That's 4 days to evaluate all the routes.

I'd just ride them.

You can spend a lot of time with mapping tools trying to evaluate gradients and still get it wrong.

Unless you can find a cycling guide that discusses the issue you will almost certainly not get a good answer.

For a motor transport engineer (the people who design roads) anything under 1:10 is fine on a minor road, 1:20 on a major road.

They just don't care about short steep sections vs long gentle sections.

The flattest route could easily be the one where you come out of a compulsory stop onto a short steep section that climbs less than the 5m interval between contours on a most-detailed map.

One electronic solution would be to use google streetview to survey each route.

Look at the angle between the street and the vertical walls or horizontal floors.

That will give you a rough idea of the slope of the road at each point.

A lot of the online mapping websites have elevation data you can use to figure it out.

Example 1:

Go to http://maps.google.com/ choose the bicycle icon and ask for directions.

Once it gives you the map, switch to the "map" instead of satellite view and turn on the terrain overlay.

When you ask for bicycle directions it tries to avoid steep climbs and the terrain data overlay can give you some idea how bad things are.

You can drag points on the route to force it into giving you a specific route.

Example 2:

Go to http://www.mapmyride.com/ -- go through the annoying interface to create a new ride (there's some annoying ad stuff).

Once you've done that, you can see some data including a graph of the climbs.

Do that for all the routes and compare side by side.

There's a lot of competing websites for that kind of thing that you can search for out there.

A very good solution is Google Earth .

If you create a route (either create one or get a recorded track from a GPS device), you can see it's elevation profile (right click on the route and "Show Elevation Profile"):

The profiling is interactive and linked to the map, so you can easily see where the "problem" (eg too high elevation) is on the map and modify your track accordingly.

Strava has a fantastic route planning tool for both running and biking, including an option to minimize elevation gain.

Their app is also great for tracking your activity, and integrates with many other tools.

For one of my routes, compare: to this easier route without the climb: Playing with waypoints can sometimes improve results - moving my endpoint over half a block can shift the routing to several of the east-west roads to get around a small hill.

Do you have access to an elevation map of the area?

I believe on that type of map, the closer together the lines are, the steeper the grade.

You could try ridewithgps .

It's fairly simple.

You go to this site and plot out a route(s) on the map.

As you create the route you'll get a graphic of the elevation profile below the map.

Try this it is the best I have seen.http://www.bikeroutetoaster.com/. Neil: yes of course.

The website allows you to actually map the route and works out the road stuff for you so you can just work out the main points rather than every time it changes direction.

Also it does all the height stuff and a text print out.

Remember in the UK we do not have bike on google maps.

You might want to try bbbike.org , a cycle route planner based on OpenStreetMap data that I only discovered recently.

Other than standard Google routing

(that in some countries doesn't provide detailed settings for cyclists), it allows to set precise preferences for the planning, for example only residential roads, or roads suitable for road bikes.

After calculating the route, it returns the average run time, directions, a simple height profile, an interactive map and downloadable tracks in various formats that can be imported into Google Earth.

From there you can follow Czechnology's answer.

If you want the best of all of these just put your route on mycycletour.com.

It will give you the elevation profile, and also run a streetview movie of the journey so you can see how steep the hills are.

Question: I commute to work on a single-speed road bike, so it's a lot easier if I avoid any steep hills (preferring to cover the same gradient gradually). Taking a look at a map, there are seemingly 3-4 sensible routes to get from point A to point B. Short of trying them all, is there any way to evaluate which has the most gradual climb?

Mapping the most gentle route for my single speed

A lot of the online mapping websites have elevation data you can use to figure it out.  These include Google Earth, Strava, ridewithgps, bbbike.org and mycycletour.com.

It is possible to retrieve elevation data from mapping websites to figure the easiest routes. In this context, a number of websites, tools and applications can be used to evaluate routes, including Google Earth, Strava, ridewithgps, bbbike.org and mycycletour.com among others

A number of websites, tools and applications can be used to evaluate routes, including Google Earth, Strava, ridewithgps, bbbike.org and mycycletour.com among others.


Presumably a 50% reduction in punctures?

One less obvious advantage is that they are not a bicycle, legally speaking.

So while you can't ride on the road in most places, you can take one on public transport and into buildings etc.

I commuted to university on one for that reason - I could ride into my lectures :)

For a while anyway, there's the "Moz Memorial Rule Against Unicycles" now.

They work a different set of muscles, and train a differet set of reflexes.

Balance skills are useful to have, and the entertainment value of a unicycle should not be ignored.

Both in the "I'm waiting, I know, I'll practice stairs" and the "look at me, put money in my hat" senses.

For commuting I found a 26" was ideal as a compromise between speed and size, although I ended up using a 20" a lot just for easy of parking.

If I could have got the Schlumpf hub it would have been perfect.

From an exercise standpoint, a unicycle works a much different set of muscles than a bicycle.

You use a lot more core strength to maintain balance and steer.

A unicycle is almost the ultimate cross-mode transport system.

I mix it with our trains and buses without restrictions (we have public transport policy that separates unis from bikes).

I commonly put it in the back of the car when I go somewhere with my wife that is not parking friendly.

I can carry the thing through shops and malls without any issues.

It is easily stored under my desk at work.

It is fine in winter if you have end-of-trip faciliities, better in fact than when I was capable of riding a bike.

Impressing your friends with your awesome skills should you master the thing?

Potential work in the circus field?Vast improvement in balance?

On the downside...

Lost skin, closer relations with your orthopedic man... Good luck!

I've always been rather balance-challenged.

More fun.

I've ridden a uni for 30 year, and it feels like skiing or skating.

Biking, for me anyway, is just boring.

Also, in regard to another post, unis now-a-days do have disc brakes.

Good for your posture and lower back I would have thought as you're engaging those muscles in order to balance.

Question: What are the advantages of owning a Unicycle, as opposed to owning a bicycle?  I can think of several:   They are lighter and smaller than bikes  Easier to maintain, fewer moving parts  They provide good practice for balancing

What are the advantages of owning a Unicycle?

Unicycles work different muscles to conventional bicycles. They require more balance and thus work the core and lower back. They cannot be ridden on road but they can be taken on public transport and carried into shops and malls. Moreover, riding a unicycle impresses people and is more fun than a bicycle.

Unicycles are more flexible in terms of transport, as you can carry them on public transport and into buildings, and store them at work or in cars. They train a different set of muscles and develop balance skills. This works towards improving your posture and core strength in particular. Finally, riding a unicycle can be entertaining for yourself and others.

Unicycles are more flexible in terms of transport, as you can carry them on public transport and into buildings.

Unicycles train a different set of muscles and develop balance skills. This works towards improving your posture and core strength in particular.

It is easy to store a unicycle at work or in a car.

Riding a unicycle can be entertaining for yourself and others.


It appears that there are several products under this name, a general-purpose solvent/protectant and a dedicated bike chain lube.

Reviews on Amazon are rather mixed...

One fellow claims no better than WD-40, others appear to like it.

Chain lubes are always controversial and seldom tested in a rigorous manner.

WD-40 is essentially a cleaner/solvent and has no more lubricating ability than say...Kerosene.

The best chain lube I ever tried is sadly not being made any more...

Schwinn Factory Wax.

Clean-running, persistent, and according to testing by Bicycling magazine, among the top for wear and abrasion resistance.

To my way of thinking, keeping the chain clean and free of built-up crud and goo is as/more important than what sort of lube used.

Don't bother with spray lube.

It takes only seconds to apply lube from a drip container.

I highly recommend ProGold .

Spraying on lube makes a mess, gets lube on the outer plates of your chain (where it will just collect dirt and grime), and is wasteful to boot.

Just prop your bike up, turn the drip container upside down, touch it to a link, apply a little pressure, and rotate your cranks backward at a medium speed.

You might want to start slowly at first, but eventually you get a feel for how quickly lube gets sucked into the chain.

I don't bother counting links, I just take a quick glance to make sure the links about to go under the bottle are already lubed.

Spin the cranks a bit to make sure the lube works its way into the links, and finally grab the chain with a used rag and spin the cranks until the rag stops collecting dirt.

I squeeze the sides of the plates and get them, then I do it again for the tops and bottoms.

Total time is maybe a minute and a half, and an $8 bottle of lube lasts me for months of weekly application.

There is a lab in the U.S.-- Friction Facts -- which publishes a variety of cycling-oriented reports, designed to help riders of all kinds.

Their basic premise is that many small improvements in efficiency are collectively significant.

One of their reports is concerning the best chain lube; a summary of this ran back in 2013 in Velo News .

Unfortunately, I am unaware of any free version of this available on the Web; however, you can download the whole series of reports from Friction Facts for $15 U.S./£10.

That said, I am not a shill for Friction Facts.

In a nutshell, what they showed in their testing was that the best chain lubes are wax-based: regular parrafin wax, Molten Speed Wax , Squirt Lube , and so forth.

Their test showed that the amount of energy lost to chain friction can be greatly affected by lube choice; there is roughly 3.7 Watts of difference between the best and worst lubes in their test.

While it isn't something you're likely to notice on a practical level-- just using a wax lube won't take someone from zero to hero-- for an average rider, who can output an average of 150 Watts for a long ride, it works out to be about a 2.7% improvement.

Collectively, were you to follow all of their recommendations (regarding chain lube, specific chain, pedal, derailleur pulleys, and so forth), they suggest that these improvements will collectively deliver about a 20 Watt savings, which is pretty significant.

But I am not a professional racer, and I ride mainly for fitness,

so I don't mind some losses due to drivetrain inefficiencies, and if a particular lube delivered extra chain life, I might consider it, even if it was not as efficient as some.

BTW, I'm writing from the U.S., and have no idea what GT85 is.

I've used GT85 on chains and general bike use for years.

Unlike WD40 it is loaded with PTFE (Teflon) so does have some lubrication properties

but they are very small.

As far as I'm aware it should be treated like WD40 primarily as a water dispersant after cleaning or wet weather riding.

I always supplement it with proper chain lube (either dry or wet depending on the bike and conditions).

I am sure WD40 lubricates sufficiently if its present in clean lab conditions, however it does not stick very well and any quantity applied is really thin so will not hang around very long.

From a chain grease you want it to stay between the rubbing surfaces and continue lubricating.

You also want it blocking as much dirt from contaminating the contact surfaces sealing them from contamination which WD40 or other thin oil will never do.

WD40/GT85 and other thin oil will wash off in rainy wet conditions, and not lubricate or protect the chain for very long.

Something thicker is going to be better, also keep in mind that a road bike will work well with a thinner oil/grease then some off road bike being cycled through a swamp.

Bike Parts USA have it for sale on their website where they describe it as: Ozone friendly Excellent chain and cable lubricant Stops Oxidation, rust and salt corrosion on metals (sic) surfaces

Loosens rusted or corroded nuts and bolts

So if it isn't any good for your chain somebody better tell them.

I remember a bike magazine in UK recommending GT85 (its a glorified WD40, with the addition of Teflon in it) and they got slammed as the stuff was just not up to scratch, especially for Mountain Bikes.

My answer to this question would be no, dont use it.

I dont have a source for this, happened about 7yrs ago./

GT85 is useful on outdoor bikes.

I wouldn't use it on the chain of my decent bike

but I also have a bike kept outdoors in a rather wet city, with limited space to store spares etc.

and no chance to clean it except a while with a rag.

As even the sprockets are steel on this bike, something that gives an even coating of oil is worth having.

It does seem to stay on the parts long term, unlike WD40.

It also helps with the sticky shifters on the same bike.

So for a good, specialist bike, use good, specialist products, suitable for the conditions.

For something low performance and cheap, any oil is better than none.

Question: I've been told by various sources that  WD40 is bad for your chain  so have avoided using it. I've seen people using GT85 on their chains but I'm not really sure how the two products differ. So my question is, should GT85 be used on your chain? Or, does it have the same damaging effects as WD40?

Should you use GT85 on your chain?

Chain lubes are always controversial and seldom tested in a rigorous manner.     The reviews for GT85 on Amazon are mixed. Some people like it others do not.

GT85 has several products, some specifically marketed as bike lube. They are not well tested, but it can be assumed that the spray works better than WD40 due to the added PTFE. These sprays are primarily for cleaning and water displacement, and are too light to last for long in a chain. However, on a cheap bike they are convenient and better than nothing. It would be better to use lube after though.

There are several products with this name, with mixed reviews and without thorough testing.

WD40 is primarily for cleaning and water displacement, and should be supplemented with proper lubricant. It is better than nothing though, and GT85 is better still due to the added PTFE, but it is too thin for long term use.


What you are looking for is a hybrid tire with not enough tread to be a nuisance and slow you down on the road, but enough tred so that when you go off road you are not losing traction on gravel and mud.

For example Bontrager makes a hybrid tire that is nice: Also, go with the hard wall tires whenever you can.

they cost a little more, but they are more puncture resistant.

So they will cause you less grief on the road.

I might suggest you look for a "touring" tire, which I expect is made for reliable long distances on roads including rough roads.

For example I have Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires, and I like them (e.g. for 30 km/day): they are much stronger than my previous tires, and they resist getting flats.

I was looking for something similar to what you are now about six months ago.

I was looking for low rolling resistance, durability and flexibility on a variety of surfaces.

Having used them for this time with one flat caused by a large shard of glass, I'm happy to recommend the 'Panaracer T-Serv PT'.

Details at http://www.panaracer.com/urban.php .

I'm uncertain as to the availability outside this part of the world, but thought I'd let you know anyway.

Good luck!

Knobby treads are really only useful in mud, sand, or snow.

On roads (even rough ones) they just add extra weight and noise.

Of the tires listed so far, the Bontrager and Panaracer tires look like better choices than the NanoRaptor.

I've heard good things about the Schwalbe Big Apple as well.

First off, you haven't said what type of bike and size of rim you're riding.

26" tires will not fit on a bike with 700c wheels and vice versa.

Also, if you're riding a road bike you probably won't be able to fit anything bigger than a 700x25 or 700x28 on it

and you almost certainly won't be able to get anything with much tread on it.

That said, get the largest tire you can get on your frame.

It'll slow you down a bit on the road, but it'll speed you up a lot on the rough patches and smooth out your ride as well.

As far as the tread goes, I would look for something with a good number of large knobs on it that are fairly close together.

Too much tread

and you'll feel it on the road, too little and you'll be slipping around on the pitted and rocky patches.

I don't have experience with this particular tire, but this is what I mean by large knobs that are fairly close together: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=hybrid+bicycle+tires&hl=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=655&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=7981081227657122988&sa=X&ei=gsLoT4WcN-Ps2gXlwOSJCw&ved=0CKoBEPMCMAk4Cg

The WTB NanoRaptor (looks like it's now just the "Nano") is one of the more popular MTB tires with pavement performance in mind.

It's more off road oriented than the tires that Stopher87 suggests, but still has a nearly continuous center bead that makes it roll smoothly on asphalt.

It may work better for you on loose gravel roads.

Here is the 29er version: http://www.wtb.com/products/tires/29er/nano-29er/

Question: My tires are worn out so I want to change them.   When I am trying to change them, I want them to be to the best fit for the conditions I cycle in. I cycle about 30 km a day on roads ranging from smooth pitched roads to very rough roads consisting of pits and stones in the most haphazard way.   Please suggest a type of tire that would be best for me. There do not need to be considerations for snow, it does not snow where I cycle.

Which tires are best for on and off road use?

For riding on and off road what is required is a hybrid tire with not enough tread to be a nuisance and slow you down on the road, but enough tread so that when you go off road you are not losing traction on gravel and mud.   The market has a number of such tires available, including Bontrager hybrid tire, Panaracer T-Serv PT and Schwalbe Big Apple

Hybrid or touring tyres with a solid wall and close knobbly tyres provide the best compromise between grip and speed. Good brands include Bontrager, Panaracer T-Serv PT, NanoRaptor and the Schwalbe Big Apple.

Hybrid and touring tyres provide the best compromise between grip and speed. Tyres with a hard wall and close knobbly treads are good.

Some examples of good brands include Bontrager, Panaracer T-Serv PT, NanoRaptor and the Schwalbe Big Apple.


My answer to this was old school.

I put on tire savers.

This won't work with knobbies, but it will work great with street tires.

Back in the day, I tried a bunch of things including puncture resistant and kevlar.

I have both sew-ups and street tires and it stops the nagging flats from small things that don't puncture on the first pass.

This will give you a picture of them.

The reviewer in this article points out that expecting serious puncture resistance from performnce tires is unrealistic to say the least.

However, the reviewer, a self-described heavier rider, had only one flat in 1000+ miles.

Several of the comments in this review say they've experienced punctures.

However, I'm unable to find any durability comparisons with the Pro2.

Just for fun

: Have you checked the tires before changing the tubes?

Sometimes a thorn or a sharp piece of glass can be hard to find but still flat the same tube in the same place.

A rough edge on your rim can also cause pinch flats if your tires are underinflated.

Durability and speed are not mutually exclusive properties, but there is a degree of tradeoff.

If durability is important to you, I'd suggest looking into a set of touring tires.

They'll slow you down a little bit, but you'll get more riding time in.

(Unless you bike on some pretty bad roads indeed!)

I might have found a reason for your issues.

I bought pair of Pro3 tires yesterday and I've installed them right away.

After a short test ride, I noticed that small debris from the road stick to the surface of the tires.

I've read some reviews about Pro3, and several mentioned this as well.

This stickiness could affect tire durability for even casual riding because sharp pieces stuck in one place have time to work themselves into the tire.

My experience is similar, thus I am currently testing two other brands.

I did move from the Michelins to Conti's Grand Prix 4000 S which have a fantastic feel and handle superbly, but did not last or hold as well to even the Michelin P3's, so I have moved on.

I currently have a set of Specialized Turbo PRO's on one bike and a Vredestein Fortezza TriComp on another.

While it is too early too tell durability, I have not flatted on either set and the road feel and handling is adequate, but not up to par with Michelins or Conti's.

Hope this helps.

I've got the Pro3s

and I average

a flat about every 100 miles.

They're not cheap either.

After I finish off my current supply of them, I'll be trying something a bit more puncture resistant...

Question: Since switching from the Michelin Pro2's to the new Pro3's I've experienced an increase in puncture flats.  Nothing has else has really changed in riding style or conditions.  The Pro3 ride much nicer.  A bit more supple.  But I'm tired of flatting.  Are these tires particularly prone to flats? Is there anything that can be done to prevent flats with them? If not, are there other similar tires that are more puncture-resistent?

Frequent flats with Michelin Pro3's

Tire savers are available to prevent tires from puncturing too often. However, tires built for speed tend to be less durable in general. If durability is important, choose a tire appropriately, a touring tire, for example. Moreover, some punctures may be caused by sharp edges on the rim or small items stuck in the tire.

Repeated flats can be caused by failure to remove the cause of the first puncture or sharp objects that stick to the tyre and work their way through to the tube. Flats can be avoided by using tyre savers, puncture resistant or kevlar, or switching to a more durable (but possibly slower) tyre.

Tyre savers, puncture resistant and kevlar are options to prevent minor flats. For tyres themselves, a compromise between resistance and performance will have to be made, and touring tyres may be a better option than road tyres.

Sometimes repeated punctures can come from the same cause that has not been removed, or a sharp object that works its way into the inner tube after sticking to the tyre.


Not sure about filling in hairlines, but I have used Pledge and have been very happy with the results!

Bike Lust is very popular, but I've also heard the Pledge recommendation.

Again, not sure either will fill scratches, but...

Your best bet is to look beyond the bike forums and head into the world of cars.

I know cars and mountain bikes are slower than the world of cycling, but carbon fibre is now accessible to the motorist.

Some of them polish and polish and polish and polish.

Zaino is well worth a Google...

I was given a can of the FinishLine polish product and think it works really well.

Smells pretty good too!

You have two different questions here.

The first one, which is what should you use to clean and polish carbon without damaging it, it what most every one here is answering.

The real answer is, you can use just about anything.

Pledge, Bike Lust, Turtle Wax, Storck's Carbo'Coat Polish .

It doesn't matter, as long as there's a wax base, and no abrasives in it.

To fill the fine cracking in your clear coat caused by UV exposure, you do need to go outside the bike industry.

Use detailing clay, like that made by Meguiar's.

Their Mild Overspray Detailing Clay works very well to remove race stickers, adhesive residue, tree sap, etc.. which you need to do to prepare the surface before using something like their Swirl Remover 2 to remove the surface scratches and cracking.

You can do this with a rag, by hand.

You don't need to use a buffer.

Swirl Remover uses a very fine abrasive effect.

Used badly, it can damage your paint, but if you read and follow the directions, it's like magic.

Just use with care.

DO NOT USE IT ON A MATTE FINISH FRAME.

It will polish up a shine on the matte clear coat, and many UD carbon matte frames don't have much clear coat to begin with.

You could expose the carbon.

meguires quick detail car shine is a fine product.

Also you could wet clay bar to get rid of the small stuck on grime.

Question: I'm looking for a recommendation for a good bike polish for carbon clear coat frames.  Something the fills in minor hair line surface scratches and leaves a nice shine.

Bike Polish for Carbon Frames

Almost any product can be used for polishing a carbon frame, as long as it is wax-based and contains no abrasives.

There is a wide range of options, and often the best solution is not marketed for bikes. Furniture or car polish can help, and detailling clay can cover cracks in the paint or residue from stickers and grime.


A torque wrench is needed mostly for lightweight bike parts, especially at the high end.

There are several related causes: with lightweight parts the manufacturer has shaved off everything that is not absolutely essential.

There is no spare strength to allow for overtightening.

things are made very precisely now.

Rather than being able to take a 250kg gorilla, the lightweight bike can take a 120kg human.

And rather than be maintained by a gorilla, you need an actual bike mechanic.

This is partly to save weight, and partly to shave costs.

Why use 1kg of titanium where 500g will do?

Most people do things up until they feel the resistance change.

This slight yeild in steel is non-destructive and can be repeated thousands if not millions of times.

In aluminium you need to be more sensitive because the yeild limit is sharper, but with composites and lightweight metals like titanium and magnesium the change is so fast it might as well not exist.

The torque limits are likely to be tight and precise. to save weight more threads are cut into expensive parts.

Rather than having a semi-captive nut the body of the bike/fork/wheel is threaded.

Stripping it means replacing something expensive.

What this means is that the traditional steel bolt in a steel bike will work well with (say) 15-50Nm of force used to tighten it.

At 15Nm it's only just tight, at 50Nm

it's probably digging into the frame

and it's about to strip.

But a (hollow!) titanium bolt in a carbon/epoxy stem will have a torque range of 5.5-6.4Nm, and the failure mode at the high end will be the stem failing-

either it will strip the thread or the clamp will snap.

And the bolt is built to match - why put in a bolt that will take 10Nm of tightening when the stem will fail at 7Nm?

There are other design changes to match these - four bolt handlebar clams on stems are now commonplace where there used to be one bolt

and you just bent the clamp open then forced the (curved) handlebars through it.

You can't bend an aluminium clamp like that, it will fail.

And splined cranks require a lot more precision than tapered one, but that precision also allows them to be lighter as well as easier to service.

The days of stripped extraction threads in cranks are (hopefully) over.

Crank bolts.

They need to be really torqued, but you're always wary of over-torquing, so a torque wrench provides a good confidence factor.

I bought a torque wrench after writing off a the bottom part of a set of Fox 36's: Those four little bolts at the bottom hold the axle in place, and need to be tightened enough to stop it coming out, but not so much that you stress the clamp.

I'd over-tightened them and apparently the fork legs had tiny cracks.

The replacement legs have a metal shim to prevent over-tightening, and the design is now different - lesson learnt for me and for Fox.

The problem is that no-one buys a torque wrench when they're starting out and could really benefit from one.

I love my Torque Wrench.

It takes away the guesswork of being sure you are tight enough.

I picked up one from and off brand that was calibrated in inch/

lbs,

and it wasn't as expensive as the park version.

If you are no pro and working with carbon fiber, you need this tool.

I admit I never use one...

Still, for certain applications, specific tightening torque is specified.

Things like crank-retaining nuts, quill-stem retaining bolts...

Crank bolts on models with removable chainrings...

That sort of thing.

Some people have a good feel for "tight enough", but others may be ham-fisted enough to break or strip fasteners without some reference.

I am with yourself - no need (unless you have a very expensive pro roadbike).

However there are new 'carbon fibre' components that have changed since the good-old-days.

These can have things such as 'helicoil' inserts glued in to them.

In the olden days it was just chainring bolts that were tricky to get right without a torque wrench.

Nowadays you can do up almost every bolt to a torque level specified in the component's manual.

I use a torque wrench because I like a little piece of mind, and have unfortunately ruined a few parts by over tightening.

I have a Wright Tool torque wrench which is perfect.

No complaints and no more broken components.

You can pick one up for a decent price off ebay.

Question: I was rather surprised to find a question about  choosing a torque wrench  on this site. I haven't cycled for years, but many years ago when I actually cycled I would do with a set of ordinary wrenches just fine.  What bicycle maintenance tasks would require a torque wrench and can't be done with an ordinary wrench?

Why would I need a torque wrench for a bicycle?

A torque wrench is needed mostly for lightweight bike parts, especially at the high end.  There are several reasons for this: with lightweight parts the manufacturer has shaved off everything that is not absolutely essential; there is no spare strength to allow for overtightening; things are made very precisely nowadays. This is partly to save weight, and partly to shave costs. Thus, any excess tightening can cause damage to the bike. On the other hand, you don't have to guess if you have tightened enough or not. The torque wrench avoids these problems.

High-end parts are built to be as light as possible with a narrow range of tolerance that may not be clear from feeling the resistance. If this resistance is exceeded, carbon fibre and other materials can break, destroying the whole part. A torque wrench sets the correct torque, provides peace of mind and removes the guesswork.

High-end parts are often made as light as they can be, and therefore have less tolerance for overtightening. They are also often made with softer materials with a narrow range of acceptable tightness and more chance of breaking if this is exceeded, without this limit necessarily being clear from the resistance.

Most people are not able to judge the correct resistance for a particular part, so a torque wrench takes away the guesswork.


I recommend wearing a helmet and something like a cycling cap or something similar to an Under Armour skull cap that can absorb sweat and protect your head from the sun.

As for your neck, I've always used sunscreen during sunny rides.

Get a bottle that can fit in your saddlebag or backpack, and apply it liberally and as often as necessary.

Sunscreen will protect you from the sun without impeding your ability to move, and it will not be affected by strong winds.

Definitely do something to protect the back of the neck, and your ears (even with a helmet).

The other area that it seems often "surprises"

you is the backs of your lower legs (though this may be peculiar to the higher latitudes I frequent).

You of course need a sleeved jersey or sun lotion on your arms, and either knee-length pants or sun lotion on the tops of your thighs.

[I'll add that I've several times been on tours with a guy who has "sun allergy", and he does remarkably well in a full-length Tyvek suit.

On hot days when you'd expect him to suffocate, he churns merrily along.]

Wear sunscreen.

Make sure it has UVA and UVB protection, check the SPF and the UVA star rating (higher numbers means more protection).

Make sure you apply enough sunscreen and reapply it often enough.

There's some fairly detailed information on sunscreen here that you might find useful.

Anything wrong with the traditional cycling cap ?

Solar light cap Oasis or Kayak models do well for sun coverage, while additionally providing evening light power (for the touring).

Question: I'm preparing for a mini tour in the greek islands this August and I'm getting concerned about sun protection. I'm considering not using a helmet (as I'll reach 30 km/h max). Last year I was wearing a "buff" that protected me from sweat, but did not protect me from minor sunburn. Would a hat be a solution, but of what type (considering strong winds)?

Sun protection while touring

Cycling in sunny climates requires some special protection. Sunscreen is a must on neck, ears and arms and legs if uncovered. A cap of some kind below the helmet to absorb sweat is a good idea, Under Armour skull cap for example. Instead of using sun cream, the arms and legs can be covered with long pants and long-sleeved top.

Wear clothing that covers your skin or sunscreen on exposed areas. Focus on areas ost at risk — head, ears, arms and tops of thighs. Ensure that your sunscreen has a sufficient SPF rating to protect you.

Wear a helmet and clothing that covers your skin — skull cap, long sleeves and pants, full-length Tyvek suit. Focus on head, ears, arms and tops of thighs.

Wear sunscreen on exposed skin, ensuring a sufficient SPF rating to protect you.


In my experience, a front rim is symmetrical, and it doesn't matter which direction it's in.

Unlike the rear wheel, where there's a drivetrain side and a non-drivetrain side, the only place where the quick-release handle can be.

However, there are some other considerations to keep in mind:

Tires will sometimes have a tread direction .

This is usually marked on the tread itself, in the form of an arrow with "direction of rotation" indicated.

If you put a rim on a backwards from how you installed the tire, that could be swapped by mistake.

In addition, it makes sense to have the quick releases for both wheels on the same side.

I make sure when putting a tire on the rim to set it up

so, if both release handles are on the same side, the front tire is in the direction of rotation.

Disc brakes may introduce other considerations; other answers on this page address this.

Outside of that, it mechanically makes no difference what side the quick-release is on.

Generally the QR lever on the rear tire is on the left, so as to not interfere with the derailer.

It makes (a little) sense to put the QR lever of the front tire on the same side (at least if you have any OCD tendencies).

But it basically doesn't matter, so long as the tire has no preferred rotation direction (and you don't have something like disk brakes that demands a certain orientation).

(And if the tire direction is wrong you can always remove the skewer and insert it from the other side -- the axle itself is perfectly symmetrical.)

Actually, there can be difference, if you are using disc brakes .

For practical reasons, you should put the release on opposite side to the brake rotor to avoid accidentaly touching it.

First, it may be still hot from braking, when you need to swap the tire, second, your hands can have oil (or your body oil mixed with sweat) on them and that can be bad for the rotor surface and brake pads.

On the road bikes it is considered to be a tradition to put them on the left, non drive side (front and back).

If I understand the question, I am pretty sure that bicycle tires are heteroflexible , and their orientation, which side, same side, opposite side, does not really matter.

However, I have been told it's best to mount them so that the lever itself points to the back of the bicycle, so it does not get trapped in anything and pop open.

I think that it is really important for the logo on the front hub to be the right way up when looking at the bike from the front.

The q-r lever should be on the left because it then does not have any possibility to entangle with the q-r lever of the bike in front.

The lever should also be folder to point upwards in parallel with the fork blade.

The tyre should be pointing in the direction marked forward on the sidewall.

Having one of these points wrong distresses me deeply.

Particularly if the tyre has to be taken off and turned around so it aligns with the logo on the hub.

I have read on a Shimano disc-brake manual that you should leave the skewer to the opposite side of the disc.

That is so because, THEORETICALLY, some skewer levers could be turned beyond their closed position (parallel to the fork blade), and its tip could block the disk, causing a fall.

Practically speaking, I have never seen any skewer, be it in my bike or others', in such a position.

Besides, since Shimano skewer is assymmetrical, it is much harder to get a good position if you mount it on the side opposite to the disc.

As of skewer orientation, I prefer closing it "upwards", so the closed lever is parallel to the fork blade, pointing up, with just enough room to wrap the fingers around it, and never too tight.

I was just told by my LBS that both my front tire AND wheel we're on backwards.

My tire (Vredestein Triforzza) has a slight diagonal sipe (but no arrow on the sidewall).

My wheel's decal was upside down.

I said "OK, but the wheel is symmetrical so what difference does it make?".

The mechanic said the cones in the hub are designed to rotate in one direction and may loosen over time if the wheel is installed backwards.

I was experiencing speed wobble.

I hope this fixes it.

Put the quick release on your stronger arm side based on where you are stood

/sat when you put it up

/take it off.

Then you are more likely to have an easy on/off.

I change over my car tires due to more wear on one side than the other

but I don't get this as much on the bike.

Question: A front wheel with a quick release mechanism can be installed in two orientations: the lever on the left, or the lever on the right.  Does it matter in which orientation it's installed?  If so, would any problems result from installing it the wrong way?

In which orientation should a front wheel be installed?

In general, it does not matter in which firection the tire is fitted. If there is a direction on the sidewall, it should be observed. Apparently, this general does not apply to Shimano tires. However, it makes sense to have the quick releases for both wheels on the same side.

The main considerations include the orientation of the tyres and placing the rear lever on the non-drive side. It can be easier to place both levers on the left, which also prevents levers from being entangled with those of other bikes. Where a bike has disc brakes, the lever should be on the opposite side.

The front wheel is symmetrical, so as long as the tyre is fitted in the correct direction of rotation, the position of the lever does not matter.

If you have disc brakes, the release should be on the opposite side to avoid touching it.

Other considerations include the possibility of entangling with other riders or placing them on the same side on both wheels. The lever on the rear wheel is usually placed on the non-drive side.


The main reason that the direct pull (V brake) was invented is that it approximates a center-pull cantilever in terms of balanced force and leverage, while not requiring that the cable be anchored at some point above the wheel.

This is important for front wheels on suspension forks, but not significant for most other uses.

Another slight advantage of the V brake is that it doesn't generally protrude out of the profile of the bike quite as much and is thus somewhat less likely to be damaged in off-road use.

Neither advantage is of any importance for a road bike without a suspension fork.

However, there is the problem that the two require different levers (because the cable travel length is different) and the old cantilevered levers are getting hard to find, should you break one.

...where to begin! So much was wrong with cantilevers and linear-pull came along and made the cycling world a happier place.

This list will grow, but, as I remember, the following things were morally wrong with cantilevers: the front cable often routed via the stem on a pulley hidden inside the stem.

Over time this pulley would fray the cable and the cable would break on the front brake with no external signs of anything wrong.

Unless a reflector bracket or mudguard was in the way, the broken front brake cable would release the stirrup wire to then catch against the front wheel.

This would cause an instant straight-over-the-handlebars disaster.

Even in peace-time the arrangement was not too good, the brake adjustment depended on stem height.

Some bikes did not use the stem to hold the front brake cable.

Instead they used an extra bracket in the headset.

When suspension came along a bracket had to be added to the forks to hold the cable.

The bolt at the end of the cable holding the yoke that connects to the straddle wire was also a bit of a problem.

Typically these were setup crooked.

In use the stirrup could get knocked to one side, compromising the brake balance.

As for the rear brake, the big problem on early models was how they stuck out to catch your heel.

This was solved when Dia-Compe came along with the 986 to replace the 983.

Shimano copied the hi-rise idea shortly thereafter.

Here is a 983:

And here is the 986: We are talking

twenty+ years ago with this 'big change' to the cantilever.

There were many, many iterations to get to the linear-pull brake you have today.

Direct-pull or "V" brakes are stronger, easier to set up and maintain, and are usually considered an improved technology.

Well set-up cantis are not bad, however, and the pads do last a long time.

Difference on canti and v brake's can be affected by your use, which is implied but not explicit in some of the responses.

Canti pull ratio works with the pull ratio of road bikes--

which is why they are used on cross bikes--not because of mud clearance since cross bikes use road brake/shifter levers.

You can use V-brakes with a road brake/shift lever but

it requires the use of a travel agent to alter the cable pull from the cant ratio to the V brake ratio.

These can be complicated to install, don't always work well, and can become fouled in the mud of cyclocross.

I believe one pro of canti's are that they tend to have more mud clearance.

I think that is one of the reasons that cyclocross bikes run them, at least until they started allowing discs.

Looking over all the very good answers I noticed one important omission.

That is: inherent in the setup of most(*) front cantilever brakes is the potential for horrendous brake shudder.

(I recently changed from cantilever to v-brakes on a road tandem just for this very reason, and it was very effective!)

Lennard Zinn explains the mechanics of it here: Brake shudder is widespread because it’s built into the design of almost all ’cross bikes; it’s inherent to the design of a center-pull cantilever brake.

To understand the reason why it happens and why reduced pad size, lots of toe-in, and a tight headset help take a look at the chart titled “Brake Shudder in cantilever brakes.”

As the brake is applied, the ground applies a force directed backward on the tire as shown, causing the fork to flex backward.

Problem is, the brake cable is fixed at one end at the brake caliper and at the other end at the cable stop above the headset (as you can see in my case, at a cable hanger attached to a bolt on the stem face plate).

Think “bow and arrow” and imagine the fork between the cantilever bosses and the top of the headset is like the bow, and the cable is like the string.

As the fork flexes back due to braking, the cable tightens like the string in the bow, because its two ends – the cable hanger and the brake calipers, have moved further apart.

So even though you may have pulled the brake lever carefully enough to modulate it properly, as soon as the pad slows the wheel down,

the fork flexes back and tightens the cable, which in turn pulls the pads harder against the rim.

This in turn flexes the fork back further, which tightens the cable more, which pulls the pads harder against the rim, and so on.

Eventually, something has to give: Either the tire must slip on the ground, the rider must go over the handlebars, or the pads must break free from the rim.

It is the latter that creates the shudder, the pads bind and release, bind and release, each time allowing the fork to flex back and forth and the tire to roll and stop, roll and stop.

This is why the problem goes away in mud and wet sand, because the pad can break free smoothly.

It is also why smaller pads with more toe-in help.

Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2010/09/news/cyclocross/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-return-to-cross_101807#pihaQukm0PBYREp7.99

(*) mounting the cable stop to forks instead of the headset will solve this problem.

Question: I am looking around for an old mountain bike to ride this winter (and this summer when it is wet).    I was just browsing around and was curious what the difference was between   Direct pull brakes:    And Center-pull Cantilevers:   Sheldon Brown has a  good description of both kinds of brakes  but he does not give pros and cons.  Or suggest which are better.

Direct Pull (V-Brake) vs. Center Pull Cantilevers (pros and cons)

The advantages of the direct pul brake are mainly experienced in off-road riding. For on-road use, there is little difference in performance of the direct pull and cantilever brakes. Direct-pull or "V" brakes are stronger, easier to set up and maintain, and are usually considered an improved technology. However, cantilever brake have more mud clearnce and the pads tend to last a long time.

The difference is generally minor, although V-brakes are stronger and do not require the cable to be set up above the wheel. Canti brakes are more liable to be pulled out of position in off-road use, which is less relevant for road users without suspension. Canti brakes have more mud clearance, but are more liable to cause brake shudder.


Not a stupid question.

The simple answer is that they are throwing every ounce of leverage, weight, and power into the pedals and that much movement side to side is the visible result of trying that hard to move forward.

If you could stay absolutely still, and input the same amount of force to the pedal, then more of that energy would go to moving forward, but you can't.

It's a matter of balance and leverage.

They quite simply must sway the bike back and forth because of the mechanical reality of the situation.

It's not even really a conscious act — if the rider didn't do this, the bike would fall out from under them.

These riders are applying extreme power to each pedal.

Since the pedals are not centered laterally, applying a large force to the right pedal (for instance) will, physically speaking, apply a rotational force that pushes the top of the bike to the right and the bottom of the bike to the left.

Without this counterbalancing motion, they would quite literally kick the wheel to the side out from under them.

By swaying the bike in the opposite direction, they increase the amount of force that can be applied to the pedals without crashing.

Luckily, it's an intuitive motion that happens completely automatically to any rider in that situation.

For a quick mental picture, imagine somebody swaying in the same direction as the pedal being pushed.

For instance, somebody leaning the bike to the right while they apply a large force to the right pedal.

The rotational force would rotate the bicycle clockwise, lifting the wheel off the ground.

Not something you want to happen, especially at sprinting speeds.

I've (anecdotally) noticed this effect is much more pronounced on road bikes with drop bars than other styles of bikes.

It is quite difficult to prevent on a road bike when standing and pedaling hard; although it has little impact on performance or speed.

In my opinion the wobble is mostly a side-effect of holding tightly to the bars while standing and pedaling.

When you're really crushing the pedals you use your arms to essentially pull yourself down onto the bike and to maximize power to the pedals (if you weren't holding on firmly you would be lifting yourself above the bike rather than pushing the pedals around).

When pushing the pedals and pulling the handlebars it's quite difficult to prevent the bars from being turned slightly side-to-side, which results in part of the wobble.

Add to that most of your body weight being rocked from side to side and the bike begins to get that lean effect.

Overall it is quite difficult to prevent, and preventing the wobble would likely cost more in terms of speed than just compensating for it.

When I first began to bunch ride with the boys we would have a sprint here and there.

I would hold the handlebars firmly so that the bike was as stable as possible.

One of the guys pointed out that this actually takes effort on my part and wastes energy.

Also the wobbling is designed to occur such that the downstroke on the pedal occurs when that pedal is directly under the rider and hence delivers the maximum power to the stroke.

@STW has the right idea, but I think it's worth noting that to the extent possible, you're trying to hold your upper body still, and (especially when sprinting)

you "wobble" the bike under you to maximize power.

In other words, most of the "wobbling" involved is less of an accidental side effect than something they actually work at.

Conversely, when you see somebody whose upper body is moving a lot, while the bike stays relatively upright, it's a pretty good sign that they're running out of energy.

There are some other (also intentional) reasons as well.

First, working your way through a tight peloton can be tough, especially close to the finish.

Most of the riders are staying as close together as they can to get maximum drafting.

Worse, unless they happen to be your team-mate, the people right next to you will often try to "squeeze" you to intimidate you enough to slow you down a tiny bit.

Here you're literally "throwing your weight around" to make it harder for others to squeeze you in.

Likewise, the "smoother" you ride, the easier it is for somebody to draft off of you.

The more you're moving sideways, the harder it is for them to get/stay in your draft.

Earlier in a race (like in a breakaway)

you'll see people do relatively quick sideways movements of the bike to help drop people drafting off of them.

In the final sprint, you usually can't afford to do that, but you're still doing the best you can to make drafting difficult, as long as you don't slow your self down (much) in the process.

Finally, if you're riding smoothly, it's fairly easy for somebody to stay close beside you and stay in your draft almost until they're in front of you.

By moving around as much as possible, you force them to pull farther to the side before they can pass safely, which means they lose your draft and have to do more of their own work to pass.

Question: In all pro-cycling races, they start wobbling towards the finish line instead of biking steadily (e.g., in this video:  http://youtu.be/wJE69beIIoI ). Why do they do that?  Note: I have no experience with racing or a bike with handles curved to the front, so maybe a stupid question.

Why do racing cyclists wobble when furiously pedalling?

There are generally two reasons why cyclists wobble when pedalling furiously. The first, accidental and unconscious, is a result of the energy being input into the pedals. The second, however, is a conscious effort to stop other riders from passing them or riding intheir drift: it is easier to pass a cyclist rising smoothly than one wobbling madly.

This can be a natural consequence of the strong and unbalanced forces involved in sprinting. The benefit of reducing this would be too minor, while costing riders some of their speed. This can also be a deliberate action that maximises the force on the pedal at each stroke, or makes it more difficult for riders behind to draft or overtake.

Sprinting cyclists are putting all of their energy into pedaling, and this naturally causes swaying due to the unbalanced forced involved. Reducing this would be difficult and not save enough energy to be worth it.

Wobbling is actually a way to maximise power to the pedals on each stroke, and is a deliberate skill.

This erratic movement takes up space and makes it more difficult for riders behind you to draft or overtake.


Clean them.

I'd avoid using any sort of solvent, as it would be bad for the pads and might simply make things worse.

First undo the noodle so you can access the face of the pads, then wipe pads and rims thoroughly.

Scrub pads and rims with a dab of detergent on a rag, then hose down to remove the detergent.

Reattach noodle.

(I always forget that part.)

The brakes will likely still be a bit "slippery", but riding with the brakes partially engaged for a minute or two should bring things back to normal.

Loosen the V-brakes, so you can access the pads (you can even remove them and clean each individually).

Then apply degreaser to them (there are many types

, I end up by using a citrus-type or in some more radical cases even use petroleum on the rim, but make sure you clean it with a rug afterwards!).

NOTE :

using a solvent or petroleum can damage some parts of your bike, so make sure you test it first and definitely don't use it on rubber!

Do the same to the rim.

Clean it very well with a rug and check if there is any trace of grease, if it has, try to degrease it further.

When everything is ok, just reassemble the brakes and test it, if you did everything correctly then it should work ok!

You should take the opportunity to give your wheels and brake pads a good clean.

A bucket of hot water with half a tablet of clothes washing powder and whatever brush you can find will do the job nicely.

Wash off with more water and the accumulated dirt on your rims plus the lube will be gone.

My recommendation is to use a rag and de-greaser like Simple Green.

Apply the solution to your rag, wet pads let the liquid do its thing and wipe clean/dry.

If that does not work, repeat.

If after doing that twice you are not getting the appropriate braking power, I would gently sand the face of the brake pad with a fine grit sandpaper.

V-brake pads are rubber.

Degreaser can (but not always does) damage rubber.

use isopropyl alcohol.

It will remove the grease without damaging the rubber pads.

It may take multiple applications.

Clean the rims with it as well.

Quoting from Daniel's answer, with edits:

First undo the noodle so you can access the face of the pads, then wipe pads and rims thoroughly.

Scrub pads and rims with a isopropyl alcohol on a rag.

It will evaporate.

Repeat as required.

If more is required, sand the face of the brake pad with a fine grit sandpaper.

Reattach noodle.

(Everybody always forgets that part.)

Hope that helps.

I'd use Simple Green or a similar mild degreaser followed by denatured alcohol to eliminate any residue.

Make sure and thoroughly rinse Simple Green off your rims and pads using water, it makes the brakes grabby, loud, and yet ineffective if you leave it on.

You could also lightly sand the brake pads to get rid of the contamination.

Question: I accidentally got lube on my rear brake (v-brake) and my stopping power seems diminished. What is the best way to get it off the brake pads and the rims?

Removing lubricant from the rear brake and rim?

Brake pads and rims can be cleaned with Simple Green and a cloth, isopropyl alcohol or washing detergent. Solvents should not be used as they may cause damage. The brake pads can also be lightly sanded to remove contamination.

Strong solvents or petroleum can damage parts, especially rubber. Undo noodle to access the pads, clean pads and rims with simple green or another mild degreaser or detergent on the rims, then eliminate residue with denatured alcohol. Light sanding can also remove some residue.

Strong solvents or petroleum can damage parts, especially rubber, so clean with simple green or another mild degreaser or detergent on the rims, then eliminate residue with denatured alcohol.

Undo the noodle to access the pads, then clean pads and rims before hosing down or clearing with denatured alcohol. Light sanding can also clear contamination.


Unless you have a Victorian ladies style frame, crossing your leg in front of you is a fine way to crash.

While I strongly recommend coming to a complete stop , I would think that standing on your pedal and extending the other leg out behind you to cross over would be safer.

In the cross-in-front alternative, your pedal foot is stuck behind the leg that hits the ground

and I would expect there to be a significant risk of getting tangled up while in this 'grapevine' position and tripping.

I agree with previous answers, cross the leg behind you.

But, if there is a reason for which you prefer to do it crossing the leg in front of you, in the final dismount movement, I recommend to hop out of the saddle and land with both feet on the ground more or less at the same time but with one in front of the other (Preferably the one that crossed from the other side should be in front).

This maneuver should allow you to quickly star the run or walk prior to the complete stop.

Moving the leg around behind you is better because after it's around, you can put it on the ground without crossing your legs.

In other words, suppose you keep your left foot in the pedal.

If you bring your right foot over the front, then put it on the ground, with your left foot still in the pedal and the bike still moving slowly, it tends to twist your body around to the left

so you're facing backward.

If you bring your right foot over the back, it's in a natural position for you to start running alongside the bike in motion.

Also, it's easier to bring your leg over the back because you don't have to bend your knee so much.

It really depends on what type of riding you are doing and whether or not you have clipless pedals.

If you are a cyclocross racer, the left foot remains in the pedal, and the right foot swings over the back wheel, then threads between the left foot and the frame to step on the ground.

This fast, but tricky dismount is explained in this video from a former cyclocross national champion.

Some triathletes use a similar technique.

If you do not have clipless pedals or your left foot is resting on top of your shoes, you can swing the right foot over the back wheel, position just behind the left foot, and then hop of the bike to land on your right foot.

The safest thing to do, however, is to stop and dismount.

Question: When doing a rolling dismount, one foot stays on its pedal, the other has to cross over somehow. Would you suggest crossing over in front of you (while sitting, folding you knee to allow the cross-over) or behind you (standing on your pedal and extending the other leg out behind you to cross over.  Note: I don't mean to know which you prefer, rather which is safer/easier/quicker than the other, and why.

Rolling dismount: leg crosses over in front of you or behind?

For a rolling dismount, unless you have a ladies bike without a bar, the leg must be crossed behind or your leg will hit the bar and you will either fall over or crash. Moreover, it is much safer to stop and dismount correctly.

While different types of bike and riding styles can change the preferred moving dismount, bringing your right leg over the back and landing just behing the left is usually the most natural way to transition to running, and avoids tripping or twisting on landing. It is safer to stop first though.

Crossing in front is more dangerous unless you have a step-through frame. Crossing behind reduces the likelihood of tripping or twisting on landing.

If you bring your right leg over the back and behind the left foot, it is in a good position for you to start running beside the bike.

While different types of bike and riding styles can change the preferred moving dismount, bringing your right leg behind the bike and is usually the most natural.


Trueing a wheel is something you can do on your own, but until you get good at it

it'll take you time to do it right - "carefully tighten the spokes on the opposite side...

" is kind of an oversimplification.

Typically a trueing stand is used; the wheel is placed in the stand and prongs or arms on the stand

determine exactly where the wheel is out of true.

The problem is that sometimes you need to loosen some spokes to get enough play to pull back against the deformation enough to straighten it out.

Someone who does it all day makes it look easy - you bring your wheel in to a good bike shop and usually it takes longer for you to describe the pothole you whacked into than to actually true the wheel.

If you've got a good relationship with them they may not even charge you for a 10 second job (karma would demand an offering of beer or pizza as appropriate).

If you don't have a trueing stand

but you're feeling adventurous you could try doing it with the wheel in the frame - stand behind / in front of the wheel

(so you're looking at the tread) and spin the wheel slowly - you should see where it comes out of true.

Use an actual spoke wrench - if you use pliers you can round the ends of the spoke over and if you use a wrench you'll put too much torque on it

(I have a friend who has done it with a leatherman in the middle of a ride

but he also repaired and managed a bicycle store for many years).

Since it's an inexpensive wheel if you're confident enough in your abilities I'd say go for it - worst case

is you end up replacing the rim, but you may learn a new skill in t he process.

You can attempt it yourself, or get it done at a bike shop.

I'm not sure what bike shops charge these days for truing, but it's probably less than half of what a new inexpensive wheel would cost (though you may be able to get a used wheel cheaper).

If you have moderate mechanical abilities you can attempt it yourself.

The important thing is to get the RIGHT spoke wrench for the spoke nipples, and get a good quality one.

And if the nipples are at all corroded, be prepared to "break free" a nipple with Vice Grips before you end up rounding off the nipple with the spoke wrench.

(If you round off a nipple they can be replaced, but it's a minor PITA.)

(If the nipples are badly corroded give the screw threads of each a shot of Liquid Wrench before you begin, being careful to not let the stuff dribble down into the tire.)

Truing a wheel is mainly a matter of THINKING about which way each spoke pulls.

And you may need to loosen some and tighten others (though you should probably tighten more than you loosen overall).

As other contributors have noted, this is DiY with a spoke wrench.

Spoke wrenches come in different sizes, take the wheel into a shop so you can get the right wrench.

Deflate the tyre somewhat before you begin as a hard tyre can puncture if making spoke adjustments.

As for the truing process, I have to recommend Ken Kifer's guide because he wrote lots of great stuff and this article serves as an intro to his site: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/skills/spokes.htm

If you do want to get a new back wheel there is the small matter of the sprockets that will need changing over.

Get the shop to do this for you when you buy the wheel as you don't want to be buying special tools for something the bike shop guys do every day.

Also expect a 24" wheel to be special order, but not that expensive if you do get a basic steel hub

/alloy rim model.

I had exactly the same problem a week ago.

My son had a minor crash and the front wheel was slightly buckled.

Brought the bike to bike shop to see if they could fix it and

they said no - and to get a new wheel - cost ~ €40 thank you very much.

Mind you, it's an old crappy bike

so not that surprised that they said no.

My solution - looked around for second hand bike which we got for less than the price of new wheel!

Of course they can!

It's easy enough and much cheaper to do it yourself with a spoke key.

My solution was to replace the wheel with an undamaged one salvaged from another cheap bike, because the wheel was too damaged to repair.

A tree fell on my cruiser bike and bent the coaster brake rear rim irrepairably.

I looked online and found a new one for about 60 dollars plus shipping.

So I looked around on the local swap and shop forums and saw a few bikes for around the same price.

But yesterday I found a cheap old cruiser bike at a thrift store that also had a lot of other usable parts as well as two fairly true rims with good tires.

Question: My son has a relatively cheap kids mountain bike, no suspension or anything flash, and after a minor crash into a friend the back wheel is slightly out of true. It only causes issues under braking when the warped area of the wheel leads to stuttering braking, and locking up entirely when the brakes are pulled hard.  My gut feel is that I should just throw it and get a new one, as I don't know how repairable these things are.  Can bike shops repair that sort of thing?

For a slightly warped wheel, is it worth getting it repaired?

It is probably a good idea to attempt to fix a slightly warped wheel. A bike shop may also do it for a reasonable price and cheaper than a new wheel. A spoke wrench is required to do it yourself and you would need to take the wheel to the shop to get the right size.  Another  solution would be to replace the wheel with an undamaged one salvaged from another cheap bike, if the wheel is too damaged to repair.

This is a job you can do yourself with some skill, or a shop may not charge much. You could try doing it and bring it to a shop if you fail, or just replace the wheel with one from another bike. Make sure you use the proper tools with the correct size, and deflate the tube beforehand to prevent flats.

You can take it to a shop or try doing it yourself with a proper spoke key. It is not expensive at a bike shop, but doing it yourself can teach you new skills. If you fail, you can just take it to the shop or throw it out.

Make sure you use a proper spoke wrench with the correct size, release the nipples and deflate the tube first.

It may be easiest to get a replacement wheel from a different bike.


Here's my solution.

Take off wheels, pedals, and handlebars, and place the bike under the bed.

Ok, that may not be the right solution, but it might point you in the right direction.

If you start taking parts off your bike, you can fit it in a pretty small place.

You might even want to consider taking parts off and storing everything

but the frame inside your apartment.

Take out the bottom bracket and leave that in the house.

Wheels can be easily stored inside.

The seat/seat post is dead easy to remove and can be stored just about anywhere.

Basically you should store as much inside as you can.

Wrapping with plastic for a season will result in trapping moisture, instead of keeping it out.

Moisture will penetrate unless you do something extreme like vacuum-sealing (which isn't practical in this case).

You're better off making sure the bike is well-covered to keep off precipitation, but can also breathe to allow excess moisture to evaporate.

GuyZee's tips are good.

I'd inspect the bike once a month to ensure it doesn't need extra grease and there's no rust or moisture build-up.

Also, if the balcony is accessible from the ground in any manner, you're giving bike thieves the advantage of time.

Here a few other considerations: Make sure bike is 100% dry Yes oil chain and all other gears, bearings etc...

If bike is steel, oil or repaint any exposed metal

If bike steel, add nice layer of car wax and buff

If bike is carbon, polish with Lemon fresh wood furniture polish

If saddle is leather polish'er up with some mink oil or other leather

conditioner Oil/Lube each spoke at the nipple Lift bike so it is not resting on its tires Assuming plastic is draping, but make sure tied down so it does not blow away!

Hope that helps...

if I think of any others I'll lyk!

No need to do anything extra special.

Just keep it dry, mostly, and it doesn't hurt to hang it so the weight is off the tires.

In the case of "sorta outside storage", if you cover it be sure that air can circulate under the cover to keep it dry -- don't wrap too tightly.

And be wary of placing the bike in a location (eg, near a bathroom exhaust fan) where humidity from inside will come out and condense on it.

I wouldn't take the tires off --

more apt to damage the bike than with them on.

But it doesn't hurt to take the seat inside

(something mice might gnaw on).

I would purchase a commercial bike cover (available from plenty of places) and use that to keep the bike protected.

Before putting it in storage I would use an oily rag to go over the allen key bolts, e.g. in the stem.

No more than that is really needed, cleaning the bike up will remove that protective layer of dirt and grime that has built up.

To better look after the tyres you may want to put the bike upside down, taking care that the shifters and seat don't get scuffed.

Consider using a Yardstash product instead of a bike cover.

Provides better protection than just wrapping in a tarp or plastic.

You can purchase directly from www.yardstash.com .

You have three risk factors - snow, condensing moisture and tires going flat.

The solution is to hang the bike and cover it from above so that it is vented from beneath.

Hanging will require anything looking like two anchors and some reliable rope.

Covering can be made of any strong water-resistant material.

Well-vented bike covered from snow and hanging will be protected.

The other side of the coin is what to do in the spring.

I'd say: get all the grease off and re-oil/grease everything pump tires up and check after a few days

maybe inspect tubes look for new rust around cable glands etc.

(when regreasing) pull seriously hard on brake levers before you need to clean rims a good test ride before you rely on it.

I'm sure there's plenty to add to this list, you might even take a look at an old answer about restoring neglected bikes for tips, even though you're doing what you can to take care of it.

Almost dismounting the whole bike is way too much work...

other options would be much cheaper on your time or - if the bike not too expensive - just leave it outside, protect the cables entry points to prevent water and rotate the wheels 45deg every couple weeks.

$11 Alternative-

Lube the chain before storage.

Completely wrap and tape shut with some desiccant inside.

Seal it completely.

Low moisture should mean little rusting.

Hang it to prevent damage to the tires.

Home depot sells 10ft square painter's plastic sheets and desiccant for about $3 and $7.50 respectively.

This desiccant requires something like a double boiler to store the desiccant in.

It absorbs moisture and drips into the lower container.

You can make this with old stackable tupperwear containers or buy it at the Home Depot for a few more dollars.

Free Alternative-Wrap it completely and forget about it until the spring.

It'll be just fine!

That's what I'd be doing!

Question: Okay. I have a bike which I would like to store for around six moths. Winter temperatures can be as low as -30 C. The problem is that I do not have an indoor storage space, so it is going to reside on a balcony. We also have lots of snow.  So, my plan is: 1. Inflate tires to max 2. Greasing 3. Wrap bike in plastic wrap.  Any suggestions?

How to store bicycles outside during winter

If a bike is to be stored during winter, as much as possible should be stored inside.  If it is to be left outside, firstly the parts should be lubricated. It should be covered with waterproof covering to keep it dry but with some ventilation to stop excess moisture from being trapped.  Hanging the bike or storing it upside down keeps the weight off the tires and stops them going flat. It is advisable to check the bike once a month or so for issues.

Removing parts of the bike protects those parts and allows the bike to be stored in a smaller space. The bike should be covered from the elements, allowing air circulation from beneath, and the wheels can be protected by hanging or periodical rotation. Protect steel with oil or car wax, carbon with furniture polish and leather seats with mink oil or other leather polish. Don't overclean. Lube chain before storage and inspect bike periodically.

If you take parts off your bike, it can fit in a smaller space and those parts are protected from the elements.

Covering it with a bike cover or waterproof cover can stop rain and snow from getting to it. Allow air to circulate from underneath and consider hanging it or rotating the wheels periodically to protect them. Don't store in a humid area. Be aware of thieves!


Well, to answer this, there are a couple things to consider.

What are the hours or operation of the bike shops?

Do you plan to ride when the shops aren't open.

2) Are you sure that all the bike shops will always have your tube size in stock.

Seriously, you think they would always have 700x32 in stock, but I've had it happen enough times that it's annoying.

Not to mention the number of times I've settle for using presta when I'm really supposed to be using schraders.

3) How far do you really want to walk, and what is the penalty for being late?

Walking 800 m (1/2 mile) could take around 10 minutes.

In that time you could have already changed the tire.

Do you lose pay when you get to work late?

If this happens too much will you be seen as unreliable, and get your shifts cut? 4)

How much does a patch kit or extra tube and a frame pump really slow you down?

A patch kit can easily be stored in those bags that go under your saddle, or in your jersey pocket.

A pump can be mounted on the frame, and you probably won't even realize it's there.

Personally, I don't think there's much reason not to carry a pump and spare tube.

Although it does seem useless at this point.

I ran over a broken beer bottle on the weekend and heard and felt the glass crush underneath my tires.

Thanks to gatorskins and tuffy tape, I didn't even have a flat.

I seriously question why I should bother.

But then 3 months ago I had a valve fail.

It's almost never the case that I get a flat from an actual puncture, but usually from pinch flats or other unexpected things.

I don't think I've ever had to use my allen keys on my commute, but I still carry them.

That being said, the day you have to walk a mile because you didn't want to carry something as small as a tube and pump is the day you're going to rethink why you don't carry one.

There is no unique right answer to this, but I can put it two ways: The way you described (very low puncture risk, good external infrastructure), if it bothers me, I wouldn't carry anything but a good extra tube and a pump.

If it is not an absolute "bother", I would feel WAY more carefree if I did pack a patch-kit.

The second option allows you to change your mind if you want to stray away from your usual route, say, to ride longer, to go to a friend's house, or whatever.

Also, if you don't carry your kit everyday, chances are you will forget it at home when you go out for a non-commuting ride.

Now for the extreme opposite, I definitely would not recommend riding without a spare tube and a pump, EVER!

(But that's also a matter of choice.)

Think how fortunate you would feel to be able to help a fellow cyclist who happened to get his /her second flat of the morning by handing them a patch to help them on their way.

I believe what goes around comes around, maybe they would help you while walking the 1/2 mile to you bike shop to fix your bike.

Sometimes it is worth taking a just in case item for the circumstance that you just can't predict.

Most of us ride for the enjoyment and a few ounces won't really impact that.

I don't bother to carry a patch kit or any tools on short-distance commutes.

My rule is that if I could walk home in a pinch, I don't need that stuff.

FWIW, I've had more instances of running out of spares due to multiple flats on long-distance rides than I've had instances of walking home because of a single flat on in-town rides.

You have to decide the best balance between The disadvantages of carrying a tube, pump and levers and

The disadvantages of being stranded with a flat tyre.

Seriously, that's all it comes down to.

Think about what you'll do if you get a flat anywhere along your commute and how much of an inconvenience it is.

Then compare that to the inconvenience you experience from carrying spares and fixing a flat on the road.

Question: I'm cycling for urban commute, on well-maintained roads and bike paths, Vittoria Randonneur "puncture resistant" tires, and at no point on my ride am I more than 1/2 mile (usually within 1/4, I bet) from a bike shop.  I also presume that I'll never be without a wallet and cell phone and am in a city with good public transport.  Given that, is there really a reason to bother carrying a patch kit or extra tube with me?

Is a tire patch kit really necessary for urban commute?

Most people consider carrying a patch kit a sensible precaution. It is a light, easy to carry item that will save time and inconvenience in the event of a puncture. Some cyclists, however, do not carry this item when they are only going short distances and they could walk home if they had to.

Consider the inconvenience of having a puncture on your commute without a kit, and the possibility that the bike shops will be closed or not have the right part. While it may be easier to push the bike on short commutes, a patch kit is small and light and provides peace of mind at a low cost.

A simple patch kit is small and lightweight, and provides peace of mind. However, for small commutes it may not be a problem to walk if you have bike prolems.

Consider the inconvenience of having a puncture on your commute without a kit, and the possibility that the bike shops will be closed or not have the right part. You may also be able to help other cyclists in similar situations.


I want to just go over to the person and try to give them some common sense.

If I felt like that, I'd have to tell every second cyclist I see at night that they ought to have lights.

Is it productive to be confrontational in this situation?

Has anybody been able to educate them?

Should we let the salmon swim upstream unimpeded?

Ring your bell. :-)

I have in the past stopped and held up my hand in a 'stop' gesture and had a short conversation with people riding the wrong way.

If they stop, which they normally do, I typically and quickly try to point out: Wrong way riding is illegal.

It's substantially more dangerous.

Our state is a contributory negligence state, so if you are in an accident you will likely collect much less or nothing at all.

And I finish with:

Maybe it's none of my business, but everyone is better off when we all follow the expected traffic rules.

Generally I get a response that ranges between acceptance and indifference.

The anecdotal evidence that it works is that they usually cross the street and on my typical route I seem to see fewer 'salmon'.

Truth is, they may be thinking I'm a crackpot and crossing back over as soon as I am out of sight.

Only once has someone yelled or argued with me.

That said, I don't stop messengers.

They generally know the rules and are choosing to flaunt them.

I'm sure there are cultural differences between NYC and where I live, but I've found that any attempts at yelling " Don't go the wrong way! ", " You're gonna kill yourself!

Ride with traffic! "

or something like that at a passing cyclist get no acknowledgment, get dismissed ("

yeah,

yeah, whatever"), or hostility.

There's very few wrong-way cyclists that seem open to being educated.

I'm really hoping somebody can share some techniques that have seemed to reach the salmon.

I think the one thing I know of working is police ticketing them, especially since here one of their options for dealing with the ticket is taking a bicycle safety class from a LAB certified instructor via the local cycling advocacy group.

In the US there's been federal grant money for "bicycle safety" that police departments can apply for to pay for overtime for police officers to concentrate on ticketing cyclists for dangerous illegal behaviors.

It might be possible to convince your local police department to apply for some of that funding.

As far as how to keep yourself safe, hugging the curb and slowing down works great.

Since they can see the oncoming traffic they're better situated for a dodge out of the bike lane.

Slowing down so that you can stop quickly is helpful, too.

If there's cars next to you, this doesn't work as well, since wrong-way cyclists are generally willing to ride in the door zone without thinking twice about it.

It's not your problem.

Leave them be.

Do your own thing, swim your own path.

It's easy to say that

but life's too short.

If they're not going to listen to what you say and it would just annoy you even more than it apparently already does, then just leave them to it and go on about your day.

Unless someone has actively endangered me with their stupidity, then I'm inclined to just ignore it.

I'm not a cop, they'd not pay me any attention anyway.

If I'm feeling particularly belligerent then I might deliberately get in their way (I do tend to do this with pavement riders when I'm a pedestrian), but generally that's just risking their anger and they wouldn't learn anyway.

It'd be best if they simply obeyed the traffic laws, but the few times I've brought this up with wrong-way riders, I've encountered everything from disbelief to hostility.

I simply do my best to avoid them and not collide with them.

To that end, I've found that you can usually "direct" these riders within the bike lane or shoulder.

When I see them in the distance riding towards me, I'll point at them, then left, while I simultaneously move to the right.

(If time permits, I'll point at myself first , to make it clear

I'm saying "How about if we both ride on the right side of this lane.)

It almost always works, and many wrong-way cyclists actually seem to appreciate this; I've gotten a few friendly nods from doing this.

This technique has worked on the streets of New York City, various locations in New Jersey, and also while on tour in Rhode Island.

However, note that some areas may have laws that make signaling like this problematic, possibly opening you up to liability

if there's an accident caused by your signals.

( Here's an example .)

Question: Frustrated cyclist "jegrgic" poses this question at the  New York Cycling Club (NYCC) website .  They say:   When I see this, I want to just go over to the person and try to give them some common sense. But typically, I just do my best to avoid them (usually by going into traffic) and swear under my breath while shaking my head.   Is it productive to be confrontational in this situation? Has anybody been able to educate them? Should we let the salmon swim upstream unimpeded?

How should I deal with bike messengers + others (salmon) riding the wrong way in a bike lane?

Cyclists have a variety of ways of dealing with other cyclists riding the wrong way in a bike lane. Some people believe it is better to keep out of their way and ignore them. Others believe they should be confronted. The only thing that seems to stop them is the police ticketing them. Each cyclist has to make up their own mind.

Most responders find that these cyclists are not usually responsive to correction, unless this is by a police officer with the power to punish offenders. Rather than seeking to educate people, it can help to ring your bell and indicate your direction of travel, then look after your own safety.

While it can be tempting to correct these cyclists, many people find that this has little effect if you are not a police officer with the power to punish offenders. It may be better to leave them be and worry about your own safety.

It can help to ring your bell and indicate where you will be riding, then try to avoid them. Getting in their way can just get them angry.


I would at least put road tires on your mountain bike - they really improve your efficiency on pavement.

If your commute is urban w/ lots of stops & traffic navigation, the mountain bike handlebar setup can be more maneuverable for tight situations than a road/touring bike.

I do miss the maneuverability of my mountain bike since switching to a road bike.

A commuter or hybrid bike may be a very good option, with the handlebar & fork designed for more urban situation vs. being tuned for long-haul riding.

My advise, buy a suitable commuter bike and keep the mountain bike if you have room.

I was in the same situation living in NYC.

I found that conversion was not worth the effort and simply switched to a commuter bike.

Converting your mountain bike would help but still leave you with some of the drawbacks, such as a heavier frame and shock absorption, which drains your efficiency.

A commuter bike will surly get you out on the road more.

Your local bike shop will help you find the perfect bike.

Things to keep in mind:

Frame size is keyCan

you add a rack/

fenders?Do you want a single speed or multiple (i suggest multi-speed)

Funny you're in Seattle, I had the same experience when I was out there for a summer.

I just got "slicks" for tires and it was fine.

If you are commuting daily for a long distance, I'll switch to a road bike.

If not and you like your current bike, keep it!

I own a road bike and a mountain bike, depending where I'm heading.

But I do not live in a large city.

I have always ridden mountain bikes, and even now that I commute daily since one year ago, most the time I go with my mountain bike.

For sure, if you ride in the city and not on off-road trails, chosing a thin lightly threaded tire is the best thing to do.

I don't like too thin a tire for 26 inch wheels, though, because the ride becomes very harsh with them.

I now also have a fixie, it is SO MUCH faster and easier to go around, but it seems very obvious to me that a skinny-tire-much-lighter bike without fenders and racks and all should be much easier to ride anyway.

I recommend keeping a commuter bike for road use and a mountain bike for offroad use.

You can always ride a mountain bike on the road if you need to (albeit less efficiently than your commuter bike).

A nice, durable steel-framed hybrid is what I use for commuting, though that's really just a matter of prefence.

I bought a $350 mountain bike several years ago, and I learned the hard way why cable locks suck.

If you're going to lock your bike up in a public place invest in a good u-lock or something better than a cable lock.

Also, replace quick-releases with bolt-ons as those same douchebags also like to steal wheels and seats.

Start with your current bike, switching to smooth tires.

If you find your current bike comfortable, stick with that.

Only when you find yourself putting in real mileage (let's say 15 miles/day), then get a road bike (or a fixie if that's your bent) to improve the efficiency.

There is nothing you need to do, but you'll probably find that the riding is more pleasant with road/commuter tires – ones with minimal tread.

You may also find that a mirror makes life feel saner and safer.

After that, you may find that the gearing for a mountain bike is lower than you'd like.

If you do, you can change the cassette (rear gears) to get a higher range without too much cost (maybe US $20-40).

Or, if you'd like to do some trail riding as well, you might do well to get a second set of wheels.

That would enable you to switch easily between knobby and slick tires and also have cassettes that are better suited to each style of riding.

I live in NYC (Bronx) and while there are a quite a few bike lanes and paths all there aren't many bike trails that warrant owning a mountain bike.

I see a lot of people by me who buy full suspension mountain bikes, but the majority of the time they ride in on the streets, which is such a waste of efficiency and money.

yet again I see a lot of people who think they are Lance Armstrong and buy $2K+ road bikes and ride them like idiots.

I would get a hybrid or a cyclocross which can handle some potholes and minor off road terrain while still keeping efficiency up.

I personally ride a Kestrel RT-1000 flat bar, which is basically a road bike that kestrel uses a flat bar on.

This makes it fast, efficient, but with a more upright position that's nimble in stop and go traffic.

Question: I just moved from where there wasn't much of a biking system infrastructure.  There were lots of trails though, so I bought an OK mountain bike ($350).  Now, I've moved to downtown Seattle and everyone bikes.  I'd love to get into it but not sure if a mountain bike is efficient for road-use.  Should I look into a conversion kit?  Should I just get a road bike and have one off-road and one on-road?

Riding a Mountain Bike in the city

It is best not to use a mountain bike for road riding. The easiest option is to use the bike but change the tire for road tires. However, it is probably better to have a road bike for commuting and a mountain bike for off-road. If you can only afford one bike or only have room for one a hybrid or a cyclocross is a good option.

Mountain bikes have the benefit of maneuverability , but the heavier tyres and frame can make it less efficient for road use, while the gearing may not be optimal for commuting. Changing to road tyres will add significant efficiency, but if you are cycling longer distances then switching to a commuter, hybrid or road bike may be the best option.

The biggest single difference will come from changing to road tyres, but if you are cycling longer distances then switching to a commuter, hybrid or road bike may be the best option.


You'll definitely need to remove all components.

For threaded bits you have two choices - leave junk bolts in there that will get powdercoated over and then carefully remove them (leaving a bit of an edge around the bolt hole) or let them get masked but almost certainly somewhat powdercoated into and use a tap and die set to chase them before reassembly.

Be prepared to face/ream/chase the headtube and bottom bracket in any case.

Do make sure you've cleaned it as much as possible, removing any residual grease and road dirt.

I wouldn't worry about the stickers and decals, the media blasting to prepare the frame should take care of that.

With the relatively low cost of media blasting I wouldn't bother trying to strip the paint myself.

Make sure you find a powdercoater that is familiar with bicycle frames; particularly when it comes to media blasting they need to understand how thin the tubing is.

I have taken a bike to a powdercoater before.

Many of them actually do motorcycle frames regularly so they're very good with prepping the surfaces and screw holes and dealing with complex shapes.

The hardest thing for me was the fork race -- I had to have it removed by a bikeshop.

Some people have success with a DIY approach, but it is safer to do it with the right tools and experience

(it is not a routine maintenance activity).

If there is residual grease or frame-saver compound in the tubes, the powder-coater should have solvents to remove this stuff.

Just ask them about your concerns.

Everything must be removed from the frame.

Powdercoaters will do the sandblast/strip for you generally.

Alu must be chemical dipped.

Good powdercoaters will put plastic/rubber plugs in the screw holes so that they remain clean.

It's always good practice to chase the threads when you get it back from the powdercoater.

You indeed need to remove as many components as you can.

I took an old cruiser to a powder coater a few months ago and had a pretty nice result.

From my experience they will sandblast the frame before so you do not need to worry about it being dirty or having stickers...

it will all be taken care of with the sand.

As mentioned in other posts the main issues are the threads and the bearing races.

The worse for both would be if they get sanded.

Try to cover them as well as you can with duck tape or equivalent and make sure you clearly explain them not to touch those areas.

On my bike there was a bit of paint on the bearing races for both the fork and the bottom bracket (old type of cranks/bb).

I used a dremel with a metal spinning brush in order to nicely clean the races and reface them, and it seems to be working pretty well so far (make sure you grease them afterwards).

Good luck with it!

Make sure to clean out all grease and oils in the frame tubing.

I just recently had my bike painted and while they hung the frame up to dry, heated grease caused a little defect in the frame on the top of the seat post insert.

Question: I am thinking of having an old bike powdercoated to spruce it up a bit.  What do I need to do to prepare the frame? Remove all components? What about stickers and decals? Some kind of chemical etching dip?  It is an aluminium MTB frame.

Is there anything special to pay attention to when preparing a bicycle for powdercoating?

Before having a bike frame powdercoated, it is important to move all components. Cleaning the frame is also a good idea, but that will probably be done before the powdercoating is carried out.

This can be done yourself, but it is best to find a professional with the right equipment and experience with bikes. Remove all of the components and clean as much grease and dirt as possible. Stickers and paint do not normally need to be removed, since the powdercoater should be able to remove them. Protect the threaded bits with junk bolts or plugs, then chase the threads afterwards. Be prepared to face/ream/chase the headtube and bottom bracket.

Some people do this themselves, but it is best to find a professional powdercoater who is experienced with bikes.