell for near the sum of the parts, but if you have a mismatched or older bike, it often pays to split the parts. I've just split up my old MTB. From comparison on the hub I estimated I could get R6k. Split up I could get over 10k. So far I have sold most of the bits and got just short of 5k, but still have to sell, wheels, brakes and frame. At this point my estimates on parts appear a little optimistic, but I should get R9k, so for a few hours stripping and cleaning and posting ads, R3k is a reasonable return (remembering you are likely to clean and service the bike anyway and in the OPs case the bike is already stripped - double bonus). If you are unsure, do yourself a spreadsheet of all the part and what you can realistically get for them and compare it to what you think you can get built up - 20 min work. The key is to try to look at it from the typical buyers perspective and see what value they will perceive. Good Luck

Best answer I can give: You're wasting your time:- You adding mass to your bike (not much, but still there) The parts cost more Scaling proportionally, If 100kg guys need Ø203 then a 65kg guy could use Ø160. For you, even Ø180 could be considered overkill for XC. Ø203 would a like bringing a nuclear bomb to knife fight - just a touch overkill IMO, the only thing you will improve is your ability to launch over the bars.

I agree with the mechanic of all the stuff you say and also add that larger diameter wheels also result in more acute angles between the spokes on the two sides of the wheel when using the same hub, which also result in reduced lateral stiffness. That said, you quite often see (and can feel) lateral movement on low spoke count wheels - you do see wheels catching brake blocks on out of saddle efforts. I stress this is low spoke count and by that I mean typically 24 and under (although your example with 1.5mm centre section with 28 spokes on a 29er would also be pretty horrid)

Just to clarify, Butted one side and non butted the other side is less of an issue, but don't mix on one side. But as wyatt said - if you can rather go butted both side. You sacrifice a little lateral stiffness, but durability is massively improved.

Theoretically mixing butted and non butted spokes should be avoided as the amount the spoke stretches per unit load is different. That said, the difference will be small and I'm not sure how much it will be an issue practically.

OK, the lying tjop it is....