Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Uncle John for touring/commuting

  • 24-11-2009 1:46pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,718 ✭✭✭


    Judging by the great price of Uncle John and by how happy i am with my planetx, i was thinking if the Uncle John frame would be suitable for touring and commuting. It has a more relaxed geometry, can take wider tyres.. but how would it behave in a lot of kms?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    The cantilever brakes are a weak point, compared to a normal road bike. Whilst it is possible to adjust them to give sufficient stopping power, I'm going through pads very quickly and they're a bit "agricultural" to use.

    If you look at the geometry specs, the BB drop is very small, which means you are up high - it feels like a tall bike. You can feel the difference when out of the saddle, as the bike swings under you slightly out of phase.

    I've still not taken it up the mountains, but I think the combination of relatively clumsy brakes and higher position would make fast descending less fun.

    Also, Blorg reckons the 36/46 cyclocross chainset (which is probably optional) is rubbish, but I like it.

    Whilst that seems like a lot of criticism, I absolutely love mine. It has lots of excuses to offer me for my poor performance, and give me reasons to complain (if I ever needed any). I have no trouble keeping up in the couple of club group rides I've done on it (rear rack and all).

    In summary: it's like Cheryl Cole with webbed feet. Slightly offputting details, but you still would.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,718 ✭✭✭AstraMonti


    Thanks very detailed answer. How would you think it would cope with a big amount of weight (20-25?) on it? Also what fork can it get in order to support front panniers as well?

    Edit: As for group, i will move the triple 105 from the beone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    AstraMonti wrote: »
    Thanks very detailed answer. How would you think it would cope with a big amount of weight (20-25?) on it? Also what fork can it get in order to support front panniers as well?

    I have cycled it with a rear trailer and (at different times) a rear child seat.

    I'm not sure how much my child weighs, probably not close to 20kg, but the handling was fine.

    You can see from the picture that the rear triangle is quite long - this helps the stability.

    Planet-X-Uncle-John-with-Flat-Bars.jpg

    The wheelbase on my size 57 is 1042mm, which is 47mm longer than my 56cm road bike. This is a lot. My 56cm Tricross had a 1032mm wheelbase.

    I don't know about front panniers. I used them many years ago and didn't like them much.

    edit: gah, flat bars! No idea where that image came from. Here's another one:

    ujcrossbike500.jpg

    Oddly, the triangle looks smaller.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    ...I should add that I would hesitate to pick the UJ if I had no intention of doing cyclocross.

    It's not designed for touring as such, and there ought to be more suitable options.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,718 ✭✭✭AstraMonti


    Thanks again!
    Lumen wrote: »

    It's not designed for touring as such, and there ought to be more suitable options.
    True, very true but it's cheap, very cheap!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    I'd look at the Kaffenback if you were interested in touring... steel is real, man! :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,718 ✭✭✭AstraMonti


    I'd look at the Kaffenback if you were interested in touring... steel is real, man! :)

    That's also very cheap.. and looks lovely!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,218 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    AstraMonti wrote: »
    That's also very cheap.. and looks lovely!

    The geometry is quite different, particularly the head tube length (much shorter on the Kaffenback).

    A longer head tube is more suitable for comfy cycling.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 730 ✭✭✭short circuit


    Lumen wrote: »
    The geometry is quite different, particularly the head tube length (much shorter on the Kaffenback).

    A longer head tube is more suitable for comfy cycling.

    From the site, it looks as if its only 3mm lower for a 57cm frame and 5mm for a 54cm frame .. should only be 1 or 2 spacer difference ..... says the man whose bike could be confused for having 2 seat posts ... :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 671 ✭✭✭billy.fish


    I trained on mine for two weeks in the alps this summer.

    They are grand on descents, higher BB is no issue, brakes are fine if you set them up right. Just upgrade to some TRP EuroX canti's or such.

    Never have had issues with distance riding on it, longest day over there was 187km with Col de la Madeline in the middle.

    Great bike. Go stick some muddies on anyway and race this weekend, touring is for summer, now its cross season.

    Col_du_bernard.JPG

    Col du Petit San Bernard


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,505 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Ah you're a team worc guy, you must know Phil Roche?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 671 ✭✭✭billy.fish


    He had emigrated to Belgium before i got to know him :)

    I know of him though!


Advertisement