Commuter or city bikes are designed for paved surfaces.

A suspension fork on such a bike is not going to add much comfort, except perhaps when riding over potholes or kerbs, which are avoidable.

Suspension forks add weight, which brings a different type of discomfort as you have to exert effort to move that weight around.

This gets worse the more inexpensive the bicycle is.

Low end suspension forks are heavy and have poor performance.

I find the ideal commuter bike is: lightweight, reliable, and inexpensive.

Reliable:

A commuter bike can’t fail or you’ll be late for work.

Light weight:

it has to be lightweight as you’re navigating it around bike stands, carrying it up stairs, taking it over curbs, and putting it on bus racks or in the trunk of a car that’s come to pick you up when and if your bike breaks by the side of the road and you can’t fix it before being late for work.

Inexpensive:

your commuter bike often has a shortened lifespan.

It either gets stolen, hit by a car, or damaged by the elements.

If you’re buying new, the bike you’re looking is likely inexpensive but likely fails in terms of reliability and weight if it has front suspension.

Most bikes that are inexpensive and have front or full suspension are what we call on this forum somewhat derisively [Bicycle Shaped Objects] or BSOs.

A used steel-frame road bike or hybrid with no suspension that can fit panniers is often a much better choice for commuting.

The drawback of the suspension is that it can swallow energy, i.e. if you stand up to push the pedals harder, you can not exert the same force, plus I find the motion of the suspension annoying in this situation.

I used a bike without suspensions for more than 20 years, and I was happy with it both on paved and dirt roads.

In my opinion a good seat and well adjusted handlebar adds much more comfort, than a suspension.

I think a big impact of with/without suspension is maintenance .

Suspension brings more movable parts, which means more maintenance and repair costs.

Suspension can feel comfortable when it works, because it absorbs some shocks.

But one other thing it does, is to absorb energy you might want to use for speed, not bouncing.

Imagine standing on your bike and pedaling really hard; you want that energy to drive you forward, but with suspension some of that energy goes into bouncing you up and down.

Sometimes you need suspension, like if you're going offroad or riding on roads with lots of holes.

But in a city you might prefer not to have suspension, as you'll get lower maintenance and more energy efficiency.

For a commuter bike, I'd recommend something dead simple.

Fewer bells and whistles that will eventually break.

It depends.

If you are going to ride with your commuter bike on roads where a front suspension benefits your riding or comfort, it is better to have a front suspension.

If, however, you are going to ride on roads where a suspension fork does not bring you any benefits, it is better to have a rigid fork.

There is a caveat though: If you like or dislike front suspensions for other reasons, e.g. you like or dislike the looks of it, you have to evaluate above decision considering these other reasons.

Basically depends on commute, trade off of comfort over efficiency.

My commute is full of speed bumps.

I prefer the ability to ride at speed over those bumps without having to keep doing 'brace-brace-brace' to avoid jarring to bits.

Maybe its because I'm on old side.

I would add that while I agree with the above answers, the conditions of the road on your preferred route might have a big impact on this decision.

I opted for a fixed fork for both ease and cost, but now regret it as the roads I ride on are extremely pitted and bumpy near the edges (approximately 1-2 cm irregular ridges / patches where the top surface has broken away).

I've yet to try padded gloves or raising my handlebars to take some of the vibration out

, I mention it as I assumed that main roads that feel perfectly smooth where my car tyres are positioned are not necessarily so nearer the edges where you'll be riding.

If you can afford it, for the average fun-loving , sociable person, suspension is a must!

There will be times when instead of doing the commute, you may want to do a social ride with friends along riverbanks and other areas where the path will be less than smooth.

Fixed forks will limit you options for comfort in these situations and in fact the shaking handlebars can be seriously annoying along with any unstable traction.

Bikes don't have to be taken too seriously and should be a staple part of the fun of a normal life.

Question: Is a commuter/city bike without front suspension comfortable?

Is it better to get a commuter bike with a front suspension or without one?

Commuter or city bikes are designed for paved surfaces. A suspension fork on such a bike is not going to add much comfort, except perhaps when riding over potholes or kerbs, which are avoidable. Suspension forks add weight, which brings a different type of discomfort as you have to exert effort to move that weight around. A used steel-frame road bike or hybrid with no suspension that can fit panniers is often a much better choice for commuting.  Suspension brings more movable parts, which means more maintenance and repair costs.  If you are planning to use the bike socially as well, along less smooth paths and trails, you may want to think about suspension.

Suspension can increase the range of surfaces you can ride on and add comfort, but it also wastes energy, adds complexity and is often poor quality at the lower end of the market. If the roads you plan to travel on are relatively smooth, you may not need suspension and this will make the bike more reliable and easier to maintain. If the road conditions are poor or you would like to ride on bumpier roads in your free time, this may make suspension worthwhile. Otherwise, it may be simpler without suspension.

If the road condition is poor or you would like to ride on bumpier roads in your free time, this may make suspension worth it. Otherwise, it may be simpler without suspension.


Comfort isn't really an issue for a 30-minute ride, as long as the bike fits.

Also, for any given price point, an aluminium bike will have better components than a carbon bike, so will probably be more enjoyable to ride.

For a commuter bike, I'd be much more worried about theft and damage, unless you have somewhere secure to park the bike at work.

If you are worried that aluminium will be too harsh, you're probably wrong

but I'd consider steel instead, rather than carbon.

Or just put wider tyres on it.

I've ridden rigid aluminium hybrids with 28mm tyres and had no comfort issues at all.

Any good bike shop should be happy to let you take a test ride of at least half an hour on any bike you're thinking of buying.

If you are going to be commuting regularly so that you rack up some miles, in different kinds of weather, I think it's better to buy an aluminum frame bike and spend the saved money elsewhere.

Upgrading the seatpost, saddle, and tires will make the bike plenty comfortable.

Money can also be spent on more or better clothing - which will make a big difference in comfort if you are riding in unpleasant weather.

Also, remember the cost of replacing tires, chains and cassettes.

As others have mentioned, for such short rides comfort will likely not be a major concern in the same way it would for endurance events, "bikepacking", or even racing.

That's not to say you shouldn't consider comfort at all - a bad saddle or bad bike fit

can make things hurt in a hurry.

But these are things that can be easily adjusted to make any one of hundreds of bike models work, and you shouldn't need to optimize your comfort beyond pinning down those basics.

That said, I wanted to address the underlying assumption within your question: that some frame materials are fundamentally "more comfortable" than others.

While it is true that it is generally easier to make some materials feel comfortable, in the end comfort, or whatever performance metric

you choose to focus on, is the result of complex interactions between the materials, the geometry (both rider geometry and tube shapes), and the construction of the frame.

With clever enough, or poor enough, engineering you can make any material feel harsh or compliant, stiff or flimsy, responsive or sluggish.

Ultimately, the best and really only way to determine whether a particular bike will feel good for you is to test ride it.

Here is a good video by GCN on carbon vs aluminium frames

I'd read this before buying Carbon fibre, the conditions and environmental consequences are huge.

See https://polebicycles.com/why-arent-we-going-for-carbon-frames/ Also, if you're doing short commutes, might a cyclocross bike be better, you can fit panniers to some of those which might make it more useful.

For a fun rider or daily morning rider/ commuter, considering the price point, I would always consider a good Aluminum alloy frame with good groupset over carbon frame.

For very short commutes, like half an hour, take bike that has storage space and makes you work out a bit (for health reasons)

I recently started a gig and am commuting 30 minutes each way over patchy city streets.

I'm currently riding a steel single-speed.

Here are the things I'm looking forward to in my next street bike, once I've saved up for it: Better fit.

Track geometry and track handlebars aren't great for me.

Better brakes.

This bike has long-reach Tektros, which are pretty spongy.

More than one gear.

Self-explanatory.

Pedals suited to street shoes.

Track pedals aren't great for this; I plan on getting some MKS "easy superiors".

Having a bike that doesn't bounce all over broken pavement would be nice, but that can be achieved in a number of ways.

I'm not planning on getting a carbon bike for street riding.

There are some things that you need from a good commuter bike: Robustness (so that you don't come late to work too often, and won't need a new frame after an accident) Comfort of posture (so that rides are fun) Efficiency (so that rides are fun and fast) Durability

(the bike should live as long as possible with the least servicing as possible) Carbon frames reduce weight, as are aluminum frames supposed to do, so they have a slight efficiency advantage.

Let me stress, how slight this advantage is: If you weight 70kg, and your bike weights 10kg, 1kg more for a steel frame would increase your total weight by just 1.25%.

However, you don't need to carry that weight, the air in your tires does.

The extra weight means a small increase in rolling resistance, but that is dwarfed by the air resistance anyway.

I'd estimate that 1kg extra weight will not decrease coasting efficiency by more than 0.5%.

The faster you ride, the less efficiency will be lost.

So, is such a tiny increase in efficiency really worth the extra dollars?

I doubt it.

On the other hand, aluminum is more brittle than steel, and carbon fiber is much more brittle than aluminum.

With a carbon fiber frame, every accident might be the last, a hard knock at the wrong place suffices to break a tube.

With a steel frame, you basically need to ride full speed into a car to destroy your frame.

So, this is quite a plus in robustness for steel.

In terms of durability, both aluminum and carbon have the plus that they can't rust.

However, a good paint job will keep a steel frame from rusting for a very long time.

My steel frame has been in heavy use for 15 years, and there's still no rust anywhere.

So, carbon gives a negligible efficiency advantage, but that's more than offset by its brittleness and high price tag.

Use either steel or aluminum for commuting.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/36555/cmaster - reinstate monica

Question: I'm planning to use a bike for rather short commutes (max half an hour), will the carbon fiber be noticeably more comfortable than aluminium one?

Is it worth buying carbon fiber road bike for short commutes?

For regular commuters, racking up some miles, in different kinds of weather, an aluminum or steel frame bike is better than carbon and the money saved can be spent on other items.  Upgrading the seatpost, saddle, and tires will make the bike plenty comfortable.  The best solution is to go and try bikes out at a bike shop to see which one feels best.

An aluminium or steel bike will have better components than a carbon bike for the same price. A cheaper aluminium or steel bike can be upgraded with more comfortable parts, and will be more forgiving for commuting. On short commutes, different bikes make less of a difference in comfort for riders, while considerations like durability and attractiveness to thieves are more important. If in doubt, test ride any bike you are considering purchasing.


I'd say it must have a good sturdy build and should be stable.

It must have a good pressure control and display; it should have a proper pressure range.

It should have a good connector with detachable/replacable plugs.

It should have a long hose, so you're not too close to the bike and make full control strokes on it.

A double-sided chuck for both Presta and Schrader valves, with sturdy lever "Universal" chucks don't work as well and aren't as durable (IME, so not the most expensive), while the type that involve switching bits inside are one thing for carrying on the bike when space/weight is at a premium but another for workshop use.

When you use the pump to inflate a tire the pump body gets hot.

This heating up results in a temporary expansion of the body itself.

If the cylinder and the base are made of two different materials (cylinder made of metal, base made of plastic) this thermal cycling can lead, in the long run, to loss of air tightness and less efficient pumping.

In the worst case the pump can simply break.

So I personally prefer full metal body pumps.

Additionally, it is good if it has: versatile head to fit different valves pressure gauge with psi and bar reading large base to be stable during usage fair hose length

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/30865/L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica

The ability to shove pressurized air into a tire :-)

Seriously, it is very hard to discern minor quality difference between pumps.

Best advice is: Look for and read reviews.

Get one that looks and feels sturdy and relatively heavy.

Avoid the cheapest 1/3 of the available models.

It may be a long way down the road, but look for a pump who manufacturer offers rebuild kits for their older models.

Park pumps definitely have rebuild / service kits, as do Zefal and Silca.

However the extra cost of the premium brand might be weighed up against the value.

A Stable Base Floor pumps stand on the floor and you hold your foot on one side for stability.

So a base that allows the pump to tip over is less useful.

A falling pump could smash the pressure gauge, or worse, subtly uncalibrate it)

This is more likely if the gauge is up the top.

Don't fuss over this.

No-one makes a floor pump that only does low or high-pressure tyres.

I've never seen one that didn't have adapters for both types of valve, and YOUR bicycle only has one type, so you won't be constantly changing over.

Yes, a floor pump is less work than the type you clip to your bike frame, but isn't part of the reason you cycle to get exercise?

Sure, treat yourself to a floor pump.

No need to go mad though.

It must have a valve between the cylinder and the hose, or else you will never build up a high pressure like 5 bar.

The pumps that are also suitable for car tires have such valve, because the valve on the tire is opened by the chuck.

Cheap bicycle pumps that depend on the tire's own valve are useless, you are just pumping up the dead volume of the hose.

Unless you add a second valve..

Question: There are so many options, mainly because of the own-brand alternatives. So how do I choose a good floor pump? What should I look for?

What makes a good floor pump?

A good floor pump should be stable and sturdy. It should have good pressure control and a pressure display, as well as a good connector with detachable plug and long hose. It also needs a versatile head to fit different valves. It is recommended to avoid the cheapest pumps. Reading reviews before buying is recommended.

It should be sturdy, compatible with different valves, with a good pressure display and quality parts. A long hose allows you to stand away from the bike while pumping. Look for good reviews and manufacturers who offer rebuild kits. Avoid the cheapest options.


https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/alivio-m4000/RD-M4000.html says that derailleur will handle Low

sprocket_Max. 36T Low sprocket_Min. 32T ANSWER : You cannot run a 50 tooth cog with that derailleur.

You might be able to use a hanger extension, but that will make the small gears even worse.

Wolf Tooth's Roadlink allows up to 40 tooth, and Wolf Tooth's Tanpan says 44 or 45 tooth is the maximum cassette size supported.

Note

these are for 10 and 11 speed.

If you're absolutely stuck on a 50 tooth rear cog, then you're looking at a SRAM 12 speed Eagle setup, which will not be cheap.

Cassette and shifter must change, and its very likely your freehub won't fit the cassette, and then the OLD will be too large to fit in your frame.

Not a good plan.

Derailleur will not handle that, as Criggie says in his answer.

Apart from that, an 11-50 9 speed would have horrifically big jumps between gear ratios.

1x systems only really became feasible with the advent of 11 speed drive-trains, and still sacrifice ratio jumps to get a full spread of ratios to some extent.

If you really want a 1x 9 speed, get a cassette a 9 speed derailleur can handle, then get a small enough chainring to give you the low gears you want, and forgo the higher gears.

BTW, Shimano provides tech specs for all their products (as Criggie linked to).

This page is a good place to start looking for specs of a particular product.

I run a shimano m4000 with a 9spd goat link on a 9spd 11-50t cassette with no problems b screw doesn’t need to be fully wound in.

More recently, I’ve reverted to a 10spd SLX shadow+ mech sgs cage which I run with a sram x7 9spd shifter, giving even better shifting.

I have to agree with Dave - 11-36 works like a charm, gear spacing is just right.

A 11-40 cassette just works OK with the B-screw screwed in all the way or using an even longer replacement screw.

I also tried an 11-42 which didn't really work well.

AFAIC the issue with the wide range cassettes reg.

9-Speed is that they have the cassettes but there are no (Shimano) derailleurs to shift it.

At least not out of the box.

You could try a Shimano 10-speed derailleur and if it doesn't work ok (which it likely won't), try tweaking it.

There are howtos online with re-routing the cable for a different pull ratio.

11-speed derailleurs might be too narrow, chain-wise.

You could also use a Sram 9-speed shifter with a Shimano 10-speed derailleur.

Trouble is, all of these solutions are rather expensive if you haven't the parts in the spares box.

Rather than spending that much money on an exotic 9-speed solution that doesn't get better over time, invest it in a Sunrace 11-speed cassette and Shimano SLX derailleur plus shifter.

What you don't want is a solution based on hanging your derailleur lower and the Wolf Tooth link extensions don't work with 9-speed derailleurs.

I tried it (and it's rather expensive too).

Best to stick to inexpensive 11/12-36 and a 30 or 32 NW chainring.

Or try the 11-40, but that's the max you will be able to get working properly.

21% gear spacing is not a problem.

Shimano has over stated the need for tight ratios.

The shifting won't be quite as smooth, I have an 8spd 11-40, but will be well within acceptable standards.

11-36 has never been a problem with 9 speeds and I usually have to double

shift my 11-36 10 spd because the ratios are too tight.

You will have to use a hanger extender with a long cage derailleur.

The warnings that the extender doesn't allow the RDR to track the cassette properly is also over stated.

Shimano claims they do no testing with components other than their own.

If you believe that Shimano wouldn't know.

Obviously that is ridiculous.

Shimano has stubbornly lagged 2 to 3 years behind the market in the area of gear ranges.

They don't belive in it and only participate well behind the market because they have no choice so pick another brand of RDR.

There are many options.

I looked at some offerings of such cassettes and what a vendor suggests as a derailleur for them.

An example of a cassette: Compatibility chart from the same page:

It looks that no 9- or 10-speed dérailleurs are compatible with that cassette, but they claim that some 11-speed ans 12-speed parts from both Shimano and SRAM may be used instead.

Box Components have released a 9-speed 11-50 drivetrain (cassette, RD, and chain) for EMTBs (thicker chain and cassette to cope with the torque), and I think the gear jump ratios don't matter when it comes to mountain biking.

Even Seth's Bike Hacks uses it, and he's a very nitpicky kind of guy.

What I don't know is if it's compatible with a standard 9-speed system.

Box Components says it isn't compatible with Shimano and SRAM 9-speed systems, but I have a feeling they're just saying it for marketing purposes.

I have used a RD-M2000 and 11-50 on 9 speed with hanger, but the very connection of the gear wire on the inside just touches the bigger cog when in 1 gear, otherwise ok (almost :-)

Would probably try the RD-M370 instead next time

Question: I'm trying to understand if its possible to fit a 9-speed 11-50T cassette (found one on Ali) on my MTB. The plan is to go 1×9. The problem is that I can't seem to understand the if a specific derailleur can handle that.  The rear derailleur in mind is Shimano M4000 long cage. Should I use a hanger extension? Will 11-42T be better for that?  Thanks for the help

Fitting a 9-speed 11-50T cassette on MTB: which derailleur?

A number of derailleurs are recommended when fitting a 9-speed 11-50T cassette on MTB: Wolf Tooth Roadlink and Wolf Tooth Tanpan, SRAM 12 speed Eagle setup, Shimano 10-speed derailleur, Sunrace 11-speed cassette and Shimano SLX derailleur. Note that Shimano states it does not test on components other than their own.

A 9 speed cassette is unlikely to support a large range, so switching to an 11/12 speed might be a better option. Having said this, some commenters claim that Shimano overstates the problems with wide gear spacing, and that this setup could work with a hanger extender and long cage derailleur.

Some commenters claim that Shimano overstates the problems with wide gear spacing, and that this setup could work with a hanger extender and long cage derailleur.


A group riding together and cooperating will ride to a set speed , so you'll be surging if you exceed that speed for long.

A simple wheel-magnet speedo and bike computer helps show this on your bars without being big or expensive.

An ad-hoc group will ride with varying speeds depending on who's in the front and whether they are trying to make a break away or if they're just sick of waiting for the rest of the group to cycle through the paceline.

Some riders need short pulls and some can cope with long pulls at the front.

Separately some people need short rests out of the wind, and some people require quite long periods behind someone else to regain their pace.

The best groups work together for the end goal which is a good training ride.

In racing, your team is your group and the other teams are NOT your friends so they're working for themselves.

A race peloton is therefore an adhoc group of teams who are not working together.

If you face some decent climbs in your route, then groups tend to fall apart as everyone climbs at their own pace.

For training and bunch rides, stop at the top and let everyone get there, then rest till the last arrival is ready to carry on.

Otherwise the first arrivals are rested while the last people are shattered and the group breaks up or is held back.

Same goes for downhill - strava segments work on segment time, not first-down time :)

More thoughts -

A shoulder check every half minute should show you if the rest of the paceline is there still.

If you don't have a speedo, riding to a set cadence might be enough.

Try and memorise the speed of your feet while in the paceline, and simply maintain that rhythm when you hit the front of the line.

Sing a song in your head of the right speed, or count off like marching if that works for you.

Getting expensive - there are race-radios like the pros wear.

They are essentially Personal Shortrange UHF radios with an earpiece and a small transceiver in a pocket.

The aerial/headphone cable runs up the back and is often taped on.

Some new ones are small enough to work with the helmet.

These talk to each other in the team and to team car, who then relays messages onwards with a second radio or maybe a cellular phone.

Some are even bluetooth based and just associate with one~four other units.

Motorcycle riders might wear these under their full face helmets.

On a sunny day you can often see the shadows without moving your head, so long as the sun isn't in front of you or too high.

I sometimes pick up wheel suckers when commuting and while my commuter bike have mirrors its possible to ride too close for the mirror, but the shadows on the road work well if it's a sunny day.

The mirror itself is a solution, but one that presumably doesn't appeal.

I'm not normally so tucked, even in the drops, but sometimes you can dip your head and look between your legs.

The garmin radar wouldn't help, but it's possible that some of the other rear alert systems could be set up - certainly rearview cameras would work.

You could always ask them to let you know if you drop them, by shouting.

A bike mirror allows you to see what's behind you while you're facing ahead.

If you're concerned with the width of your bike during group rides, you can opt for a helmet or frame-mounted mirror rather than a handle-mounted mirror.

Especially for more casual riding, motorcycle intercom systems can be a nice addition for group rides.

It will allow you to talk easily with the other riders, who can then notify you if you are getting too far.

And typically the range is only up to about 100 meters, so eventually you'll notice when you lose the signal.

A bar-end rear view mirror should do the trick.

Perhaps something like a "Sprintech Left Side Mirror".

Low profile, and easy enough to peek behind to check on the rest of the paceline..

Question: In a group ride when I'm the one pulling, I often unknowingly leave my friends behind until I turn my head and see them in far distance, then I had to slow down.  Is there a way to know that they are still tailing me without turning my head every few seconds? like, does it feel different somehow? or maybe there is a way to peek that I didn't know of?

Is there a way to know if someone is drafting behind without turning your head back or trying to hear the noises?

If you want to find out if the pack is still following you can do a shoulder check or dip your head to look back every few minutes. Moreover, if it is sunny, you can usually see the shadows. Alternatively, you can use a gadget, for example a mirror, radio, rearview camera or motorcycle intercom systems are options. It is also possible to set a speed and keep to it, making sure you donàt speed up if you are in front.

Use a rear view mirror or glance behind every half minute. On a sunny day, the shodows allowyou to see riders without turning your head too much. Groups usually ride at a set speed, so follow the speedo or remember the cadence while in the group. An intercom system allows easier communication, or riders falling behind could shout to the others to slow down.

On hills or other sections where people tend to fall behind, wait at the top for stragglers to catch up and recover.


Simple answer:

yes, but it’s not worth doing.

Cost of hub, spokes, nipples and having wheel rebuilt will exceed the cost of a new wheel.

Even if you re-use the spokes a new wheel will still be cheaper.

Wheel building requires special equipment, expertise and time to do correctly.

Yes - I have personally done this, by installing an 8 speed cassette freehub into a wheel that had a 6 speed freewheel.

The donor was a 26" MTB wheel, and the recipient was a 20" wheel for my folding bike

It was only worth doing because I had a donor wheel

and I was able to reuse the 20" spokes well enough.

I even reused the 8 speed cassette and chain.

My purpose was to get access to smaller and larger gears, because the freewheel was a 14-28

and I now have an 11-32.

The downsides were Assembling used parts can be a bit fiddly, might need some finangling to get things lined up.

Used parts are dirty and less fun to assemble Used parts will be worn and slightly closer to breakage than new parts.

It took several hours to assemble, and I messed up the location of the valve hole.

Upside, I have a perfectly working, true, QR-based, 8 speed 20" rear wheel and that bike has 2000 km on it now.

You'll need parts and some normal bike repair tools: Spoke nipple tool and probably some spare nipples Cassette removal tools - chain whip and lockring tool Freewheel removal tools - a bench vise and a freewheel tool, OR a grinder with a cutting wheel

(mine was a non-removable chinese thing hence power tools) Chain tool Lubes

Either a truing stand, or some way to use your bike frame/fork to true the wheel.

Feel free to ask further clarification questions.

As the others have already stated: Yes, it is possible, but ...

However, I feel that the really important message has not been transported yet: Building a wheel is not easy for the uninitiated.

Yes, it can be done.

Yes, you will likely get something that looks like a true wheel.

But you may easily end up with many broken spokes the weeks after.

The critical part about building a wheel is, that you need to apply even tension to the spokes.

Fail to do so, and they may break very quickly.

And with even tension, I really mean very even.

It won't suffice that they feel evenly tensioned to the touch, the tolerances are surprisingly small.

If you have a musical ear, that helps a lot, as you can just tune your spokes (that's what I do, at least).

However, doing so takes time.

Time that may be better spent on other pursuits.

After all, when you adjust the tension of one spoke, 35 other spokes have their tensions changed slightly as well...

That said, building a rear-wheel with a cassette is an additional challenge, as you need to build it asymmetrically.

Consequently, the spokes on one side need a much higher tension than on the other side.

With the tuning approach, that's two different tones, the exact pitch of which depends on the geometry that you aim for.

So, if your goal is to get to know how your bike is built, go for it .

You can learn it.

But expect to pay for these skills with a significant amount of time, and likely broken spokes.

If your goal is just to save a penny, think twice : buying a new wheel may save more in terms of time than you can save in money by building yourself, and the bought wheel has less risk of failing quickly.

Of course, this economic consideration heavily depends on the price tags of the parts that you are trying to save.

If your rim costs 500$, you better keep it, no matter how much time you need to invest into building the wheel.

However, for a standard, off-the-shelf 20$ rim, buying a whole wheel is very likely the more economic option.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/36555/cmaster - reinstate monica

Of course it is possible, you're simply building a new wheel with some used and some new parts.

Unless we are talking about carbon rims where the spokes are glued and the wheel is trued in the factory already.

When doing that take the following into consideration: is the new hub as high as the old one (you have high flange hubs) - if not, new spokes will be needed new hub (the one accepting a cassette) will be asymmetrical - spokes on the non-drive side will reach to the very outside of the whole assembly while the spokes on the drive side will reach to like 2/3 of the complete assembly width as there needs to be some room for the cassette.

Most likely the spokes you have will be too long and will protrude through the nipples.

Either you need to buy a new set of spokes or trim the existing ones is your rim in good condition - when using rim brakes the rim should be replaced once it is worn out if all the spokes and nipples can be reused

- I hope you won't break any of those while disassembling if you are using the nipple washers, you most likely need a new set once the wheel is laced, it needs to be trued and dished - either you outsource it to someone with proper tools and expertise or you do it yourself

(a truing stand is almost a must) Good luck!

Yes, one can do this.

But you ask "Can I ...?"

(my emphasis) and the answer is "probably not, at least not right now.

" Please don't take this the wrong way, but building a wheel requires a lot of skill and equipment and the fact that you're asking the question suggests that you don't have those.

Unless you're dealing with a particularly high-end wheel, rebuilding it will be more expensive than just buying a complete wheel, especially once you factor in the value of your time.

However, if you want to learn how to build wheels as a hobby project, then go for it.

Question: I have a freewheel and I keep bending the axle, however the rim, spokes and tire are all fine, does anyone think it would be possible to unscrew the spokes, buy a new hub that has a freehub, install that with maybe new spokes and my previous rim? (And also buy a cassette) because I don't see the point in buying a whole new wheel just for the hub.

Could I replace a hub on a wheel?

It is cheaper to buy a new wheel than build one from parts. Building a wheel also requires a great deal of skill. It is worth doing if you want to learn the skills but not worth it if you are thinking of saving money.

It is possible, but usually too expensive or time consuming compared with replacing the whole wheel. It is possible to do it yourself, and can teach you about the bike, but it is a skilled job and increases the risk of wheel failure. Correct tension and alignment are important, so the right tools and a truing stand are necessary. Some of the spokes and nipple washers may break and need to be replaced.


Generally helmets are recommended for carrier usage by manufacturers and governing bodies, although local cultural practices may vary depending on perceived risks.

Helmets are recommended because it is still possible to crash or even roll a trailer, just as it is possible to crash on a bicycle, even if you are riding slowly and in quiet areas.

While children should be wearing seat belts within the carrier/trailer, the structures would not provide adequate protection against head injuries, making helmets the last line of defense against a head injury in the case of a crash.

We opted for helmeting our kid whenever we use the trailer in bicycle mode (i.e. not as a pram).

This is why: Our neighbours managed to flip over their trailer once.

Kid got a nasty bump on the head, despite having been strapped in.

Establish from the start that bicycles and helmets go together, no discussion.

No, your kid does not need a helmet, if you have a proper trailer.

Proper trailers do have belts and rollover protection.

If you don't wear a helmet in your car, you don't need one in a trailer.

Smaller kids without proper neck muscles should be seated in a special seat (like the fitting car seats), which doesn't permit helmets.

Manufacturer advice is mixed: Croozer explicitly states the lack of need for helmet protection inside its trailers, Weber advises a helmet a protection against hitting the side or the other kid (Ritschies are two seated models).

As you state to live in southern Germany: if you travel to Austria, helmets are obligatory, even in trailers, until the age of 12.

Opinion : I find the focus on head injuries in biking excessive.

For trailers a very sturdy base

tub

(trailer is hit or trailer is damaged from below) and a secured connection (accidental separation at high speeds or on hard braking) is so much more important to avoid severe injuries.

Unfortunately the last systematic test by Stiftung Warentest is quite old now (2010).

I mainly go with @Leonidas: no helmet for children inside.

We have a quality trailer (from Chariot).

I like my children not to wear a helmet in the trailer because: A helmet puts their head in an uncomfortable position (pushes headsdown)

They may cause (smaller) injuries to their sibling next to them

In an accident, the inertia of the helmet may cause a whiplash injury.

Just to emphasize: This is highly controversial where I live (Switzerland).

I even do not agree with my wife on this.

As a fact Helmets are not required by law on a bicycle or in a trailer.

I too prefer a helmet, but many children that are well within the weight limit are too tall to fit inside with a helmet on (mine, for example, age 4).

Most trailers have a 5 point harness and a frame that acts as a roll cage, which combine to reduce the need for a helmet.

I'm with the others in saying that a helmet is a good idea.

Not only in the event of a crash, but also just in getting in the habit of wearing a helmet while out on the bike.

For what it's worth, Ontario law requires that all riders under the age of 18 wear a helmet whether they be on a bike, in a carrier or towed in a trailer.

If I had a child in a trailer, I would put a helmet on them.

Not as much needed as in a child seat, but still an added security factor.

The kid could bash their head on the struture in a sudden movement of the trailer.

Always get your child to wear a helmet, rolled the trailer Sunday with my 3-year old grandson inside and he had the worst head wound I have ever seen.

Horrific.

we have a 12 month old baby and a Burley Solo.

Where we live there is no mandatory rules on helmet wearing for any ages (which is a shame).

I am 100% on board with our baby wearing a helmet.

Although the construction is sturdy, and there is a quality belt system, I believe there are too many unknown scenarios to depend solely on the safety/contruction of the trailer and my ability to avoid an accident.

So the baby (as well as me) wears a helmet.

I agree the car analogy is erroneous, they are two completely different environments.

I agree that wearing a helmet from the get-go will hopefully instill this practice as a norm for the future.

Additionally the Burley Solo has extra space behind the head specifically for the helmet bulk.

Question: I am thinking about buying a trailer for my 1yo daughter. They are quite common in my region (southern Germany) but I haven't seen a single kid with a helmet inside. I know that there is no law that regulates it. Does trailer's manual ask to wear a helmet? Or are there any official (not necessary German) recommendations about wearing it?

Does toddler need a helmet inside a bicycle trailer?

There ia a lack of consensus on whether children should wear helmets in trailers or not. Some people believe the safey harness and special seat for very young children combined with the structure of the trailer is safe enough. It would seem that regulations also differ from country to country: in Austria, for example, helmets are obligatory. However, the majority of people seem to think it is better for a child to wear a helmet inside a trailer for extra safety. Although, some trailers do not seem to have enough space for the child to sit comfortably with a helmet on. Finally, wearing a helmet from an early age may encourage the practice later on.

Arguments against wearing a helmet in a trailer include the existing protection systems and the possibility that a helmet could put a child's head in an uncomfortable position and even cause injuries in a crash. Many trailers have a space that allows a child to be properly seated while using a helmet, so discomfort is not as likely.  However, these harnesses are not as secure as those on a car seat, and there is a greater chance of rolling or children hitting their head on the side or another child's head. In addition, helmets are a legal requirement in some countries. Using a helmet whenever the child is on a bike, child seat or trailer trains them to use a helmet in the future.


Any bike with a comfortable seat, upright riding position and low ratio gears.

This is pretty much the definition of a 'cruiser' style bike.

Many hybrids, less expensive mountain bikes and fatbikes would fit the requirement too.

You could consider a 3-wheeled recumbent bicycle : Photo courtesy of Willeke

These tend to be more comfortable, and the three wheels mean balance is not an issue, so you can go slowly or stop altogether without any balance issues.

(Note that there are also two-wheeled recumbents, but they would probably not serve your purposes as well.)

You might want to consider a fat-bike.

They're naturally slower, because they're meant for really rough terrain, so they have low gearing, high frame mass to be sturdy and higher rolling resistance due to the fat wheels.

The fat wheels also make them pretty stable.

Plus, if you're so inclined, after you don't need it for going slow anymore, you can keep on using it to do completely different kind of biking than your existing road bike:

rough off-road.

Get a "mountain bike" rather than a road bike.

It's what I think of as a normal bike anyway, but they don't go as fast.

It's easier to keep your balance on them too.

A cargo tricycle?

Bonus is that you can save gas getting groceries with it.

Generally speaking, a bicycle with a longer wheelbase will be more stable when ridden slowly.

Those designed for quick maneuvers are generally very short (criterium) wheelbase designs.

But the tradeoff is, of course, that the long wheelbase makes those quick direction changes a bit more difficult.

Modern bikes tend to have straight forks and very steep head angles (where the fork attaches to the frame).

Both of these shorten the wheelbase and make the bike more "responsive" aka "twitchy."

Shallow angles and curved forks go the other way.

Stability and comfort.

I hate to recommend anyone get a heavy bike, but there is some effect.

The lighter the bicycle, the higher the center of gravity overall (i.e. you).

On the other hand, track riders can ride slowly, even stand in place.

They do this with skill and the lack of a freewheel.

You can even ride backwards on a track bike.

These bikes are also twitchy in the extreme.

But it is rider skill.

With enough practice you can learn to "stand on the pedals".

That is, balance the bike in place, though with a freewheel you need to also use the brakes You've probably seen people doing this when stopped at a light, balanced upright.

I have a foldable bike which is quite comfy at low speeds (especially so probably due to the low CG).

With the added advantage that you can transport it easily to kid friendly bike paths.

Question: I enjoy my road bike, but recently my children have become old enough to ride, but still very slowly.  I'd like to be able to ride with them on all or mostly flat pavement, but the road bike just isn't pleasant for slow riding as it takes more effort to balance and isn't that comfortable.  What type(s) of bike is well-suited for very slow comfortable riding like this?

Is there a bicycle designed for slow riding?

Any bike with a comfortable seat, upright riding position and low ratio gears will be more comfortable for slow riding.  Many hybrids, less expensive mountain bikes and fatbikes would fit the requirement, as would a 3-wheeled  recumbent bicycle, foldable bike or a cargo tricycle. Generally speaking, a bike with a low center of gravity.

Slower bikes allow a more upright riding position, a comfortable seat and more stability. They also have lower ratio gears. Some choices include cruisers, 'fat bikes', hybrids, mountain bikes nad tricycles. A low centre of gravity and long wheelbase is more stable, but the long wheelbase makes quick direction changes more difficult.


This is a cottered crank .

The chainrings are fixed to the crank and can not be moved to another, but you can replace the entire bottom bracket (combination of axle and bearings) and crankset.

There should be no need to replace the front derailleur.

There is a risk that the bottom bracket shell is threade for an obsolete standard.

To make any guesses if that is the case, we'd need to know the brand of the bike and width of the bottom bracket shell part of frame without any parts that are screwed in.

To add to ojs's answer.

You can replace the bottom bracket and crank with a inexpensive set.

You just need to match the chainring tooth-counts.

The cheaper cranksets use a square taper axle.

The only problem you will encounter is selecting the correct axle length to laterally position the chainrings properly.

To do this you will want to know the chain-line measurement .

This is the distance from the centerline of the frame to the center of the mid-point between the two chainrings.

Looking at that bottom bracket, hopefully it uses some type of freewheel removal tool to remove the cups.

If not good luck finding the tool.

Honestly on a bike like this, I'd just replace the bike.

If you indeed want to fix it, first step is removing that bb.

Seconds, get a bb, and a crankset with similar sized chainrings.

Bb spindle length should be matched to crankset you buy.

Chainline will be off 2mm

but it won't be an issue.

As your bike is probably 126mm rear axle spaced and more modern bikes are 130mm.

Third try to make it shift.

Replace front derailleur or chain if needed.

This is a bit of challenge.

That chainring design looks familiar, may be an old Nevar or Stronglight.

This appears to be French and cottered.

If I remember correctly, several sizes of cotters, English, French, and something else.

French are narrow and longer pins The bottom bracket, cups, bearings and races are most likely French spec.

Very difficult to find, so try to find in it either France or UK.

Good luck.

What has not been said yet is that seeing the threads on the spindle (axle) I'm 99.9% sure that it is a cottered bottom bracket with threadless shell.

Unless this frame has substantial emotional value, replacing the bottom bracket is not worth economically.

Nevertheless, there are square-taper sets with sealed bearings and threadless nylon cups available in Europe for about €15.

I've fitted one myself (with huge success until now) on my Russian-made Ural bike

and it's holding amazingly well.

The idea for me was to benefit from square-taper (in my experience less maintenance and more reliability than cotters).

Question: Can someone help me identify this crankset type? And is it possible to replace only the cranks (and their axle) without replacing the chainwheel/front derailleur?

What kind of crankset is this?

The crankset in question is a cottered crank. It can be fixed by replacing the bottom bracket and crank and without replacing the front derailleur.

This is a cottered crank, and will need to be replaced along with the bottom bracket if you want to change the gears. You may not need to change the front derailleur, but the new chainrings and axle should be compatible with the gear system. The bottom brackets of older bikes are removed in different ways, and replacing the bike may be preferable.


Centerlock largely exists because since the beginning of modern disc brakes for bikes, Shimano has more or less alone had a weird cautionary take on the physics of rotor bolts theoretically being able to loosen in the six-bolt design.

That's why their six-bolt rotors have always come with various retention systems for the bolts that nobody else bothers with.

Centerlock doesn't accomplish anything special and doesn't allow for lighter hubs or rotors (at least in a meaningful sense).

Shimano rotors are excellent so it's not

like you're trapped if you have centerlock hubs, but you do have fewer options, and centerlock rotors are inherently more expensive at the low end because they can't just be flat pieces of steel.

Centerlock has the disadvantage that carrying a lockring tool plus something to turn it isn't practical, so the best you can do if you severely bend a rotor on a ride is undo the caliper mounting bolts and try to hang the caliper out of the way, which is awkward.

Even though the risk here is small and theoretical, it's enough of a potential day ruiner that given centerlock has little to no functional advantage, there's an argument to avoid it if all else is equal.

The catch is that all else is often not equal, because Shimano hubs are some of the best value choices.

Six-bolt does have the disadvantage that bolts getting seized, heads getting stripped, and/or

hub threads getting damaged are all things that happen sometimes, whereas centerlock tends to be free from any such problems.

Having one big high-torque fastener does create a more reliable interface in that sense.

But it's a pretty fringe concern; six-bolt is perfectly robust and very few people will ever have to deal a seized rotor bolt.

However, in all fairness it can be a difficult enough problem to deal with when it does happen that centerlock usually looks pretty good by the second hour in.

Advantages of 6-bolt: Not being patented by Shimano means more vendors offer compatible wheels/disks.

Torx bolts require a smaller tool which is often included in many multi-tools so one can always have one on the road.

Advantages of Centerlock: Faster installation and removal with a cassette tool; no need to fiddle with 6 separate bolts

No need to have an extra tool, use the same cassette removal tool.

A couple more pros of centre lock: Finned rotors

One big difference is that you can't get the finned Shimano Ice-Tech rotors used on the road bike groupsets in a 6-bolt configuration.

E.g: or I've had brake fade on my Shimano RS685/785

set up on descents in Wales and wanted to try the finned rotors, but my hubs are 6-bolt.

You can make a centre lock rotor take a 6 bolt rotor, but not the other way round

This is pro and a con:

Shimano do an adaptor to run 6 bolt rotors on a centre-lock hub (SM-RTAD05), which is great for choice.

But, I'd be slightly wary of this approach, because any misalignment or opportunities for vibration in a disc brake setup can cause brake squealing or shudder, and while I'm sure Shimano have tested these adaptors very well, it's a fair engineering assumption that the more interfaces and separate parts there are the more chances for misalignment there are.

For me, I'd go 6 bolt on a mountain bike, because of the wider availability of 6 bolt rotors and the trail-side repairability, but centre locks on a road bike for the increased cooling and

because they look a bit neater next to the more delicate road bike forks/chainstays

(that last reason is subjective!).

One disadvantage of 6 bolt is that you can torque one side just a bit more than the other which can cause the rotor to be just a bit warped.

Center-lock torques evenly by design

so there’s no risk.

If you’ve ever stripped a torx bolt on a 6-bolt, you will have your answer for why people run centerlock.

I will add a small disadvantage to centerlock is boost conversion on the rear.

MRP sells kits for the front that use a caliper adapter to offset the rotor on the front, but nobody sells conversions for centerlock rears.

You could in theory convert it to 6-bolt and then use the boost adapters, but 2 adapter kits is where I draw the line and sell my sweet DT 240.

Adding to existing answers ...

6 bolt rotors can be shimmed to make rotors on two different wheels fit in the calipers without having to re-align.

That's not possible on center-lock hubs.

Question: I am having a new set of wheels built, and am trying to decide on whether to go with 6-bolt or centre-lock rotor interface.  What are the pros and cons of the two systems?

6-bolt vs centre-lock: pros and cons?

S0: Centerlock largely exists because since the beginning of modern disc brakes for bikes, Shimano has more or less alone had a weird cautionary take on the physics of rotor bolts theoretically being able to loosen in the six-bolt design. Centerlock doesn't accomplish anything special and doesn't allow for lighter hubs or rotors (at least in a meaningful sense). Having one big high-torque fastener does create a more reliable interface in that sense.  One disadvantage of 6 bolt is that you can torque one side just a bit more than the other which can cause the rotor to be just a bit warped. You can make a centre lock rotor take a 6 bolt rotor, but not the other way round

Centrelock offers more even torque and a more reliable interface, but is no lighter than 6 bolt systems. Centrelock is only offered by Shimano and is more expensive, but the quality is good and the system is more easily adapted to 6 bolt than the other way around.


That sucks.

I'm sorry that your bike was stolen.

If thieves are willing to break into a locked garage, break into a locked and fully enclosed mesh bike parking area then cut two bike locks using power tools: there's not much you can do about it.

If there are lots of bikes in the bike parking area you can make your bike a lower priority target by increasing the number and strength of the locks, and by making the bike itself look less desirable.

Looking at the first picture, it seems the bike parking area door could be easily opened from the inside.

The thieves were able to cut a hole in the door and reach the door release - not the most secure setup.

Also, it's likely that someone let them into the garage - i.e. one of your neighbors.

Just store your bike in your apartment if you can.

There's nothing you can do if the storage area is not under constant surveillance.

It can take as little as 2 minutes to grind a U-Lock.

The only real solution is to keep your bike in your apartment.

In the meantime, check to know how the thief was able to get in that area ?

did he came via the garage door ?

the front door ?

Did he enter while someone enter or leave without checking ?

Check with your home insurances to see what can be done about that, if the building is responsible in some way.

Anecdotal: When I come in my building, if someone is waiting to be let in, I tell them to wait outside and wait and not come at the same time as I do and if I leave by the garage, I wait until the door is closed before either leaving or going down the ramp.

I lost a few bikes to theft when I was in university.

It stunk.

I took to buying used bikes (probably from bike thieves).

I wrapped the frame tubes of my (otherwise nice) bike in peelable masking tape, then smeared them with grease.

Nobody wanted that ugly bike.

It worked to prevent theft; I kept that one for many years.

Funny enough, the parking garage may actually be less safe than a well-exposed outside location.

When I was commuting between the cities of Hamburg and Berlin

I locked my (500/1000$) bikes at the train stations, sometimes for weeks.

I made sure to detach and lock my front wheel together with the back wheel and frame though, on some steel pole or railing, with a good-quality U lock.

Just one time in two years or so somebody stole my suspended saddle post.

Both stations have their share of homeless and drug-addicted people hanging around; but the places are busy 24/7.

I suppose your average friction saw creates too many sparks at night to go unnoticed in public; but in a parking garage the thieves have all the time in the world.

So try the next intersection next time.

And yes, use a bike which is not a special target.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/23487/Peter - Reinstate Monica

There are motion sensors (installed on your bike) and locks that can notify you if your bike is being moved.

I don't have direct experience with them, and they're obviously expensive, so you'll need to decide whether something like that is worth it.

Check the quality of your locks !

I suspect both to be breakable with a bolt cutter (yes, your u-lock too).

You will learn more here : For owners, a second option is more onerous, but will not benefit only to you.

Install a camera.

Put it high enough to reduce the risk of being destroyed.

Be sure to have access to data even if it is destroyed.

This may even protect the whole garage, not only bikes.

Question: I park my bike in my building's bicycle room, in the parking garage in the basement.  The garage door can only be opened with a remote fob, and the bicycle room is locked as well.  In the garage, I secure my bike using a U-lock, and a chain lock.  This morning, I came to find a hole in the door, and the two locks cut by what looks like an electrical saw.    What can I do to avoid that should I buy a new bike?

How can I prevent my next bike from being stolen?

The safest place to keep your bike is in your house or apartment. However, if this is not possible, there are some things you can do to make your bike less of a target. First, make your bike less desirable than the ones around it. Use a number of locks on your bike that are difficult to break. You can also motion sensors so you are alerted if your bike is being moved. Garages and bike stores should have some sort of surveillance. However, in the end, if thieves are very determined there is little way to stop them.

If thieves are willing to cut their way into a locked basement and cut open two locks, no lock is likely to stop them for long. Unlike in a public area, they have time to work without people seeing them. You can use stronger locks, but the only safe solution is to put the bike in your apartment. You can use a camera or motion sensing system to monitor your bike, and try to avoid making your bike an attractive target. Be aware of ways that thieves can gain access to the room. Finally, find out whether your home insurance will cover this loss.

Find out whether your home insurance will cover this loss.


In terms of wearing out the brakes, they will wear less when you brake at the bottom.

When you descend a hill you have a fixed amount of energy to lose, and when you descend at a higher speed, a larger proportion of that energy is lost to wind resistance.

Practically however, brake pads/blocks tend to last a long time and are cheap to replace, wear is not really something to consider too much.

It's better to descend safely at a speed you feel comfortable with.

One should not trade their safety for prolonging brake pads life.

Thus gaining the speed and hoping to lose it at the very end of the ride is not the wisest thing to do.

Having said that the question is rather whether to: lightly but constantly brake maintaining more or less constant speed; or gain some speed, brake hard, repeat

I'd opt for the latter since it allows the rims or discs to cool down thus having them ready and at considerable efficiency

should you suddenly need them.

Furthermore, you can analyse the evolution of the roller brakes -

the latter the generation

the larger the radiator for the drum -

it was observed that on longer descends when the brakes were partly engaged, they did overheat and lose their braking capability.

With larger radiators they did overheat, much later (if ever) though.

There are really two optimal solutions: Go as fast as you dare , perhaps slightly braking, maximize your frontal area (thereby maximizing air resistance) then brake at the end quickly.

The idea here is that you are obtaining part of the braking force from air resistance due to the maximized frontal area and maximized speed.

Go very, very slowly, braking all the time .

The idea here is that the slower you descend, the less the braking power needed is.

Power is force times velocity; force stays the same for a given hill, but velocity is something you can affect.

Because braking power is lower, the heat dissipation required per unit time is lower, and thus, brake temperature is lower.

The interim solution, by continuously braking at an intermediate speed, a speed at which air resistance isn't major braking factor but a speed at which the brakes are heated above the boiling point of water is the problematic strategy.

It can cause very fast brake pad wear.

Depends on the hill which of there strategies should be used.

The problem with the first one is that if the hill is very steep, chances are you may not descend at a speed that would offer good air resistance to dissipate majority of the energy.

So, you have to estimate if you dare to choose the first strategy.

And remember to use both front and rear brakes so that you have more heat dissipation capacity.

This question is about whether you should execute the bicycle equivalent of a suicide burn.

It is faster and more energy-efficient to brake as hard as you can as late as possible than to control your speed early.

For a rocket this means sparing fuel, for your brakes this means producing less heat.

Do note that the name doesn't come from nowhere.

It's too dangerous to depend on your maximum thrust to not slam into an hard object like the Moon at highway speeds, rockets generally do control their rate of descent early on.

The other consideration is that your brakes are much better at dissipating when not in contact with the disc, so even if you brake early, it's better to break harder but not continuously.

Some modern disc brake systems feature special cooling fins to keep the temperatures in check.

Greater speeds cause improved flow of air around these fins, thus improving their ability to dissipate heat.

Letting your speed grow until you apply the brakes cools them down, whereas constantly applying them a bit would result in constant heat generation without the same cooling benefits.

Basically all the heat your brakes generate must be dissipated to the air around your bike, so this applies to brakes without these fins too, although it's far more noticeable with the fins.

I recommend braking down whenever you feel you're about to go too fast for your own comfort, then letting go of the brakes for a while and repeating this until you're at the bottom.

Question: You are at the top of a hill and want to stop at the bottom. What is best for your brakes so you don't wear them down:   brake continuously; or   brake when you reach the bottom?

What is best for your brakes when stopping at the bottom of the hill?

In terms of wearing out the brakes, they will wear less when you brake at the bottom. Practically however, brake pads/blocks tend to last a long time and are cheap to replace, wear is not really something to consider too much.  It's better to descend safely at a speed you feel comfortable with. One should not trade their safety for prolonging brake pads life.

Keeping the pads touching the rims heats them up from friction and prevents airflow from cooling them down. For this reason, braking at the bottom or once you reach a certain speed would reduce heat and wear. Practically though, brakes are cheap and fairly long lasting, so you should not compromise safety to avoid wear. Modern brakes use cooling fins and are better at dissipating heat, so wear and loss of effectiveness are less of a concern.


This question gets asked quite often.

The short answer is that you can do long distance rides on basically any bicycle as long as it’s comfortable for you.

There are a few things you can do to your bicycle to make it more efficient and easier:

Make sure your seating position is good.

Especially that your saddle is high enough.

This will improve power output and reduce risk of knee pain/injuries.

Reduce air resistance by lowering the handlebar.

If you have front suspension, lock it (or get a rigid fork).

Wear tight fitting bicycle clothes.

Keep it well maintained.

Get road bike tires with low rolling resistance.

Get clipless pedals and shoes.

In the end the most important part will still be training.

Training for long distance rides basically boils down to riding a lot.

During long rides nutrition (and of course hydration) is also very important.

You can certainly do Brevet Populaires (100 km).

Plenty of people do them on all sorts of bikes.

I've seen a few people on flat bars on Brevets de Randonneurs 200 in the UK, including an MTB with knobbly tyres ( the one with the backpack in this picture ).

Hybrids on these rides tend to be set up as flat bar road bikes, i.e. smoothish tyres around 25-35 mm and to have gearing comparable to a tourer.

I don't think I've seen flat bars on a 300 (but I'm doing one tomorrow

so I'll try to remember to look out for them).

You might end up as a full-value rider (i.e. close to the time limit) especially if there's a headwind, but no-one will think any the worse of you for your choice of bike.

One day I may do a 100 on my hybrid but not with its current saddle - hybrid saddles can be rather fat and chafe.

In practice, most people find hybrids rather uncomfortable for long rides.

What "long" means varies from person to person so, to a large extent, you'll just have to try going on longer and longer rides until you find out what your body is comfortable with.

I would note, though, that 40 minutes at the 11mph you said you average in your other question is a long way from brevet-style riding.

Don't try to run before you can walk.

Two summers ago I rode 1,300 miles around Lake Superior on a Trek Verve 2, averaging about 70 miles a day.

I am over 60 years old, and I like a more comfortable ride at this stage.

The more durable tire of a hybrid came in handy when I needed to navigate rougher terrain.

These days I am riding a Specialized Cross Trail on long rides.

I love it.

Last year I rode the Houston MS-150 on a hybrid.

This year some guy rode it on a penny-farthing.

Your bike should be no problem, as long as it's a bike that fits you.

My experience is that pretty much any bike can do pretty much any type of ride (within reason; a track bike cannot do mud racing, for example).

I’ve done a 160 km ride (60 km sportive, 20 km to get there and 80 km to get home) on a fixed gear bike with narrow raiser bars.

That worked fine.

Was it the ideal bike for such a long ride through mostly countryside?

Certainly not.

But it was still very enjoyable.

An endurance bike would have been faster.

A tourer would have been more comfortable.

But it was fine.

A hybrid would have worked, too.

Heck, even a town bike can do that; it just takes a very long time.

This weekend just passed as of writing this answer, I did maybe 100-120 km around the southeast of Scania in the south of Sweden, on a gravel bike.

It has the same 700x35C tyre size as on your bike.

35 mm tyres are fine even on long stretches of road; the rolling resistance is comparable to the 28 mm tyres on my fixie, but the ride is more comfy.

I find that on longer rides, the different hand positions of drop bars really help.

If possible, I would recommend looking into a different handlebar.

The typical wide, mostly flat bar that most hybrids have gets really uncomfortable after a while.

Look for something that gives you a few different hand positions.

That’s probably the single most important upgrade you can do to your bike for longer rides.

Question: I have a hybrid bike with 27" large frame,  700c wheels and 35mm tires. Can I do brevets (long distance ride) on this bike? If yes, what are the points I should start working on to achieve this? Currently I am a beginner and riding around 40 minutes per day and little more on weekends.

Can I do brevets (long distance rides) on my hybrid bike? If yes, how to start?

S1: The short answer is that you can do long distance rides on basically any bicycle as long as it’s comfortable for you.  You can certainly do Brevet Populaires (100 km). Plenty of people do them on all sorts of bikes.  Your bike should be no problem, as long as it's a bike that fits you. Things you may wish to consider are the position of the seat, lower handlebars, getting tires with low rolling resistance, getting clipless pedals and shoes and wearing tight bicycle clothing.

People use different kinds of bikes on these rides, and a well-fitting hybrid will be fine if you have the required fitness level yourself. Make sure that the bike fits you and is well maintained, and wear suitable clothing. A bike can be adapted for longer rides by adjusting the handlebars for lower wind resistance, using smoother tyres, locking the suspension and using clipless pedals. Some people find drop handlebars more comfortable on longer rides, in addition to being more aerodynamic.


I periodically check and pull out the street glass shards I have been doing the same for as long as I have a bike.

Glass shards, small sharp stones, nails, drawing pins... name something I haven't pulled out of my tires!

But I never worried of patching the tire, and never had problems because of that.

My tires (even those which weren't puncture resistant) reached end of life because of wear, not because of cuts.

I just patched the tube inside, and went on.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/30865/L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica

The only times you need to consider the tyre is if the hole is large enough for the inner tube to poke through, or if the hole is in the thin sidewall I once had a hole that was ~1 mm across, and seemed okay.

It took about 3 flats every 200 km of riding to realise that the tube was herniating through the hole and wearing through.

A black tube and a black tyre made it hard to see the issue.

If you can't see the tube or the threads of the tyre in or through the hole, its fine.

If you can, then its possible to stick an inner tube patch on the inside of the tyre to get more wear out of it, or if the tyre's worn out anyway then its time to replace.

Your other option is to work on your technique, and try to stop riding through broken glass so much.

Not easy I know.

If it's a large enough cut that the tube pokes through the tyre once inflated, then the best solution is to use a regular tube patch on the inner surface of the tyre with the vulcanising glue just like when patching a tube.

While less recommended, I've also had success just using a drop of superglue for a small cut in a tyre.

You can use a small amount of super glue to close the area that was cut by the shard of glass.

Depending on where the cut is located you will have to re-apply the super glue every few hundred kms, but this can greatly extend the life of the tire.

Some puncture kits come with a piece of rubberised canvas which is intended for glueing over a (small) tear or hole in the tyre carcass - but I wouldn't rely on it for anything bigger than a slot a few mm long - perhaps you could get away with longer on a relatively low pressure tyre but not on a racing bike.

For pinpricks or cuts to the rubber that don't penetrate into the fibre structure I've never bothered doing anything other than removing the foreign material from the tyre so it doesn't get worse.

I've never had a tyre fail because I'd not glued up or repaired damage to the tread...

general wear gets them in the end.

I don't bother patching cuts caused by tiny shards of glass and have never had a problem.

When touring I carry a Park Tool emergency tyre boot in case I develop a bigger cut in the tyre - but I would only use it as a temporary solution until I can get home and replace the tyre.

There are also tire plugs which are designed to plug holes in tubeless tires that are so big the sealant does not work.

It might be overkill, but I see no reason why those would not work when using tubes.

Question: How do you deal with the small cuts in a bicycle tires main tread?  Do folks fill these small cuts?  I have continental gatorskins which I periodically check and pull out the street glass shards.  thanks!

How to patch glass cuts in a bicycle tire?

Cyclists in general consider that there is no need to repair a tire with a small glass cut. It is sufficient to simply remove the shard of glass. However, larger damage may require a quick fix - such as super glue, patch kit, tire plug - until you can get home and really patch the tire or replace it.

As long as you remove glass and other sharp objects, smaller cuts are generally not a problem for tyres. Patch the tube inside and keep riding, and the tyre is likely to wear out rather than failing due to these cuts. Larger cuts where the inner tube is poking through are more of a problem, but can usually be fixed with a normal patch or some superglue. Some commercial products are designed to repair tyres, especially tubeless tyres, which could also be used on clincher tyres.


The simplest answers are ask for their ID, or for their car keys if they arrive by car.

There are plenty of other options on various forums like https://www.bikeforums.net/general-cycling-discussion/446194-selling-bike-craigslist-test-rides.html https://www.bikeforums.net/general-cycling-discussion/687171-how-do-you-let-potential-buyer-test-ride-your-bike.html

Cash in hand.

They give you the purchase price, in cash, and it sits in your pocket while they do the test ride.

If you have another bike that you are not selling, you can ride next to the person test riding the bike to make sure they don't take off with it.

If you can't do that, then I'd suggest you have the person test riding give you something valuable to them

so they come back to claim it.

Go to a Skatepark, usually there you have access limited by one or two doors, they are usually free, it's a good place to test a whip, you have mostly good visibility and riders, and depending on your location it may even have guards.

In this kind of eviroments if you shout "thief" or "help" skaters and bikers will help in my experience, they like their skate parks to have a good rep and they tend to push away sketchy people, altough YMMV.

I've just sold a bike.

The buyer left their bike locked to the fence next to myself place.

I offered to test ride as long and far as they consider necessary.

If they wouldn't have turned up I should have waited there until they recovered their bike.

If that would have taken unusually long I should have put my own lock at their bike and inform them via email or text message.

A lot of people are saying to take the ID, but isn't checking the ID sufficient?

Besides, there are other things, like a bank statement, which confirm the name and on top of that their address.

I guess if you live close to the buyer you could ask to meet them at theirs.

You see them leaving their house, how exactly are they going to hide from you?

Another idea is to pick a good spot.

A tennis court for example would be naturally closed off, stand next to the only gate and voila, they'd have to use force to get away with the bike.

Also, sometimes just the good-old first impression is sufficient.

You can base the decision of whether you will let them try it out on that.

Question: I am selling a bike to someone I don't know from Craigslist. I expect that the prospective purchaser will want to test ride the bike before making the purchase.  How can I prevent  them from riding away with my bike during a test ride?

How can I offer a test ride while selling a bike?

There are a number of ways you can stop a potential purchaser from stealing your bike when they take it for a test ride. First, keep something of theirs, like the cash for the bike, ID, car keys, other bike, while they go for the ride. Alternatively, conduct the test ride in an enclosed space, like a skate park or tennis court or ride next to them on another bike. Sometimes, the first impression will give you a good idea of whether they may try to steal the bike or not.

You could ask them to leave the payment in cash, the bike or car they arrived in, something valuable or a way to identify them. Riding with them or meeting in an enclosed area can provide some security. In some cases, you might trust someone based on first impressions.

Ask them to leave the payment in cash, the bike or car they arrived in, something valuable or a way to identify them.

Ride with them or meet in an enclosed area.

Sometimes you might trust someone based on first impressions.


I looked into it and found this PDF: 2004, Berto: "All About Tire Inflation" ,where the optimal tire pressures were found experimentally from a Tire Drop test, where Tire Drop is the distance that the tire sags under the weight of the rider and the bike.

For a given tire size and load, the optimum inflation pressure for comfort and rolling resistance produces a Tire Drop of about 15% of W (the Section Width) or about 20% of H (the height from the ground to the rim).

For my case, that document shows the minimum tire pressure somewhere around 25 psi / 172 kPa for a 26"x2.125" tire.

You can have an "optimum" tire pressure - unfortunately, when riding on road you want higher pressure, when riding on low grip surfaces you want lower pressure (more tire in contact with the ground), when riding on very uneven terrain you want again higher pressure to prevent flats, when jumping you want higher pressures, and so on and so on.

The desired tire pressure depends on where do you want to ride, and to a reasonable extent on what you "feel" - which might be different than what a different person of your same size/weight feels.

What you can do is find a "recommended" tire pressure and work from there.

In time tire pressure drops, at some time you will find the pressure too low - measure it and remember it as your "minimal" tire pressure.

Try with higher pressure than recommended and "feel the ride" - MTB tires with an extreme thread pattern at high pressure rumble very much on asphalt, a lower pressure "mellows" the ride (vibration into the hands).

There is no such thing as optimal tyre pressure.

Tyre pressure is always a compromise between comfort, rolling resistance, grip and likelihood of puncturing.

This depends not only on tyre dimensions and rider/bike weight but also on the terrain you're riding on and the weather.

Most tires are labeled by the manufacturer with maximum load - inflation numbers.

These depend on the design, materials and construction of the tire as much or more so than its dimensions.

While a manufacturer may be able to provide optimum inflation info I don't see any way to develop a calculator that would do more than give you a wild guess.

Even if by "optimal" we mean something specific and measurable like "least rolling resistance", there is no such pressure.

Minimum rolling resistance depends on the surface.

On a smooth surface, like a varnished wooden velodrome track, high pressure is best: the higher the better, with diminishing returns.

On a bumpy surface, there is an optimal pressure with negative returns if it is changed either way.

(And note, by the way, that an off-road tire with "knobs" constitutes a bumpy surface, even if ridden on a smooth surface.)

The pressure depends on how big the bumps are, and the load on the wheel as well as suspension details.

Practically speaking, it can only be experimentally determined; and for that to be valid, we actually need a way to measure the rolling resistance of that specific equipment on that specific surface.

Question: I have 57-559 (57 mm width, 559 mm diameter) / 26"x2.125" tires.I weigh about 95 kg / 210 lbs.The tire's sidewall shows a single pressure value of 300 kPa / 43 psi.  However, this  calculator  shows that given a fixed tire size, different rider + bike weights would have different optimal tire pressures.  Is there a way to calculate such an optimal pressure?

Is there a way to calculate the correct bicycle tire pressure?

You can have an "optimum" tire pressure - unfortunately, when riding on road you want higher pressure, when riding on low grip surfaces you want lower pressure (more tire in contact with the ground), when riding on very uneven terrain you want again higher pressure to prevent flats, when jumping you want higher pressures, and so on and so on. However, what you can do is find a "recommended" tire pressure and work from there.

There is no objective optimal pressure, although a suitable pressure can be chosen based on factors like terrain, tyre type, comfort, weight, activity and weather. Manufacturers give a maximum pressure, and you could find a recommended pressure and work from there. The minimum and maximum comfortable pressure within the tyre's safe range can be discovered through experimentation


The traditional solution on bicycles is metal wire basket.

Metal is tougher than plastic and mesh instead of sheet metal makes it lightweight enough.

If you need something waterproof, put your things in waterproof bag or get a more expensive bike-specific rack box.

Wood is an often-overlooked material.

Its pliable and forgiving of vibration.

Plus its available in heaps of different profiles and weights.

You can construct the size of box you want to the millimetre, not requiring to make use of whatever you find.

For added durability, painting the wood allows you to express yourself, or a good location to attach reflectors and lights.

The first container looks to be really thin and cheap, no wonder why it did not last.

The second container looks better, but, IMO, will not last long either.

How is the container attached on your bike ?

You could place a piece of rubber between the container and whatever holds it.

I went with a much smaller box with a lower height.

I often scraped my leg hiking it over the old box on the screws holding the lid down.

It has 2 closures, but the added screws stops the rattling.

I've always had the best luck using a milk crate.

I attach them to the rack using hose clamps.

Hose clamps won't break.

If I need something to be waterproof, I just put it in a plastic bag.

Question: The "white container box" lasted about 2 months until it cracked in multiple places.  It was a cheap box(Dollar General variety).  New container is made by Sterilite and much sturdier.  I believe the old container cracked because of vibration and bumps transmitted from the ground to the box.  Can someone help me with ideas on how to cushion the new box?

Improve survivability of bicycle container

Metal mesh baskets and wood are recommended for bike boxes with the addition of a plastic bag for waterproofing. Cheap containers do not last long however, a piece of rubber between the container and whatever holds it will damp some of the vibrations.

The plastic boxes shown are thin and will break easily. You could dampen the vibrations with a piece of rubber under the box, use a smaller box or use thicker plastic (e.g. a milk crate). A metal wire basket is a sturdier option, and anything that needs to be waterproof can be put in a plastic bag. Wooden containers are also a possibility.


Your seat post is not all the way up, it's too far up.

If you need the saddle at that height you need a longer seat post.

As mentioned in comments there is usually a 'minumum insertion' point marked on the post.

Don't ride the bike with the seat post too far out of the seat tube.

It's dangerous as the seat post may collapse under you

and you risk damaging the top of the seat tube

even is that does not happen.

Seat posts are usually marked with a line indicating a minimum insertion point.

Extending the seat post past that point poses a risk of the seat post bending, or cracking the frame.

While 250-300mm seems to be the normal original size there are extra long seat posts available.

Lengths of 400mm are fairly common.

I did see a 700m telescoping (two sections) post for a folding bike.

You must also match the seatpost diameter to the bike's frame.

If you are lucky you can buy a longer post and replace your present one.

As mentioned in other answer, each post has a clear mark indicating the maximum usable length, and exceeding it is not a smart idea.

Visit a bike shop and search for a longer post fitting your frame.

If the diameter is not weird, you should fine one.

I mentioned the weird diameter out of personal experience:

on one of my previous bike the post had a larger diameter in the sub millimeter range than the new one I bought based on the millimeter size, and could not fit.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/30865/L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica

Have had the same issue..

seatpost hight enough is too high..

on the boundary from medium to large frame and have to opt for large and short stem instead to get a sturdy saddle height..

As above mentioned not observing the minimum insertion is incredibly dangerous and

costly(will possible write the frame off)..

if nothing else works go up a frame size..and shorten the stem a bit..works a treat for me(100mm instead of 120mm stem for example)..

More info The post diameter is often stamped into the post.

There are a number of diameters, some very close together, using a post slightly too small in diameter can result in a clamp that won't tighten enough allowing your post to gradually sink into the seat tube or turn easily.

Not a problem if you like to ride side saddle or with your knees in your face :)

A post that's just slightly too large in dia probably won't fit the seat tube.

If you've ever extracted a stuck post, it's obvious they're meant to fit tightly.

ebay has lots of long steel and aluminum posts; I bought a 400 mm long post from ebay a few years ago.

BTW, the longer the post, the farther back you sit and the easier it is to lift the front wheel.

May not be noticeable, the seat can be moved forward on its rails some to compensate if it is.

Enjoy!

As other answers said, you should not ride w/o at least a few inches of seatpost inserted into the seat tube of the bicycle.

If you cannot locate a seatpost that is long enough (which you should be able to do), or otherwise want to use the seatpost you have, seatpost extenders exist that might be able to foot the bill.

Essentially, the are two parts -- a long tube that inserts into your seat tube (as a normal seat post would do) and an upper part that acts like another seat tube and into which you can slide your existing seat post.

I can only copy all the other answers.

Do not pull the seatpost too far up.

There is a minimum insert mark on the seastpost.

The reason is the post is not vertical

so while sitting on it you are bending the post.

When the post is mounted too shallow, it can bend or break the frame.

I cannot recommend using longer seatpost either, because longer post means higher bending momentum.

You can bend or break the post itself, damage the frame or both.

Wery nasty injuries come from seat and seatpost failures!

If you need to pull the saddle up that much, the frame is too small for you.

I would strongly recommend giving the bike to someone smaller tha you are and getting yourself bike that fits you.

Question: It is a standard column bicycle seat and I realised maybe I should have it raised to top (I can still stand the bicycle up using my toes) but the saddle rocks as there is no column to stop it moving and it doesn't have any other supports.  I don't want it fixed forever but still want the saddle to be stable, with minimal movement. How can I do that?  enter image description here   The movement is 1 mm. I will correct this later.

How to stabilise the bicycle seatpost and saddle when it is all the way up?

A bike should not be ridden with the seat post too far up. If this height is required a longer seat post should be purchased. Most seat posts have a mark indicating their maximum height. However, if a person needs the seat this high, it probably means that the bike frame is too small and a bigger frame is needed.

The seat post is too high up, and is past the minimum insertion point. This risks injury and damage to the bike if it fails. Seat posts are designed to fit snugly, and slightly too large or small diameters will not fit properly. You could get a longer seat post with enough length in the tube, but if you need to extend it that far, the frame is probably too small for you.

Seat posts are designed to fit snugly, and slightly too large or small diameters will not work.


It's hard to say exactly what the cause is, but I see two main possibilities: Mechanical causes Brake pads.

If the pads are very close to the rotor when at rest, and have minimal motion to close on the rotor then that may be enough to wedge them.

Try inspecting the brake pads and if worn, replace them.

Brake pads are consumable.

Thin brake pad material will reduce your "modulation" zone, same as hard brake pads on rims do.

Could consider swapping your pads front to rear caliper temporarily as a test.

Pistons.

If your pistons are a little gunked up at the sides, they may not be retracting fully.

This may be limiting the distance that the pads have to travel to be hard on the wheel.

Rotor wear and damage.

Spin the front wheel off the ground and look closely at the rotor—it should not wobble or divert side-to-side, and the friction surface should not have burrs or obvious wear.

Fluids.

I doubt these are the cause of your issue.

Low fluid, or air bubbles will exhibit as spongy-feeling levers and you don't have that.

(edit) though @t_bacon points out that if the system is over-filled it will be slightly pre-pressurised, which will be pushing the brake pistons out a little all the time.

It's definitely worth checking if the fluid is over-filled, by opening the bleed screw and see if fluid squirts out at all.

Technique

When braking, your lever should have a range of motion before the brakes are wedged hard-on.

How tight you squeeze your fingers controls the level of braking effect.

There's a great answer at

What does "modulate" mean when referring to brakes?

Just visualise your flatbar lever instead of road brake levers, the concept is identical.

Body position for fast braking should be "arms straight and arse back" If you try and stand up on the pedals while hard braking your center of mass is higher and theres a moment-of-rotation which robs your rear wheel of traction and imparts a forward force on the rider.

One suggestion would be to swap bikes with a friend and try some carpark laps on another bike equipped with hydraulic brakes, and to get that other rider to try your bike brakes.

Decide if its a problem endemic to your bike vs technique, and go from there.

Don't - its dangerous ( Majority of braking force comes from front brakes) and in many countries illegal to ride on the road without 2 operational brakes.

Likely you are using too much force and not enough control.

You need to learn to feather brakes rather than jam them on, while shifting the weight back and lower.

Another possibility is you are using front brakes when you should not be - e.g. down a very steep drop.

If the slope is extremely steep, you need to go in slow, roll it out while on the slope, and brake once it levels out.

Using the back brake only for control can help, but avoid using the front.

Again, weight back and low helps with control.

Its possible the brakes are grabbing, which does make it harder to feather them properly, but this should not put you over the bars.

It is unusual to see a hydraulic brake described as on/off, as they are usually well known for their modulation.

However I have had an experience of this before with a friends bike.

He was regularly locking up the rear wheel, and initially I put it down to inexperience as a new rider - until I rode the bike myself and found the brake to be extremely 'grabby' and hard to control.

The problem was resolved by simply bleeding the brake.

To answer the last part of your question: yes, ABS systems for bicycles exist (a quick searching of the Internet is enough to see that).

However, they are not widespread and are mostly for OEM city bikes where there are no expectations about rider's skills.

As a result, maybe not something readily available for an end user to buy.

In absence of ABS, and somewhat repeating other answers, here is what I'd suggest to do.

Get better with your braking technique.

Generally the best thing to do is to keep learning about your bike, get to know your trails and to measure your abilities proportionally.

Maybe you are trying to ride features for which you are not yet ready as a rider?

Change brake pads to resin type, if you have metallic ones.

Metallic brake pads have higher grip.

Change front rotor size to one smaller.

If you have 180 mm, go to 160 mm (if your fork is compatible with smaller discs).

Adjust leverage of your brake lever to make it less pronounced.

Only few high-end levers have this option, however.

Change your front brake to a less powerful or try different brake vendor.

Do you happen to run downhill calipers on an XC bike?

Some people feel like a Shimano system is more intuitive to use than SRAM's, others feel like Magura brakes are too powerful, and others disagree etc.

Even setting up a mechanical disc brake can be a thing.

Think again though if trading stopping power for a sense of security is worth it.

Different brake pads have different amounts of "grab.

" You may consider changing the type of brake pad you use in your disc brake.

Sintered or metallic pads are generally considered to have less initial "bite" than organic pads.

This feels like something is not quite correct with the front brake.

Sorry, I've missed if you've provided the make/model, but theoretically, modern hydraulic disc brakes should allow complete modulation through the braking phase rather than an all or nothing approach.

That suggests contamination, sticking piston(s) or calipers, etc.

You could also check your riding position.

Placing your saddle backwards a few mm, whilst retaining comfort, would place your centre of gravity rearward, meaning pitching forward is reduced.

This can also be obtained by lowering your saddle slightly too, again, within the confines of comfort and efficient riding.

Question: I am thinking about disconnecting my front brake altogether because it's either on or it's off, and there's no in-betweens. As a result I've been over the handlebars about five times now and it's getting to be a bit of a pain.  Does anyone know if its possible to soften the brakes so the front acts more like ABS?

Front hydraulic disk brake is too powerful on MTB — solutions?

IF a front brake is too powerful it may be the rersult of a number of things. It could be a fault of the rider, who is jamming the brakes on rather than feathering them. It could be riding position, in which case lowering the saddle and moving it backwards may help. Finally, there may be a problem with the brake so the brake pads, pistons, rotor and calipers should be checked. However, the front brake should not be disconnected as it is illegal to ride on roads without 2 brakes.

Don't disable a brake — this may be illegal, and it is dangerous. Instead, you may need to work on correct technique and feather brakes rather than pulling harder. Shifting your weight backwards and lower will increase traction on the rear wheel and reduce the chance of pitching forward. Disc brakes should allow for a full range of modulation, but some brakes have more grab than others. Check for worn brake pads, dirt around the pistons and misaligned or worn rotors, and compare with a different bike to ensure that this is an issue with the bike rather than technique. You could also change the brake pads, reduce the rotor size or adjust the leverage of your brake levers.