the 'there's no such thing as a stupid question' bike maintenance thread

patspost wrote: »

Hi folks,
I've an old mens bike that Im going to fix up a little, starting with new tyres & tubes.
the current tyres are size 26" by 4, what would be the best size tyre to get for it?

thank you

How old is the bike? There was a 26 x 1 1/4 (26 by one-&-a-quarter) inch size on old Brit bikes; maybe that's where you're seeing the 4 in the marking?

magicbastarder wrote: »

26" is a very common standard for wheels, mountain bikes used that size for many years.

The tyres/wheels are not all interchangeable though. The old size I mention has a BSD of 597mm, & the mountain bike one is 559mm.

magicbastarder wrote: »

not specifically a bike maintenance thread, but there's no universality of connectors for floor pumps, is there? i threw the hose out on this ~20 year old pump a few years ago (it had perished), and it's been knocking around the garage ever since. should just bin it if a new hose cannot be bought (which would probably be for the cost of a new pump anyway!)

If you've any way of measuring threads, internal diamater, or whatever, I'll check it against my cheap aldi/Lidl pump. If it's the same, I'd hang on until the get them in again, you'd have a replacement hose for about 8 quid

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone here taken their bike to a bike shop to have bottle cage mounts fitted using Riv nuts?

I'm trying to fit a battery but unfortunately the existing bottle cage mounts are slightly in the wrong position plus I could use an extra two holes for a more secure fit.

Hey,
I've never taken my bike to a shop for it but I have fitted rivnuts for bottle cages before (as recently as yesterday).

If it's something you would consider doing yourself, feel free to ask any questions you might have.

Lissavane wrote: »

My bike has 20 x 2.25 Kenda tyres. Got a puncture the other day. Removed tyre and tube and found glass in tyre that protruded slightly inside the tyre. The strange thing is that the hole in the tube was about 4 or 5 inches around the tyre from where the glass was.

I checked the inside of the tyre thoroughly and found one thing other than the glass. Very close to where the puncture occurred, there was a small pimple of rubber on the inside of the tyre. It seems like it was there since manufacture and there's no sharpness.

1. Is it possible that the glass might have caused a puncture that appears that far away on the uniflated tube?

2. If that "pimple" in the rubber of the innerside of the tyre might have caused the puncture through friction, what would be the best way to remove it?

3. The glass went through the tyre and punctured the tube. As the tube deflated, the tube moved/twisted so when you removed the tyre, the hole in the tyre and tube were in different locations?

Lissavane wrote: »

Thank you for replying. Yes, maybe and I hope that's the case. But I didn't remove the wheel, so I was pretty sure the locations on tyre and tube should have lined up pretty well. Then, it is a pretty fat tyre and tube so maybe deflation accounted for it.

Anyway, what would you think of that little rubber "pimple" on the inside of the tyre? It's not something I'd have thought would puncture the inner tube but I wonder if friction over time could do it.

I'd say it's a manufacturing mark, maybe from the injection molding process. It's very unlikely, to the point where I'd say it couldn't happen, to have abraded your inner tube to the point of failure. And even if it had, it wouldn't have left a puncture hole, it would have left a wear mark

Lissavane wrote: »

Thank you for replying. Yes, maybe and I hope that's the case. But I didn't remove the wheel, so I was pretty sure the locations on tyre and tube should have lined up pretty well. Then, it is a pretty fat tyre and tube so maybe deflation accounted for it.

Anyway, what would you think of that little rubber "pimple" on the inside of the tyre? It's not something I'd have thought would puncture the inner tube but I wonder if friction over time could do it.

I’d say the glass is the culprit. The only way to be sure is to fit a new tube and see if you get another puncture in the same location

07Lapierre wrote: »

I’d say the glass is the culprit. The only way to be sure is to fit a new tube and see if you get another puncture in the same location

I've patched it now anyway and so far so good. Thanks again.

I'm installing a Hollowtech II bottom bracket (BB-RS500 to be precise).

Shimano specifies a torque of 35-50 Nm. There are several Shimano manuals covering this part, some say to grease the threads and some don't say anything about grease.

I've put copper grease on the threads and tightened to 35 Nm. As they're greased I don't want to go near the upper end of the torque range.

Any reason to torque them up any more than the lowest torque setting? 35 Nm feels pretty tight. Not 'swinging out of it' tight, just 'hold the frame steady with the other hand and pull the torque wrench firmly' tight.

Brian? wrote: »

I wouldn’t use copper grease either, it’s corrosive to seals. Your bottom bracket has seals, I think. Use poly grease. 40nm is loads

I don't have any poly grease but I have Finish Line Teflon Grease - would that do the job, or would I be better getting Park Tool Anti-Seize Compound (which Park Tool specifically recommend for BB threads)?

ARX wrote: »

I haven't installed the crankset yet so I think I'll pull out the BB and use grease instead of copper grease.

The teflon you have will be fine. I'd do above too, if I was you. Copper grease doesn't really offer lubrication, it's an anti-seize. It gets used in applications where two surfaces are mated, but not moving in relation to each other

Strange query re. Ultegra 8020 hydraulic disc brakes. Hope you can follow the explanation, I'd upload a video if I knew how to.

Due to my childlike-sized small hands, I've reduced the reach on the levers so I can use them when on the drops. Because the reach has been reduced, there's a bit of "play" (for want of a better term) forward in the levers (in that I can push the lever forward away from the drops to its fully extended reach, and it will then pop back to its new setting).

The other day I was taking it easy freewheeling down a slight descent, and I was leaning on the top of the hoods. Mindlessly I pulled back on the top part of the lever which pushed the lever forward, just a bit mindless as I knew it did nothing. However, the bike definitely took off a bit, without any additional pedalling or change in gradient. A few more tests and it definitely seemed that pushing the lever forward back to its original fully-extended reach seemed to reduce resistance a small amount.

The discs aren't rubbing. The shop put on new pads about 2 months ago when I had it serviced, and I presume the rest of the system was simultaneously checked to be in order. When I test it off the bike and push the levers forward, the calipers don't move.

I obviously can't adjust the reach back to its original setting. As a test, I did loosen the free-stroke adjustment marginally (from the fully-tightened setting) but that didn't seem to make any noticeable difference (in that, it still felt like pushing the lever forward reduced resistance).

Has anyone encountered something like this?

I don't think it's fluid-related, as the brakes work well (aside from annoying squeaking) and there's no sponginess in the lever.

It might be an issue that the brakes do rub slightly when I'm on the bike, but if that's the case I couldn't see how pushing the levers out would adjust the calipers to reduce resistance in that instance, but not adjust the calipers when I'm not on the bike.

It's not a huge issue, but if I could get those extra few watts it's costing me back for free, that'd be very handy as I've a few 300km+ spins coming up.

If you're going to try a visegrips on the bolt head, I'd file a couple of flats first, for better purchase.