Any question answered...

Cheers!

That's all really helpful.

I bought some of this 26awg
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131824299044
which from a quick search seems to be the same as 0.14mm²

I did wonder about replacing the whole wire, but I'm not sure 1) how reusable those those connectors are and 2) how easy it will be to access the space.

I've committed to the project (partly just because), but fwiw I've also bought a replacement box from Alix for less than ¼ of the cost of the bits.

Can mudguards be fitted to this fork (Pinnacle Arkose 4)?

There's a bolt under the crown, but no fork eyelets that I can see?

Edit - no mid fork mounts that I can see here, but the Evans photos shows one?

@edscoble?

edit2 - they're on the inside of the fork. Thanks forum!

Bosch'd it.

1 Attachment

That, or cracked carbon (new teeth)

@Not_Bruce

4 years ago
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/157436/?offset=35000#comment9008253

3 years ago
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/157436/?offset=44500#comment9420354

2 years ago
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/157436/?offset=59850#comment10102704

Surely?

How viable is a splitter for a belt drive fitted on a chain stay as apposed to a seat stay?

Is the tubing going to be under too much pressure?

I need to have some work done on a chain stay and was wondering if it's worth while so as I can fit a belt drive at the same time

My front teeth are like a beaver's. I can't afford that much metal.

I don't think that works.

I don't think that works.

O rly?

Admittedly, an S&S coupler is probably more expensive than just getting the seat stay split while you're doing whatever chainstay work is under way :-)

I was going to say that they do most of the work back there so you'd need something at least as study as the tube, like a teeney S&S.

If I'm buying a bike for performance purposes, is there ever any justification for looking at anything besides carbon?

performance purposes

Which performance purposes?

https://youtu.be/LgVuwStkycw

Going fast purposes? In truth, non-specific purposes.

I guess I'm looking for a general rule here, or for examples where metal bikes would be a justified choice. I like owning metal bikes but if I'm looking at buying something specifically to go fast on (road, track, mtb, whatever), and something to go faster on is my mental justification for buying it, it'd seem daft if I then bought something intrinsically not as good for racing on.

I mean, I guess I could post an exhaustive list of events/situations I'd compete in, budget, current performance, the margins I'd like to achieve, future performance, preferred tactics, but I am being purposefully generalistic (is that a word??).

Are there any areas where steel/alu/titanium have an advantage over carbon that aren't based on aesthetics/ideology?

Magnetism.

In truth, non-specific purposes.

If you want to buy a new bike, get whatever you fancy. You don't need us to tell you how to spend your entertainment budget. Don't expect to go amazingly fast just because you've lashed out a ton of cash on a new toy. On Sunday I did a 10:57 lap on my 14kg MTB on a circuit where my PB is 10:10 on a <7kg carbon road bike, and there was bovine interference on the MTB lap :-)

Not these days unless you want tour in the middle of nowhere, then steel (can be fixed) and 26" rims it is (or a very very good factory parts and replace service)

Carbon is now repairable, it should last, the only thing can be being paranoid about damage as you need scans to verify it. But if you don't leave it sitting around in places where it can be bashed badly (Dutch filled to the brim bikeracks and carbon deffo wouldn't mix) I doubt that's a big issue...

Ahh, by non-specific I meant I was looking at materials in a general sense rather than a bike for general riding - I've no idea what my next n+1 will be or be for at this stage. But if I'm buying a bike for going fast on, it seems daft to buy something that wont maximize that fastness. Either through power transfer, aerodynamics or handling. I guess there's two things going into this:

1) I've never owned a carbon bike and aesthetically I tend to prefer simple steel/alloy frames
2) I don't want to feel that I'm missing out, especially if I want to factor performance into a buying decision.

So other than the general adage of 'good alu > cheap carbon', is there any reason to look at anything other than carbon? Do I need to go the lofty heights of 953 before steel is competitive? Or do I need to accept that buying a steel/alloy/ti bike will always involve a bit of heart over head? (which I'm totally ok with, I'd just like to know that that's truly the case)

Ahh, by non-specific I meant I was looking at materials in a general sense rather than a bike for general riding - I've no idea what my next n+1 will be or be for at this stage. But if I'm buying a bike for going fast on, it seems daft to buy something that wont maximize that fastness. Either through power transfer, aerodynamics or handling. I guess there's two things going into this:

1) I've never owned a carbon bike and aesthetically I tend to prefer simple steel/alloy frames
2) I don't want to feel that I'm missing out, especially if I want to factor performance into a buying decision.

So other than the general adage of 'good alu > cheap carbon', is there any reason to look at anything other than carbon? Do I need to go the lofty heights of 953 before steel is competitive? Or do I need to accept that buying a steel/alloy/ti bike will always involve a bit of heart over head? (which I'm totally ok with, I'd just like to know that that's truly the case)

edit: oooh, that last bit really struck a chord. I guess that's the crux of what I'm asking - can metal ever be justified from a performance metric perspective?

I think good carbon > everything else, but beyond that it gets murky. I think the point tester is trying to make, as with wheels, is that by the time you are fast enough to need the speed of a top end race bike, people will be giving them to you.

So go with the heart a little, at least. Also worth thinking that unless you're doing 1hr crits, then a comfortable bike might end up faster than one which gives you horrible back pain after a few hours

a comfortable bike might end up faster

If you've got the legs, steel will take you 541 miles in 24h

crux of what I'm asking - can metal ever be justified from a performance metric perspective?

No.