Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Junior Member Grover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Although far from ideal; is it safe to fix a rear carrier to a bike by way of simply using the QR skewer.

    If so, is it safe to washer the legs out to bypass my Ritchey drop-outs.

    Secondly, are ceramic rims worth the extra money, in terms of life expectancy when using V-brakes. Will the money saved compare with initial cost (not to mention, brake pad consumption)

    And finally, (until next time!)
    My original XT Vs have rattled since i can remember, If i finally retire them, is it worth me bothering with the 'direct stroke linkage wotsits' or should i just fit some plain ones.

    Cheers

  2. #2
    Mr. Cellophane RainmanP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    3,037
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Grover,
    By carrier are you referring to a car bike rack for carrying the bike or a cargo rack on the back of the bike for carrying a rack trunk or panniers?

    If you mean car bike carrier, I can't comment.

    If you mean cargo rack, I would say that I personally would not feel comfortable with anything attached to the QR skewers. Does your frame not have eyelets for attaching a rack? If not there are racks that have arrangement for clamping to the seat stays instead. I would look at those instead. I believe there is a thread here somewhere that mentions the brand. You could just go with a seat post rack as long as your loads will be very light <20 lbs.
    Regards,
    Raymond

  3. #3
    NOT a weight weenie Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,762
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Grover,
    First off let me say that ceramic rims are a coating. This enhances braking while also adding a small amount of strength to the wear of the rim. Are they worth it? It is up to you IMHO if you are hard on rims and brake alot, then they just ma be. There are less expensive alternatives for strength you may sacrifice weight but it does exist. Now to your V's. The original XT V's had a problem in some cases with the linkage popping off. We tried at the shop to tell people just to run LX for this problem did not exist with those. With the ability to tune the LX V's to a cough and stop modulation we thought that it was a good and less expensive alternative. Now though shimaNO claims that that problem is fixed. Whether it is or not I do not know I run Magura HS 33's. I also use LX V's on another bike and have no problem with them whatsover. There are other alternatives to shiamNO V's such as Avid, Sram, Dia Compe etc. that also have linear pull brakes. The Sram 7.0 and 9.0 ones are real good they have a Grilon Composite lever and forged arms. The levers weigh almost nothing and the modualtion is real good. The Avid brakes are touted as the best stoppers around next to Magura and disc setups, but they are not cheap for the performance or race level stuff. Hope this helps.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12,420
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For many years I used a rack mounted on a solid axle, held by a large nut. I wouldnt feel safe using that system with a QR skewer, and I never carried any heavy loads with it.
    If you dont have any threaded eyelets at the dropouts, you can carry a load up to 25l using a Carradice saddlebag (Carradice make various clamps if you don't have a Brooks saddle with bag loops). This is altogether better than using a seat-post clamping rack which is the modern solution.

  5. #5
    Mr. Cellophane RainmanP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    3,037
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Grover,
    Just to follow up on MichaelW, peterwhitecycles.com has Carradice if you want to look at them.
    Regards,
    Raymond

  6. #6
    Junior Member Grover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks for the replies folks

    By carrier i did mean rack (oops sorry, English, nuff said)
    Im not really happy about these seatpost fitting racks due to the height that they carry the load and thier incompatability with side hanging panniers. I found that Carradice now make a limpet pannier (for use with suspension forks) which (as far as i can see) must place a percentage of the weight on the axle (and possibly, skewer)

    Due to my circumstances, its not really practicable for me to have more than one bike, so im looking at ways to adapt my everyday bike for touring. I have no eyelets front or rear.

    My frame is Reynolds 853, would this present any problems if i wanted eyelets to be custom fitted?
    As i havent yet purchased my panniers or carrier> RACK! i could yet go the bob yak way although i would prefer not to stand out quite so much

    With regards to rims, I run Mavic 517 or 618s which i know wont last long but i apreciate the overall rolling weight i can achieve. Despite covering 250+ miles per week I only get about 4 months to the rear rim and maybe 9 or 10 to the front, I find this excessive. Someone told me that crramic rims last about 3x longer and ive since learned that ceramic compound pads are availible

    I have used cable ties to secure the linkages on my XT Vs and so effectively doing away with the direct stoke thingamyjig. Can you still get the old self-energising suntour cantilevers?
    Would i need a new (old) brakelever (cantis to V wont go, how about V to cantis?)


    Cheers
    Last edited by Grover; 03-30-01 at 06:18 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12,420
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The front axle is not subjected to any force from a chain, so an axle-mounted carrier is fine, also you dont carry as much weight in front. 2 front panniers and a large saddlebag will do you for non-camping tours, and will distribute the weight nicely. Saddlebags place the weight nearer the centre of gravity, and inside the wheelbase.
    You could have threaded eyelets brazed on, but it would wreck the paint job. Check out some of the Carradice racks at

    http://www.carradice.co.uk/index.htm

    Get a rim with a thicker sidewall, then you dont need ceramic coatings. Make sure you use a softer brake block, the Shimano ones eat rims. Most good rim makers produce one box-section rim for touring, with a thicker sidewall. (Mavic, Campy, Alesa, Sun)

  8. #8
    Mr. Cellophane RainmanP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    3,037
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Grover,
    Check the Tubus brand front racks at peterwhitecycles.com
    Tubus makes one specifically for suspension forks. For a couple of nice little front panniers, see
    arkel-od.com
    Click the Specials button. They have some little discontinued mountain bike front panniers that look like an excellent value and would probably do quiet nicely on the Tubus front rack.
    I would have sworn I had seen a rear rack online somewhere with seat stay clamps for bikes without eyelets. Now I can't find it anywhere.
    Regards,
    Raymond

  9. #9
    Senior Member mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Snowy midwest
    Posts
    5,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you mean that the rear carrier legs are attached to the axle - not the skewers themselves.

    If the legs are attached to the rear axle, then YES, it had better be safe. Your entire bike is loaded onto that axle. Whether the carrier legs are attached to the axle or to a tapped hole in the drop-out, the load goes onto the axle anyway.

    I have had a number of bikes in which the rear carrier legs were mounted onto the rear axle and I rode them thousands of miles with no problem.

    In fact, they had a better tendancy to stay on than the drop-out mounted carrier because the smaller bolts on the drop-outs would often come off and the carrier legs can fall into the spokes.
    Mike

  10. #10
    NOT a weight weenie Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,762
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Grover

    " My frame is Reynolds 853, would this present any problems if i wanted eyelets to be custom fitted?
    As i havent yet purchased my panniers or carrier> RACK! i could yet go the bob yak way although i would prefer not to stand out quite so much"

    No not a problem with this frame at all. However you can get clamps to take place of missing eyslets. Alot of MTB frames do not come with this option for it is not intended to be used for racks and packs.

    " With regards to rims, I run Mavic 517 or 618s which i know wont last long but i apreciate the overall rolling weight i can achieve. Despite covering 250+ miles per week I only get about 4 months to the rear rim and maybe 9 or 10 to the front, I find this excessive. Someone told me that crramic rims last about 3x longer and ive since learned that ceramic compound pads are availible"

    If you are looking for stand alone durability and long life you might want to think of downhill rims. The Sun Rhyno are a good choice not as light as Mavic but can take much more. Hey if you are going to be carrying weight who cares about how light the rims are.

    " I have used cable ties to secure the linkages on my XT Vs and so effectively doing away with the direct stoke thingamyjig. Can you still get the old self-energising suntour cantilevers? "
    Would i need a new (old) brakelever (cantis to V wont go, how about V to cantis?)

    I would go look at http:www.recycledcycles.com if you do not see it advertised then call them.

    Cheers [/B]

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12,420
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just a note to explain why you cant mount a rack on a QR type axle.
    The hollow axle is designed to fit inside the frame dropouts, but not to extend outside the width of the dropouts. The skewer then bite into the surface of the frame, leaving the axle under compression. There is no axle extending from the frame on which to fit a carrier.

    With a solid axle, the axle extends outside of the dropouts, allowing you to fit washers, racks, fenders or anything else over the axle, before fitting the nut, which then places the axle under tension as you tighten it.

  12. #12
    Junior Member Grover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Once again, cheers for the replies

    As far as fitting a rear-rack to the skewers, maybe that was one of my less inspired ideas (my drop-outs are ritchey socket ones so thier not even open from the angle that i would require, However, theoretically, the skewer is thin enough to pass through the rack eyelet and as my axle finishes flush with the frame the skewer would end up bearing the weight of my rear load. How much weaker can this be than the similarly sized bolt that supports the rear rack on a conventional touring frame.

    All that said, Ive just seen a 26" wheeled tourer for sale, 631 frame, bar end shifters etc etc, I dont want to sell my current bike and im a little phobic against having two bikes, but the world suddenly looks easier.

    il be looking for experiences with this type of bike/ frame

    Ooh, 631 ? is that like the same as 853 minus the heat treatment?


    Cheers

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12,420
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The skewer is not a weightbearing peice, it has enough work to do holding the wheel in place as you jam the pedal. Give it any more work to do and it will end in tears. You wont even have a decent surface for it to grip onto. No just dont do it.

    M5 steel bolts can take more weight than you can carry.

    Check out reynoldsusa.com for the inside info on all those numbers.

    I blame the MTB magazines, with all that crap about frames being "spoilled by having threaded eyelets". You are not compelled to use them, but for a few grammes in weight, they add a whole new dimension to cycling.

  14. #14
    NOT a weight weenie Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    1,762
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Reynolds 853 - heat treated
    UTS: 81 - 91 Tsi, 180 - 210 Ksi,
    1250 - 1450 MPa
    This tube, when introduced in 1995, set new standards for professional cycle frames. It is suitable for TIG welding and brazing, using lugged or lugless construction. The production process ensures tight tolerance, gauge tubes. The strength to weight ratio of 853 is equal to that of quality titanium frames. A normal chrome molybdenum steel will lose strength in the joints after the heat has been applied. This material (853) INCREASES in strength as the frame cools to strengths well in excess of the delivered values shownabove. This unique air hardening property of Reynolds 853 providesadditional stiffness through reduced microyielding at the joints, allowing stiffer frames with excellent fatigue strength (when compared to standard chrome molybdenum) and excellend ride quality to be constructed. On road and touring frames we recommend the use of 531 fork blades with 853 frames.



    Reynolds 631 - cold drawn
    UTS: 52 - 58 Tsi, 115 - 130 Ksi,
    800 - 900 MPa
    Following on from the success of 853, Reynolds have added 631 to the range of AIR HARDENING STEEL tube sets. This cold drwan steel tube will allow the benefits of this new steel to be used in the manufacture of a wide range of frames. Like 853 it is suitable for TIG welding and brazing, with lugged or lugless construction, and in the heat affected joint areas will gain strength, to tensiles in excess of heat treaded chrome molbdenum. The strength to weight ratio of 631 is equal to that of many aluminium frames, and it has an excellent fatigue life, when compared to standard chrome molbdenum frames. On road and touring frames we suggest 531 forks be used in conjunction with 631 frames. As 631 is only available in main frame tube sizes, we recommend the use of either heat treated CrMo (725) or cold drawn CrMo (525) seatstays and chainstays to complete the frame.

    http://www.reynoldsusa.com/internet/...teel/steel.htm

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •