The "pure" answer to the question as asked is probably as others have said, climb as much as possible.

But perhaps a better answer is to admit that cycling is awesome for aerobic fitness and leg strength but not as great on the upper body.

Obviously, cross-training is an option, but even if you are 100% committed to your bike, you can probably get significant results from two common calisthenics pre and/or post ride: Push-ups and Pull-ups.

The key is that you want to develop your chest/shoulders/triceps (pushing) and your back/biceps (pulling), and doing multi-joint exercises is likely more efficient/helpful than isolation exercises.

If you can't do pull-ups and don't have access to a lat pulldown machine you can help yourself by using your legs to give yourself a gentle assist.

If you have or can scrounge some dumbbells you can do a bit more.

Try this: Do a set of 20-25 pushups, then 8-12 pull-ups, either just before or just after you put on your shorts/jersey.

Do a second set 5 minutes later

after you've made up your water bottles, etc., put on your shoes, whatever.

Pump up your tires and get your bike "ready," then do a third set.

Go for a ride, and try to get in as much climbing as possible.

You'll probably be amazed at how quickly your strength will improve just with three sets of good form concentrated upper body calisthenics pre-ride.

Again, if you have dumbbells or a weight bench you could do bench presses/military presses, or laterals, and you could do rows to help with the "pull," but the goal isn't really do to a full on weightlifting session, just some quick calisthenics with one effective push and one effective pull exercise and at least two, preferably three sets as you prep for your ride.

I think there are two important ways to use your upper body riding a bicycle:

Ride very steep hills, where you need to pull up the handlebar and swing your upper body to counteract the torque on the pedals (specially if you ride a bike without extra-low gears);

Riding over technical terrain, like XC mountain bike and other stuff.

While commuting, you can do these (or at least a bit of these) if you choose some unusual route if you live in a hilly area.

If that is not the case, I am afraid riding itself is not enough to provide significant upper-body exercise (except postural "exercise", which might indeed induce health issues if too prolongued).

Hope this helps

There is a way to train your upper body while riding, but it's not the way most of people think of.

Have you ever looked at pro BMXers arms?

I rode BMX myself and can confirm that lots of bunnyhops, manuals and jumps are serious upper back, and whole arms workout.

Just think of it, in a bunnyhop you pull with your lower and upper back, together with the arms, then you push using again your back and arms.

But I don't know how this could go under common term of riding :-)

From years of experience, I have found that riding with your upper body (arms/ chest / back) flexed, you will get a significantly better upper body work out than with your upper body relaxed, where you don't get any work out.

If your riding on rough terrain try to jump and wheelie your front tire over objects here and there; if your riding on the street, try to jump curbs and bunny hop on curbs here

and there, just be careful with traffic...try to find a trail/ route that you can master.

A quick upper body work out after your done riding helps as well.

Something mentioned before but without explaination:

The position you sit while riding can affect upper body strength.

When changing from a long ride on a cruiser to a long ride on a road bike, after the road bike trek I feel my arms working harder from holding more of my body weight up.

The geometry of your frame, seat height and handlebar position can greatly affect how much work your upper body does while cycling.

If I had a mountain bike, I wouldn't however try to adjust a mountain bike to road bike dropdowns specifically for this though!

Your bike is not a whole body gym.

You could do sprints standing in extreme gears, accelerating as fast as possible.

Sprinters tend to have developed upper bodies.

They don't develop them on the bike, but they use them enough.

Biking is not an upper body work out.

As a matter of fact: on longer treks I have found my arms getting rather numb.

Riding a stationary bicycle that works both arms and legs simultaneously is an upper body workout.

Riding a stationary bicycle that just pedals like your standard bicycle is not an upper body work out.

Sorry ... Unless you are not using your hands on the handle bars and swinging your arms wildly or flapping them, you are not exercising your upper body while riding a standard bicycle.

While exercising: make sure you do get enough liquids when riding and don't overdo it, because it can be a long way home.

On a stationary bike you can press down in your thighs with both hands while you pedal to get a pretty good upper body workout.

On a moving bike you might be able to use one hand to steer and one hand to press on a thigh.

Question: I often hear people say “your bike is a whole-body gym”. I know my upper body workout will never be close to the workout my legs get, but so long as I’m a bike commuter, I figure I ought to get as much as I can out of it. I have a Trek 8.3DS, flat handlebars, no bullhorns, no upright grips.  How do I adjust my riding style/choice of bike/choice of equipment/types of rides to maximize whatever upper body exercise biking can give me?

How do I maximize my upper body workout from riding?

The truth is that cycling is a amazing for aerobic and leg fitness but it has little affect on the upper body. There are some exrcises that could be done while riding, such as pressing down hard on the handlebars and going off road where the terrain makes you use your upper body more. However, the best solution is to do upper bosy work in addition to cycling, maybe cross-training or some simple upper body exercises that can be done at home.

While climbing, sprinting, mountain biking on technical terrain, BMX riding and changing your position when riding can exercise your upper body to some extent, cycling should generally not be considered a ful-body workout. A better option is to mix other exersises in with the cycling, such as calisthenics before and/or after cycling. Stationary bikes also allow more of a full-body workout, but the upper body needs to be active to see an effect.


The Schlumpf drives have been around for several years and incorporate a two-speed planetary gear drive attached to the bottom bracket.

With the heel of your shoe, you tap a small button centered on the end of the bottom bracket to engage and disengage the planetary gear.

Three models are available: a "mountain gear" version that lowers whatever other gears you have by a factor of 2.5; a "speed gear" version that raises your other gears by 1.65x; and a "high-speed gear" version that raises your other gears by 2.5x.

The Schlumpf drives have been marketed to specialty bicycles such as folding or recumbent bikes that use small diameter wheels, and thus can have difficulty getting "normal" gearing using off-the-shelf components.

Schlumpfs have also been installed on unicycles which (obviously) are ordinarily a single fixed-gear.

An advantage of the Schlumpf drive is that with only one chain ring, there is no need for a front derailleur and the chain line is straight -- and one can tap the button to engage or disengage the drive even while stopped.

However, despite the straight chain the Schlumpf drive appears to be less efficient in terms of power transmission.

Measurements suggest that the Schlumpf drives "cost" about 5% extra in drive train losses.

Since conventional derailleur systems range from around 92% to 97% in transmission efficiency (see for example, the work of Kyle and Berto here ), an additional 5% loss can be a considerable cost.

Pinion has brought an 18-speed gearbox to the market, the P1.18.

It isn't a "true" bottom-bracket with internal gears as is the Schlumpf -- rather, the gearbox is in a separate housing attached next to the bottom bracket, and it is not an "after-market" solution that can be easily added onto an existing bike.

The Pinion is intended for downhill or freeride bicycles that are purpose-built around the device.

Technically, no, there is no current commercially available gearbox bottom bracket.

Most likely, the Truvativ Hammerschmidt is the crankset you are thinking of.

There were also gearboxes designed by Honda, and a few other brands.

It allows a single chain ring, 2 x 9 or 2 x 10 gearing.

It is mainly aimed at the DH or freeride market, as it is a heavy, but very tough piece of kit.

The gearing is not suited for XC or endurance rides, for that reason.

As you can see in the Anatomy View below, the gear change is accomplished not in the Bottom bracket, but in the chain guide.

I hope that helps.

The technical manual can be found here .

Wikipedia ("Bicycle Gearing") and Google eventually led me to this: http://www.haberstock-mobility.com/en/products/schlumpf-drive.html and this: http://pinion.eu/discover-pinion/pinion-p1-18/ (I would be afraid to put my money on these... ;o)

FSA Metropolis.

http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/04/26/fsa-unveils-metropolis-patterson-drive-internal-geared-crankset-for-commuters/ Advantages?

No front derailer and better ground clearance at the crankset.

Disadvantages?

Expensive.

Proprietary.

Kervelo uses some type of geared bottom bracket in its front wheel drive recumbent bikes.

I don't know how it works

but they have a website.

They make three models.

A tourer, a racing model, and a tricycle.

Question: I've heard that one can install a bottom bracket that has what is essentially a built-in internal hub, giving one the ability to add a virtual double chainring where there's only one. This would be designed to be used in concert with whatever gear cluster or internal hub you have installed in the rear.  If this is true, does it exist in this form, or have I heard of a distorted version of the device? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a bottom bracket?

Bottom bracket with built-in internal hub - does this exist?

A bottom bracket with a built-in internal hub does exist. It is called the Schlumpf drive and it has been around for several years. An advantage of the Schlumpf drive is that with only one chain ring, there is no need for a front derailleur and the chain line is straight -- and one can tap the button to engage or disengage the drive even while stopped. However, despite the straight chain the Schlumpf drive appears to be less efficient in terms of power transmission.

Several gear drives are available, and are usually marketed for specific purposes such as unicycles or recumbant bicycles with small wheel diameters. Advantages include the elimination of a front derailleur and the ability to shift without moving, but this kind of system is expensive, proprietary and significantly less efficient in transmitting power.

There are some advantages like the elimination of a front derailleur and the ability to shift without moving, but this kind of system is expensive, proprietary and significantly less efficient in transmitting power.


Do it little by little.

Like a learner driver, go find a car park or a quiet road

, you don't want to be doing this in the traffic.

Ironically, you probably don't want to be doing this on a surface that will give you a soft landing.

I suppose a flat playing field might work, but cycling on grass isn't as smooth as cycling on tarmac and you'll need a predictable, flat surface to work with.

The biggest skill to master is steering through weight, not through moving the handlebars.

You probably do this anyway, but it's something to work on deliberately while you've got two hands on the bars.

Just sway your weight from side to side and try to go in the direction you want - in a moment you'll be steering like this for real, so try and get it going well when you don't need it.

I don't think it's worth going one handed first

- this is an all-or-nothing exercise.

Get going in a straight line with your hands lightly on top of the bars (if you're on dropped handle-bars) and just relax your hands.

Hold them flat on the bars and just lift them.

Don't look at them.

Just lift them a little.

A fraction of an inch will feel like a foot ...

But then just try to do things with the hands off the bars.

Do the leaning and swaying from side to side.

Just a little amount.

Just enough to drift a little off line then get you back going in a straight line.

Then once you're happy, try to sit up.

The more you practice, the less of a problem this becomes.

You will feel very unsteady as your centre of gravity moves around.

The key here is that on most bikes your centre of gravity is quite low, somewhere around your knees, but as you take your hands off the bars and sit up, it rises significantly, so you need to be happy in controlling it and how to react to how the bike is taking it.

Pretty soon you'll be taking corners.

Of course, don't forget that, unless you're on a fixed or have non-standard equipment, the only way to stop suddenly is probably quite painful ...

You should find it pretty easy to pedal with no hands for a second.

Once you're able to do this, progressively leave your hands off the bars for longer.

It's easy to work up to riding no handed comfortably.

Two things you should note: Riding no-handed is actually pretty dangerous.

If you accidentally hit a walnut-sized rock it can turn your handlebars enough to toss you.

Riding no-handed is illegal in some areas, and you can get a hefty ticket (e.g. Ontario).

One thing to mention is if the bike is messed up at all, it's a lot harder to ride no-handed.

I have a "beater" I bought for $1 at a garage sale to ride/leave at the train station.

It must have a bend in the frame somewhere b/c I can't let go of the bars

w/out it pulling.

My road bike however, I can go easily and corner no handed.

I think it's easiest to do while pedaling, and to learn to "stear with your hips".

Hope that helps.

Half off-topic, as this does not really answer your question, but I think this warning is quite in order, and thus on-topic: Don't ride no-handed .

At the very least, not without shoes that lock into your pedals.

The reason is the failure mode, which I, for one, unfortunately learned the hard way: When you ride no-handed, you have exactly three points of contact with your bike.

The saddle, and the two pedals.

That suffices to keep your balance and allows for steering.

But there is no redundancy at all .

If you loose one pedal from under your foot, you immediately loose the other one too.

Your pedals are connected to each other, and the pressure of one foot provides the counter-pressure from the other pedal to the other foot that's necessary to keep both feet connected to your bike.

After you've lost your pedals, you only have one connection left to your bike, the saddle.

And that is neither enough for keeping balance in the long run, nor for any kind of steering.

You immediately, and utterly loose control over your bike .

It's just game-over.

If your bike is heading for a moat, you'll end up in the moat.

If your bike is heading for an oncoming truck, you'll meet this truck.

You'll neither have a chance of braking, nor to regain control in any way.

When this happened to me, I was heading towards a traffic light that was about 5 to 10 meters away, and there was nothing I could do to reduce the impact.

This encounter got me four weeks on crutches, and a lesson well-learned.

I hope you do learn this lesson from me, instead of learning it the hard way as I did.

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

I've just re-learned this at age 40.

It's a lot easier (at least for me) on a rigid bike than one with suspension, as the bike is more responsive to shifting your weight.

Also - remind yourself to look ahead instead of down at your handlebars, and make sure you are comfortable perched on the saddle with your weight back - the saddle is going to be the main way you move the bike around.

I agree with cmaster that the best place to do this is away from a road where you would interact with vehicle traffic, as it takes an extra second or two to get your hands on the brakes for an emergency.

There are bike lanes closed to vehicle traffic where I live, and you can easily steer around the odd pedestrian without holding your handlebars.

Question: Learning to ride no-handed has been on my new year resolution list year after year after year and I still haven't done it. I'm 46 so I need to be careful about falling off. Do people have fool-proof techniques for learning to ride no-handed they can share?  Just to clarify after  Daniel 's comment below I have three bikes, a racer, a commuting bike, and a mountain bike. The mountain bike is twitchy but the others feel stable.

How does one ride 'no handed'?

Riding no-handed is quite dangerous and in some places illegal. To learn this skills, practice is needed. This should be done away from roads. The biggest skill to master is steering through weight, not through moving the handlebars. It may be best to go gradually, riding with the hands lightly on the handlebars and then taking them off when you feel ready.  It should be noted that as you have no hands on the brakes, stopping suddenly can be quite painful.

Riding no hands is dangerous and illegal in some places. It is impossible to brake suddenly and a small obstacle can cause you to fall off. If you still want to learn, find a place to practise away from traffic, but with a smooth, flat surface where you have time to stop. Build up gradually by taking the weight off your handlebars, then removing your hands for a couple of seconds. Get used to steering with your hips and body weight and remember that your centre of gravity is higher. Keep pedaling while learning.

Riding no hands is dangerous and illegal in some places. It is impossible to brake suddenly and a small obstacle can cause you to fall off. If you still want to learn, do this away from roads and make sure that your bike is working properly.

Find a place to practise away from traffic, but with a smooth, flat surface where you have time to stop.


Regular aerobic exercise is definitely of value for preparing for a big ride.

Spin is a good preparation in conjunction with some outdoor rides, but it is not a substitute for riding your bike on the road.

The feel of the bike, the balance, the momentum, and the environmental and traffic factors will have an effect on your fitness as well, some of which may be purely mental.

If time is limited, try spin 2-3 days a week, and build up your endurance, but also do at least one longer outdoor ride each week.

If you're riding 50 miles, you need to plan to be on the bike for 3-5 hours when you do the actual ride.

Build up to where you can handle 3 hours on the bike easily, and you'll do fine.

Yes and no. Spin classes do help with overall aerobic fitness.

There are shortcomings:

the first thought occurring to me is "bike handling".

You can do spin classes blindfolded.

An actual ride means controlling the bike in various situations.

Secondly in a spin class, the "rider" determines the difficulty.

Actually riding, the difficulty is determined by the environment.

The upshot is that spin classes are good for aerobic fitness but other skills require different practice.

Spin workouts in general?

A good thing.

I do spin workouts during the dark, wet, and cold Pacific NW winters.

Spin workouts do wonders for your cardiovascular endurance.

So, you have that covered.

However, spin workouts generally last 45 minutes to an hour.

A long ride is typically longer than that, so little to no help.

Another thing in spin workouts is that the instructor will have you increase the resistance for "hills"; believe me, it never matches reality unless you really ramp up the resistance.

Another thing, is that spin instructors often don't have actual experience in riding a real bike on real terrain; so not sure that it helps unless the spin instructor is actually a cyclist.

Take away?

Usually ramp things up; of course depending on the spin instructor.

...Spin "class" is NOT a "class"...

it's a workout...

In my experience the saddles on gym spin bikes are often a little more plush than a typical "real" bike saddle.

Thus, one part of your body that you will never train, no matter how many spin classes you attend, is your butt's ability to tolerate a bike saddle for 50-75 miles.

I believe the only way to train your butt to sit without significant discomfort on a real bike saddle for 50-75 miles is to sit on a real bike saddle for a significant number of miles.

Several times.

I took a coworker on an easy, flat 25-mile route, and he was not accustomed to being on a bike saddle for that long.

By the time we got back, he was effectively riding on one cheek, because the saddle was paining him so.

His speed had slowed to a crawl.

If you don't have much experience on the bike, in a long event, be ready for pain in your hands, wrists, shoulders, back, and bottom.

Especially if your bike fit isn't perfect.

I ride 50-100mi per week (mostly road, some mountain), and my first spin class was really hard for me.

I think the reverse is true as well; a good spinner may find that actual road riding is more dynamic and challenging.

Try to get as many road rides in as possible.

Spinning is fine if it's a long session but no substitute because your 100Km race is an endurance test for your muscles.

So as others have said hydration is more important than your time.

Do the spinning but make sure you've ridden the 100KM on the real bike at least once before you do your trip.

Just so you'll know what's coming.

Hope you enjoy it!

For anyone training for a big bike ride I would recommend the following.

Go out once a week and do a long ride increasing the distance by ten per cent a week.

Do a shorter ride during the week, and if you can fit some interval training in on a spin bike that really helps with stamina.

A pyramid climb with some interval sessions straight after.

After one of your training sessions preferably the longer ride

I did some squats, lunges and single leg deadlifts.

This really helped my climbing ability.

All the hills I dreaded became mere blips, not just physically but visually.

I did the ride London and a ride in France which was shorter than the London one but hilly.

its appropriate.

i do spinning every winter.

great training, really pushes me.

you'll do fine as long as its not a competitive event and you can ride your own pace.

50-70 miles is not that long if you're on a racing bike.

as others said: dont expect it to be too comfortable tho.

cycling is an endurance sport, after all.

I'd say do some riding too.

it's almost summer in the northern half of the world.

perfect time for some relaxed riding.

if you dont like that, then why even bother going to the event?

if you do like it, then youll probably enjoy it more than sweating in some overheated gym class.

its also good (pleasant and safe) to be familiar with your bike and riding, cornering etc when you ride in big groups.

Question: I need to train for an upcoming bike ride and i wanted to see if attending a spin class 1-2 times a week (45 min course) would be appropriate way to prepare for a long bike ride (50 - 75 miles)

Does spin class prepare you for a long bike ride?

Spin classes are good for aerobic fitness but they are no substitute for riding your bike on the road. The only real way to train for a long race is to ride long distances on the bike. Gradients are harder on the road than in a spin class and you have to get your body used to spending long periods of time in the saddle. Moreover riding a bike on the road requires balance and awareness that you do not get in a spin class.

Spinning is useful for building up aerobic fitness and endurance, but does not teach important skills skills like road awareness and controlling the bike in different conditions. Spinning classes are usually shorter than long rides and simulated hill climbs are usually easier than the real thing. Stationary bikes are usually built differently with a more comfortable seat, so you may not be used to a long ride on an unfamiliar bike. Keep up the spinning classes, but try to introduce progressively longer outdoor rides too. Think about hydration more than the finishing time.


Here's a rack that will do six.

I have no personal experience with this one and the fact that neither of the top two rack companies (Thule and Yakima) do a six bike rack

makes me think you should approach with caution.

[Link removed due to the old link being expired/stale.

The link was to a "Northshore 6 Bike Rack"]

I have seen, with mixed success, 4-bike bike racks where folks have strapped an additional bike into the mix.

Again, proceed with caution.

I don't have any experience with hitch racks holding more than 4 bikes, but I do have an option that you may not have considered.

Forget the hitch rack and buy a small utility trailer.

Most hardware stores sell trailer frames like this to which you can add a simple plywood box enclosure ore something more elaborate.

It looks like the market for a 6 bike rack is fairly small, and the racks are expensive ($700+ US).

I am sure you could buy a small utility trailer for much less, you would be able to haul at least 6 bikes plus equipment and you would have none of the drawbacks of a hitch rack like: Difficulty accessing the rear doors of the vehicle.

Rattle, hum and road shake as the torque/lever forces shake the bikes on the rack.

If you decide to go the trailer route you can use plans like these to build your own PVC racks to keep the bikes upright.

Keep in mind that hitch racks intended to carry large numbers of bikes (including the North Shore six bike rack) tend to require heavy duty 2" receivers.

Ensure your vehicle is properly equipped.

If you have room inside the van, you can use one of these to carry a few bikes (perhaps in addition to 4 bikes on a more typical hitch rack): http://www.biketote.com/store/category.php?category=12

I use the Bike Tote in the back of my Toyota Tacoma pickup to carry two bikes.

It works well -- it holds the bikes securely, and is very easy to install/remove the rack to/from the vehicle.

The hitch is not designed to take the kind of forces that 6 bikes can produce.

A trailer sits on the ball and cannot twist the hitch, a rack adds twisting forces in all directions.

The end result (I have a mate who manages a bike shop) can be pretty expensive - like

the guys who's hitch (with 4 bikes on the rack) failed while being followed by a 30 ton B-Train.

Luckily for him the remaining scrap metal only damaged one truck tire - you would think the cost of replacing the bikes was all you need you worry about..... If you do, you need to strap the top of the rack to the roof of the car, and strap the rack and bikes to limit the twisting forces in the hitch.

The addition of 6 bikes on the back of the vehicle will also upset the balance.

Most cars have a ball weight limit - some as low as 60kg, few above 100kg.

I imagine your van is on the higher end of the scale, but 6 heavy mountain bikes + rack will be close to 100kg.

(if you are US/UK and think pounds, thats 130lb - 220lb).

You may find you are overloading the hitch and voiding warranty / breaking laws / voiding insurance There is a reason most manufacturers stop at 4.

Above 2, they almost always recommend/require straps and heavy duty hitches.

Well, not to encourage spammers, but the Totem Pole is an interesting design.

It does have the advantage that the weight is carried fairly close to the vehicle, so there's less torsion on the hitch -- maybe this isn't sufficient to really allow the weight of 6 bikes to be carried, but it likely handles 4 better than the standard horizontal beam rack.

I would be a bit concerned about carrying the bike's weight solely from the front wheel, as this design does.

At the very least you'd want your bikes to have "lawyer lips", and on a long ride I'd be concerned about stressing/distorting the wheel.

Plus it's not clear (despite the cavalier statements to the contrary)

that bikes wouldn't bump/rub each other while being jostled on a rough road.

Also, the rack probably has trouble with kids bikes, since the wheels will not hit the bottom bar.

I also have a Sienna.

I put two bikes in upright racks on the roof.

And, as someone else said, can you put any inside?

That's what I usually do if I don't have people in the third seat; I can put four bikes inside if I arrange them carefully.

Question: How can I fit 6 bikes on a hitch rack for my Toyota Sienna van?  Thank you!

How can I fit 6 bikes on a hitch rack?

Most hitch racks are made for a maximum of 4 bikes. There also regulations relating to how much a vehicle can carry. For transporting 6 bikes a small utility trailer would be better. An alternative would be to put some bikes inside the van and the others in the rack.

A hitch ball is usually not designed to carry that much weight, and the car may be affected by the extra weight on the back. Overload the hitch may void the warranty and insurance or even be illegal. A utility trailer would be a safer option that could carry more than a hitch. The Totem Pole rack is one possiblity, but supporting all of the weight from the front wheel may damage bikes on longer trips. If you have room, you can put bikes inside the car and on the roof in addition to a standard hitch rack.


Copied this from a BikeRadar article : How to measure your own sit bones Of course the measure you really want is between the centres of your ischial tuberosities – the pointy lower parts of your pelvic bone on either side.

Many bike dealers have a pad that you can sit on to measure this distance, but you can do it at home too.

Take a piece of aluminium kitchen foil and place it on a carpeted stair.

Sit on the foil, lean forward a bit to approximate your riding position, then lift your feet.

This should leave a good impression of your rear in the foil, and you can measure between the two points of deepest impression to get your sit bone width.

‘Narrow’ sit bone width would be 100mm or less, medium 100-130mm, wide over 130mm.

A saddle’s width is measured from edge to edge across the top, and Specialized recommends a 130mm saddle width for narrow, 143mm for medium and 155mm for wide.

These ﬁgures should translate approximately across other ranges, with all other factors taken into account.

None of the above techniques worked for me.

I made no impression on the corrugated cardboard and the foil just showed a nice big bum-print after sitting a few different surfaces.

I came up with my own technique that's a bit more trial and error but seemed to work for me.

I got two small erasers, put them on a chair, sat on them and moved them around until they felt like I was sitting on my sit bones.

Then I got up and measured how far apart they were.

I know this is an old thread

but it's the top one on Google

and I found it helpful.

I tried all the methods above

and I didn't have a lot of luck

so I wanted to share what I tried.

I made some playdough using the first no cook recipe I found on Google (it was fun and doesn't take long).

I then put it between two pieces of cling film and pressed it to about 2" thick, placed it on a hard surface (my kitchen floor) and put a tea towel over it

so my legs didn't stick to the cling film.

I then sat on it with my back in roughly my riding position.

The impression of my sit bones is really clear, I can see 2 circles (see image) and I measured the distance between the centres.

I tried a few times and it was consistent.

You can do it on any surface which will conform to the shape of your butt, like a piece of memory foam.

Sit on it, with your knees higher than your seat by 4-6 inches, then measure the center of the depressions left.

There are different types of memory foam, and some will have a more durable impression than others.

I've used this method which worked well: Fill a large size ziploc bag with icing sugar.

Icing sugar's fine texture means that it binds together when compressed.

This is what we want - it will hold the shape of your buttprint after you get up.

Close the bag making sure to squeeze out the air.

Place on hard chair.

Sit while assuming the degree of forward rotation that you intend to cycle with.

The distance between your sit bones change depending on this rotation. Get up cleanly and measure the distance between the depressions.

Here's a link to a video that may help you: In this technique all you need is a piece of corrugated cardboard and some chalk.

A fresh piece of corrugated cardboard on a hard surface such as a coffee table.

Sit down and try to mimic the upper body position you have on your bike.

Your sit bones change position based on how your pelvis is tilted.

Your sit bones should crush the corrugated cardboard slightly and leave two indentations.

Measure center to center as best you can.

There is one more method people here aren't talking about...

Sit on a bike on a trainer, get into riding position, and have someone you don't mind touching you physically measure your sit bones, in proper riding position.

You can feel someone's sit bones on their butt.

They're pretty obvious once you're touching them.

Question: Some bike shops have gel pads that you sit on to measure the distance between your sit bones. Is it possible to take this measurement on your own at home, or does this really require special-purpose equipment?  [Related question:  Should I use a narrower saddle on a road bike than I would on my hybrid commuter? ]

Is it possible to measure your sit bones at home?

To measure the distance between your sit bones at home, get two small erasers, put them on a chair, sit on them and move them around until they feel like they are on your sit bones. Another method is to sit on a bike on a trainer, get into riding position, and have someone you don't mind touching you physically measure your sit bones, in proper riding position. Apparently, ‘narrow’ sit bone width would be 100mm or less, medium 100-130mm, wide over 130mm.

You can measure your sit bones at a bike dealer or at home with a pad that will conform to the shape of your butt (memory foam, cardboard) or using another way of marking the positioning. A narrow sit bone width would be 100mm or less, medium 100-130mm, wide over 130mm. Specialized recommends a 130mm saddle width for narrow, 143mm for medium and 155mm for wide, measured from edge to edge across the top of the saddle.


Some tire makers have a thicker center.

Specialized Armadillo based tires will work wonders.

They are a bit heavier, but worth it.

Specialized Armadillo Tires

Im

sure there are others, but this is the one I have used the most on my commuter road bike.

Similar to Matt Adams' suggestion, I'd go with Continental Gatorskins or Armidillo or other kevlar lined tires.

Additionally, I'd suggest that you move to something a bit larger such as 25mm for commuting.

This will provide you with a little more material to fend off glass and other debris.

It'll also be a bit more comfortable of a ride for commuting.

22mm/23mm tires are mostly used for racing and are usually very soft and prone to picking up and holding on to debris like this.

Have you tried SLIME or similar sealant?

Saw this one a while back, way more hard core than slime, but after looking into it I decided Slime works best for me (I only ever get thorns, high PSI will usually prevent most glass from sticking long enough to puncture) - Using a sealant allows you to keep any tire you prefer.

Cons: can be messy, doesnt prevent snakebites.

Did you get the right size of liners?

They sell a couple different sizes (you can tell the size by the color).

I have 28s

and I didn't have that much trouble putting them in.

Maybe narrow tires are more troublesome.

Also, I've had great experiences with tuffy tire liners.

Combined with Gatorskins, tires are pretty resistant to punctures.

Ran over a broken beer bottle, heard it crush under my tires, and still no flat.

A little tricky to get them in there, but defintely not something you have to do very often.

Probably worth the trouble.

Checking their site, you should have the orange liners.

Your first best solution would be bigger tires.

22's are really light weight and are intended for racing, not commuting.

Foldable tires are also usually a little thinner more prone to punctures than non-foldable tires.

So get something non-foldable.

Bonus: non-foldable tires are usually cheaper.

Most companies make tires that are "puncture-resistant.

" They have an extra layer embedded in the rubber that helps prevent flats.

You won't actually be able to see it but they'll probably have a cutaway picture on the label.

As someone else suggested, you could use slime.

I've never used it, but I know people who swear by it.

Panaracer Ribmo PT .

These tires never flat on me.

They are really thick and tend to be pretty good for fixed gear riders as well.

The panaracer T-serve is also a bit lighter, but has good flat protection too.

If you are just commuting and dont need much performance wise, you might look into the foam inserts like these: http://bit.ly/L1mKJO

They are a pain to get on and almost impossible to get off

(I had to cut my tire to get it off)

but they never get flats.

The biggest problem is that I need my tires to be 85

+ psi and I have not found any to replicate over 65.

Another problem some say is that if you hit a pothole that the impact goes directly into your rims, with weak rims that would be a problem, but I have triple walls.

But like I said, I would only use these on commuter bikes rather than performance bikes.

Question: I used to get a lot of punctures on my 22mm tires riding to work every day in boston. All of the punctures were from small pieces glass.  After a few weeks of almost weekly flats i got tuffy tire liners and now i no longer get flats.   Question:  Is there some other better solution then tire liners because they were  really  difficult to put in?

avoiding punctures in 22mm tires

The best solution for frequent punctures is not to use 22 inch tires. 22 inch tires are usually used for racing and are very soft and prone to picking up and holding debris. A 25 inch is more suitable for commuting. Most companies make tires that are "puncture-resistant. Specialized Armadillo based tires work wonders. Furthermore, Tuffy tire liners are recommended as is SLIME sealant.

Thin, foldable and lightweight road tyres are usually soft and liable to pick up debris, so a thicker rigid tyre might be more suitable for commuting. Some tyres have a thicker centre or have a puncture resistant lining. The linings you used are effective, and your difficulty fitting them may be due to using the wrong size for your tyre. Slime is another possible solution.


I use a sort of wave, raising my hand but with no movement in it (so not a 'Hey buddy' or 'I need help' side to side movement)

.... it works on my bicycle, on my motorcycle, and while driving a vehicle.

It's got somewhat of a dual purpose: acknowledgement that I did something wrong, and/or

'thanks for letting me in' gratitude gesture.

The motorcycle I find a very odd case of this.

It's 95% not me giving the gesture, but receiving it after being cut off, not seen, turned in front of, etc.

People are in general not interested in showing any rage and are quick to apologize when I'm on one, even if I'm not wearing the armored jacket and helmet.

I don't get even half this respect in vehicles or bicycles.

That was a side note that I've found interesting, but the point is that it's the same gesture I seem to get from many other people.

There's no side/side or waving motion, just a hand up, fingers together, "

Thanks/Sorry".

I have seen and used a sheepish wave and a shoulder shrug or head bow, never had someone try to beat me up after that.

I wave if I can

but sometimes that's not possible because I'm controlling the bike.

I always give them a look of apology and say "sorry" even though they can't hear me.

I slightly exaggerate the look and the lip movements so that I can be sure that they see it.

And most people can read lips well enough to pick up "sorry" even across an intersection.

I usually get a wave back, so I know it works most of the time.

In Hawaii, it's common for drivers (and cyclists, I suppose) to use the shaka to communicate an apology on the road: To folks who know about it, the sign carries the same range of positive meanings as Aloha and should be taken as a friendly gesture.

While it doesn't specifically communicate apology, the sign is used as a relaxed greeting, which could diffuse a hostile situation.

As far as I know, the sign doesn't resemble any rude gestures.

As always, be sure to check with a local for the meaning of any hand signals used in an unfamiliar culture!

Short answer - there's no widely recognized hand gesture for

I'm sorry .

You could try the American Sign Language for sorry :

I'm not sure how likely it is that this will be understood by the other person though.

I have thought about this a lot.

What usually works for me is raising the left hand palm in and fingers up and covering my ear and lowering the head slightly.

a gesture of submission, the covering of the ear "please don't yell at me for my mistake".

Then raising palm upward and forward in a surrender mode.

I am sorry.

If they beep, you can just give a thumbs-up as if to say "yeah, that was justified".

Complementing @BSO rider response: here in Brazil a simple "thumbs up" sign means that you agree with the driver that's not their fault

and you just mean say sorry.

Another way is raise your hand and make a face expression like "it's my fault".

This works too, like this:

I'm not so sure about

"I'm sorry" , but the gesture for the related "

I'm sorry for you" is simply to pass hundreds of cars that are stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

If you're sorry frequently, it means you have some kind of problem that causes you to carry out actions that you didn't plan, or which have consequences that you didn't forsee.

Fix that problem.

Do things deliberately and own them.

Correctly predict their results and own them also.

Consequently, don't be sorry.

Then when you're not sorry, you don't require any gesture to express it: you just do in order to achieve a result, the result occurs, and you don't regret anything.

When you're on your bike mingling with traffic, you can't afford to be taking unintentional actions, or poorly predicting the results of intentional actions.

"I'm sorry" won't cut it when there are serious negative consequences.

What does "I'm sorry" really mean in traffic?

Usually this: "I regret that someone else had to take an action to avert a disaster that would otherwise have been caused by what I did.

It's vastly more important not to have this occur than to have a well researched and rehearsed gesture for the accompanying sentiment of regret.

Thinking about it, and considering that non-verbal, single-handed signal is preferred, I think that: Touching your head with the fingertips, above and behind the ear; Shrugging the shoulders and; Raising the eyebrows;

In sort of a "oops, what have I done!

So sorry!"

attitude, might be very well interpreted/understood by drivers, and probably dissolve any aggressive behaviour (if any) on his/her part.

I accidentally cut someone off today.

He looked at me as he passed me, and I immediately and instinctively just raised my left arm, bent at the elbow, fingers straight up and together, and mouthed "I'm sorry."

I was so surprised by my automatic response that I googled "hand gesture for

I'm sorry" and found this listing.

I wonder if anyone else has just done that automatically, not that we intentionally cut people off!

Question: I usually signal "turn left" and "turn right" and "pass me by, take point". However, there is one more situation that happens to me often and I do not know a widely accepted gesture to convey my thoughts.  How do I express that "I am sorry." to a car driver near me (car driver == probably won't hear me, so a hand gesture is needed). As in "I cut you off, sorry man!".

What is the hand gesture for "I'm sorry"?

There is no official gesture used among cyclists to mean sorry. Various hand gestures are used. These include hand up without waving, a sheepish wave, thunbs up in Brazil, the Shaka in Hawaii, and touching your head with your finger tips.

Possible signals vary widely and are not universally recognised. These could include holding an open palm up, the shaka sign, shrugging your shoulders, mouthing "sorry", touching your forehead or giving a thumbs up to agree with someone using a horn. If this situation often comes up where you need to apologise, it could be better to improve your road awareness and decision-making.


Yes there is one main trick, and some regular skills.

The trick is: if you LOWER THE TIRE PRESSURE, any tire will float over sand like magic.

It should not be so underinflated as to allow easy pinch flats, but the lower the pressure, the more marked the floating effect.

There are just two limitations:

If the tire is skinny (low volume)

it might not be possible to have a pressure level that allows flotation AND safe riding over rough terrain on other trail sections;

It's not possible to adjust tire pressure "on the fly" ;o)

But if you know you're having a long stretch of soft terrain, it's possible to have a good trade-off.

Anyway, huge tires (2.3 +) are perfect for that (watch this Surly Pugsley video).

Also, knobby doesn't help that much, sometimes slicks are better; they cause less shearing of the sand and rob you of less kinetic energy.

Now the skills are mostly help maintain speed and direction.

Speed:

not so fast as to suddenly throw you over the bars in case of loss of control, not so slow that your rear wheel loses traction in order to maintain or recover speed.

Direction:

plan ahead the smoothest possible trajectory, and point your front wheel firmly along that trajectory.

Avoid wobbling on the pedals, major gear changes, and specially avoid sharp turns, because there is a critical steering angle above which the front tire skids sideways and the bike becomes unstable, making it almost impossible to regain control in some cases (of course the more skill one has, the more one can recover from).

Hope that helps and...

PRACTICE!

Few things can be more fun than that!

I have personally ridden and raced on many sandy courses and trails (e.g. Moab) and the best advice is to shift your weight back, relax and think about guiding rather than steering the bike.

You will never be able to ride in a perfectly straight line, so get over it or avoid sand.

Rather you need to let the bike move and shift around under you.

You will need to stay loose and relaxed while making sure to have a firm grip.

You can't force the bike or it will skid out.

Rather your job is to look ahead and guide the bike in the general direction you want to go.

You also need to avoid sudden jarring movements.

If you have ridden in dry snow, the feeling is quite similar.

I know some answers said avoid excessive speed (which is good advice for riders new to sand)

but I will say it is also possible to scream along on sand.

I have hit deep and long sandy sections at full speed before (e.g. 50km/hr) and been fine.

Sure the bike moved around a bit, but as long as I don't panic (and tighten up), kept my weight back and guided the bike I was fine.

If you are riding uphill or on the flats try to keep steady power on the pedals as you have less traction to work with.

Some find a faster or slower pedal cadence easier - try both and take your pick.

Also make sure to conserve momentum, if you slow down to much you won't be going anywhere.

Finally, don't get discouraged, riding on sand is a learned skill and always work to Lastly, there are also technical aspects (e.g. tire pressure) that have already been covered (heltonbiker)

I have plenty of experiance in insanely soft sand.

Before you leave : 29er, wide tyres, low pressure.

BUT Low preasure costs when you get back onto hard stuff, as do insanely wide tyres.

I set the bike up to go well on the hard stuff, and pay the price on the soft sections.

On the track : Riding style is Weight Back, Very high cadence, great balance and steer with weight shifts rather than handlebar movement.

It VERY quickly becomes faster, easier and more efficent to dismount and run/carry bike.

The only reason to ride soft sand to prove you can and get fit fast.

If the tracks are mostly soft sand (and you are like me - out to have fun), find better tracks, as it's not much fun after the novelty wears off.

One big advantage, it's a soft landing when it all goes wrong

Riding on sand is pretty easy once you get the hang of it, keep yourself heavy on the front of the bike through technical dh sections and over the back on a low gear on climbs, when riding on sand around corners (especially deep sandy sections) avoid leaning into the corners too much and don't be afraid to counter steer with the bars, just don't do it too quick or you will be jerked off, try not to ride the brakes too much especially when going around corners or you could easily get bogged, stay loose and ride the smoothest, straightest line.

Fatter tires and stand up.

If you stay seated, the front tire will not be able to carry its weight and basically float, making it really hard to control.

Growing up on the beach in Hawaii, I have had my fair share of riding in sand and found that the wet sand that the ocean just saturated is 30 times easier to ride on than dry sand.

Question: I have been trying to ride on some trials that have very soft sand and especially agitated by ATVs.  When I hit a soft patch my front tire pulls in one direction and I freak out a little.  I cannot seem to plow through it and ultimately just end up moving slower and slower, which than leads to a full stop.  Is there some trick or style to riding on these trails?

What is the trick to riding on sand?

The trick is: if you LOWER THE TIRE PRESSURE, any tire will float over sand like magic. That said, big wide tires are better. With regard to riding style, it is beter to sit back, relax and guide the bike rather than steer it.  Riding on sand is pretty easy once you get the hang of it, keep yourself heavy on the front of the bike through technical dh sections and over the back on a low gear on climbs, when riding on sand around corners (especially deep sandy sections) avoid leaning into the corners too much and don't be afraid to counter steer with the bars, just don't do it too quick or you will be jerked off, try not to ride the brakes too much especially when going around corners or you could easily get bogged, stay loose and ride the smoothest, straightest line.

A lower tyre pressure and thicker tyres will help the tyre to 'float' over sand. Keep a steady cadence without sharp changes in speed or direction. Keep your weight back and stay loose and relaxed. Use your weight to steer, not the handlebars. Plan ahead, keep a smooth, straight line and gently guide the bike. Riding on sand is a learned skill, so keep practising and get used to the surface.


They were very heavily advertised several years ago but currently they seem to show up more on craigslist than on TV.

I have ridden one - it used weights thrown out by centrifugal force and springs to move the derailleur in and out.

Horrible is all I can say.

Maybe it was me not being used to it, but things like not being in the gear you left it in, and less than smooth changes - which you have not idea when they are going to happen, especially under power.

The only redeeming feature was it was a borrowed bike I could give back at the end of the weekend holiday.

That said, for cruising around a by someone who otherwise would not ride, and only on flat, even ground), its would do the job.

Trek had a bicycle a few years ago named "Lime" which had 3 speed automatic gearing.

I don't think it sold well.

It used a gearing system called "Coasting" that was created by Shimano and actually controlled by a computer chip from signals from the front hub.

"A dynamo is fitted on the front hub that gauges the revolutions of the wheel.

It sends this information to a computer chip housed near the pedals on most of the bikes.

From there, the chip, which controls the planetary gears located on the back hub, determines whether to shift up or down.

All the chip needs to make its determination is for a rider to pedal four or five times, according to Shannon Bryant, Coasting project coordinator for Shimano."

There's the Nuvinci Harmony .

It uses the Nuvinci N360 CVP hub, which is a continuously variable transmission , meaning there are no shift points.

The Harmony controller changes the ratio based on cadence, or it can be adjusted manually.

There have been attempts over the years, but never particularly successful.

One

I recall used a 5-speed rear hub that was shifted by weights on the spokes, similar to a centrifugal governor.

I expect that, with the new electric shifters, there will be some new attempts at it in the next year or two.

With a computer it should be possible to be reasonably "smart", especially if mated to some sort of torque meter.

I know Im a little late for this posting

but this is the first time I came across such question.

I do own a Trek Lime, purchased back in 2007.

This is a fully automatic bicycle.

It has 3 speeds a front hub dynamo (speed sensor), a shifter module-solenoid (computer) under the center frame, and the 3 speed auto-shifter hub in the rear wheel.

As far as I know there has always been autoshifting bikes out there, they're rare and not very cheap, but a joy to ride.

As the Nuvinci system has been mentioned in other answers, I'll mention one more.

SRAM makes the Automatix hub now.

It's a 2 speed system (ratios 1:1, 1:1.37) with a centrifugal clutch.

There's no manual shifting possible and no cables involved.

Check out the new Autobike http://www.autobike.tv .

It uses a CVT.

I have one with an automatic, its a six speed.

It works really well actually, you just pedal nice and it does a real nice up/down shift in the gears; its not a hard riding bike, it's a nice causal ride, great for me and the dog, but it will up shift and down shift on its own.

It seems to be an older bike.

I picked it up at a garage sale for ten bucks; it has 3 weights on the back wheel that have the name dad on the and small piece of plastic the size of a dime that rides in a groove.

If I'm not riding it wont shift.

The only stickers on the bike are ones that say metro and automatic.

I have searched the web for about three years and find nothing of the likes of it.

Not really, the one from Nu Vinci is closest but Has manual shift

the weight factor is an issue.

The major problem in developing is the input power is too low for a fully mechanical system to respond smoothly and if you include electronics it becomes too complex.

But I believe some solution is possible.

I don't know much about it and it doesn't seem to be publicly available yet

but Bioshift is the most recent variant I know of.

It basically seems to be an extension for Di2 electronic shifting.

Question: Has anyone ever designed or manufactured an automatic transmission (or automatic shifter?) for cycling?  I imagine such a device would automatically change the gearing to allow the rider to maintain constant cadence or constant torque on the cranks.  I used to daydream about the existence of such a system many years ago when riding my first (battered, second hand) racer as it was such an ordeal to change gears.

Is there such thing as an automatic transmission for bikes?

There are a number of bikes on the market with automatic gear.  Trek, Shimano, SRAM are some of the companies that make them. Real cycling enthusiasts do not seem to be terrible keen on them. However, for people who would otherwise not cycle, they are a great idea. They are most suited to casual riding, on flat ground but are not really suited to hard riding.

There are several automatic gear systems that use mechanical or electronic shifting. Mechanical options can be difficult to get used to and may change gears suddenly at unexpected times, while electronic shifting can be overly complex. They have never been particularly successful commercially, but can be used with slower bikes for cruising.

There are several automatic gear systems that use mechanical or electronic shifting. They have never been particularly popular, but can be used with slower bikes for cruising.


In " Epidemiology of bicycle injuries and risk factors for serious injury " by Frederick P Rivara, Diane C Thompson, and Robert S Thompson, the authors gave a questionnaire to 3,390 bicycle riders who had attended a hospital emergency department in the Seattle area.

They found that cyclists involved in a crash at a speed greater than 15 miles per hour were 1.4 times as likely to have a "severe" injury (defined as an injury severity score greater than 8) as cyclists involved in a crash at a speed of 15 miles per hour or less.

The 95% confidence interval was 1.0 to 1.9.

(Caveats: 1.

It seems strange to me that the authors only reported odds ratios, when they apparently had the data to compute effect sizes too.

The fast cyclists differ systematically from the slower cyclists: the odds ratio fell to 1.2 when other factors in the study were controlled for.

It's Rivara, Thompson and Thompson.)

As far as I know, in any vehicle, there is a direct relationship between speed and severity, statistically speaking, with "lots" of studies showing that.

This also applies to being hit, or front-to-front crashes.

There's even the term "high-energy-trauma", applied by health professionals to injuries involving high energies, for example high kinetic energies.

Of course there are confounding factors: are fast riders (professional riders?)

more skilled?

Are fast racing events the place for a more "focused" riding?

Do they fall less, or are someow more prepared to fall?

Anyway, I cannot see how a SLOWER fall could hurt MORE than a fast one.

It's a matter of kinetic energy, speed of response of human motor coordination, even common sense.

Although I have not evidence to bring about, I hope this helps someway.

It is totally dependent on the impact.

If you run into a wall you want to be going slower.

If you hit a bump and are launched off your bike or jump off a cliff you want to be going faster.

I don't know physics well enough to explain it that way

but I do ride a lot of street (jumping down stairs, off roofs, etc.)

so I will explain it how I know you want to land in that sense.

Think about the angle of impact jumping off a loading dock, if you drop going at a slow speed you will impact the ground almost at a 90 degree angle, your body will need to absorb almost all the impact (on a non-suspension bike).

If you go faster you will impact the ground at say 45 degrees, you will feel a lot less impact on your body.

Taking that to the tour de france (or crashing in general, even on a jump), if you roll rather than slide, your impact on the ground will be a lot less at higher speeds, your chance of twisting a leg or whatever is less because your limb doesn't have time to get planted.

It might help to watch some parkour, they will roll out of a jump because they are trying to transfer the impact at an angle against the ground rather than absorbing an impact perpendicular to the ground.

I think there is likely no clear answer.

The points go both ways.

Yes at speed there is the ability to roll.

But also the risk of trauma with a stationary object.

Be it an object or the ground.

Humans are soft and squishy with fragile bones compared to concrete and asphalt, rocks or trees.

Those who can and do ride at higher speeds are generally fitter, often younger, and more able to bounce back from an injury.

These speedy types have learned to be situationally aware, and are more alert to their surroundings and the proximity of obstacles.

When I noticed this when riding quite fast on an ebike...

I was looking around a lot more and riding much more defensively so

if an obstruction were to appear, I already knew where my runout spaces were.

Having had one significant-speed whoopsie myself that was caught on camera, I can say that perception of time really does slow down when its all going badly.

Perhaps thinking "this is gonna hurt" is the key.

Question: I have heard that the severity of injuries tend to decrease while riding a road bike at high speed. An instance of high speed would be like those in the Tour de France.  The reasoning behind this idea is "enough" speed allows the cyclist to "roll" upon landing thus decreasing the chance of breaking bones for example.   This seems contrary to my basic knowledge of physics and momentum, so, is it true?

Do higher speed crashes result in less serious injuries.

Studies show that cyclists involved in crashes at high speed are more likely to have serious injuries than those involved in crashes at a slower speed. However, people who ride at higher speed tend to be fitter and more able to bounce back from an injury. Moreover, the type of impact makes a differenceç if you hit a wall, you want to be going slowerò if you hit a bump and get launched off the bike you want to be going faster as you will hit the ground at a better angle.

Academic studies have shown a positive correlation between speed and severity of injury on bikes, and this is true with other vehicles too. However, faster accidents may be correlated with fitter and younger riders who are more aware of their surroundings and able to respond to risks and falls, as well as being able to recover quicker. Hitting a stationary object will be worse at speed, while falling off at speed might deflect the force sideways.

Types of accidents may affect the influence of speed. Hitting a stationary object will be worse at speed, while falling off at speed might deflect the force sideways.


The 3 foot law is an example of a law that exists mostly to create awareness rather than having some direct practical function.

This law is rarely enforced by itself.

Can anyone cite an instance where a motorist was ticketed for passing in under three feet (and not ticketed for anything else)?

The 3-foot law is, AFAIK, typically enforced as a supplement to some other violation such as failure to yield or reckless driving.

But more than anything else, the intent is to create some level of awareness in motorists about how to deal with cyclists.

If motorists know it is a law, most will make an effort to abide by the law.

A quick google search reveals that, as of this year, 20 states in the USA have this law.

You can view a map depicting the status of this law in the United States here: http://www.3feetplease.com/important-stuff

It seems to me that in the last 10 years or so, motorists have been getting much better than in the past about getting along with bikes.

It could be the marked lanes/signage, or perhaps things like the 3-foot law, but I have noticed a LOT LESS "entitlement-to-the-road" behavior from motorists than in the 1990's and earlier.

Three feet just seems (to legislators) like a reasonable number (it's 1 meter in the UK

and I think most of Europe).

And I know it's the law in Minnesota.

Don't know about any other states.

Would a different number make more sense?

Probably not.

Less would be out-and-out dangerous, and more would create the situation where the bike (in theory) blocks traffic in too many cases (and hence would be ignored even more than the current law).

Pennsylvania's got a new four-foot law.

It was recently enforced after an attempted hit-and-run in Bethlehem, PA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7AVC1YCcO0).

(I should clarify that it was a hit-and-attempted-run, as other motorists pinned the driver in to prevent him from running).

France has such a law (1 metre in cities, 1.5 metres in the country).

That safety margin is also applicable to passing pedestrians and animals.

France (and, "much of Europe") also has a "strict liability law" ( ref and ref ), IOW if there's an accident

then it's up to the car-driver to prove that they're not negligent.

Five feet seems to be a popular variant of the 3-feet law.

I suspect that's because if you tell people five, maybe they will give three.

But five has the benefit of making it cleaer that the car needs to partially cross over to the other lane instead of trying to squeeze by without crossing the line.

The 3-Foot Law passed a few years back has brought much more awareness with motorists and cyclists alike here in CA.

I have noticed greater compliance here in Midtown Sacramento where one motorist will yield to a bicyclist and whoever is behind them in the following car will follow suit.

How other cities/neighborhoods have reacted is beyond my reach, since I only ride in Sacramento, however, my best guess would be motorists are much more aware of the need to "share the road" there as well.

It should be noted

when the law passed, there was significant backlash from the "entitled motorists" among us.

This lasted for at least a year.

Gradually, however, at least here in Midtown, I've witnessed improvement in the relationship between cyclists and motorists alike.

A reduction in the speed of both is critical for this to work, and that has happened with the advent of protected bike lanes, bicycling education classes sponsored by the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA), and a better appreciation of the role of bicyclists in the area.

We're hopeful for continued change.

Question: Some states seem to have something called the 3 foot law to keep cars away from cyclists.  Why 3 feet?  Which states in the USA have it?

What is the "3 foot law" and which US states have it?

The 3 foot law is not only found in the US. There is the 1 meter law in both the UK and France. The idea is to make motorists more aware of sharing the road with cyclists. It is rarely enforced on its own but may be added to other driving offences like reckless driving. 20 states currently have the 3 foot law, including Pennsylvania and California. There is a website http://www.3feetplease.com/important-stuff listing all the states that implement this law. In Sacramento, at least, it appears to have had a beneficial effect on driver behavior, although when it was first introduced there was a backlash from motorists.

The three foot law is in force in 20 states, and many states and countries set similar or greater distances, sometimes depending on the type of road. Three feet is about one metre, and provides an easily understood safe distance without overly restricting traffic. Usually it is not enforced by itself, but rather as a supplement to another violation. Making this distance the law increases awareness of the necessary clearance and improves driver behaviour, and several answers note a greater willingness to share the road since the law came into force.

The three foot law is in force in 20 states, and many states and countries set similar or greater distances, sometimes depending on the type of road. Three feet is about one metre, and provides an easily understood safe distance without overly restricting traffic. Usually it is not enforced by itself, but rather as a supplement to another violation. It also serves to raise awareness of necessary clearance.

Making this distance the law increases awareness and improves driver behaviour, and several answers note a greater willingness to share the road since the law came into force.


1x9 setups are more common on a mountain bike or commuter bike setup with rapidfire shifters than a drop bar setup.

However, due to a lack of front derailleur they can have chain jump issues due to the effect of the rear derailleur on the chainline.

This has to be compensated for, often with a chain guard on the outer side and jump stop on the inner side of the front chainring.

It's also a bit weirder to have 2 STI brifters and only have one of them for shifting on a road / cross bike.

Especially when brifters cost a lot of money.

Most groupsets come with all the drivetrain and shifting gear for a 2x9 or 2x10 setup.

So, they install it on the bikes as a set, It would probably be cost prohibitive for manufacturers to break up the groupset and they would probably have to pay for extra parts (like a chain guard) to make it work.

There are however several bikes on the market with a single front chainring and an internally geared rear hub.

These bikes don't suffer the downfalls of having to deal with chain jumps as much as bikes with derailleurs since the chainline stays consistent (and hopefully releativly straight).

UPDATE:

Modern mountain bikes and some cyclocross bikes have been switching to 1x drivetrains as a standard drivetrain option.

New technology, clutch rear derailleurs, narrow wide chainrings (there are several variations), and wider range rear cassettes (up to 44t) have made it so you can have a wider gear range and get rid of the extra chain retention gear that you used to need for this setup.

SRAM and Shimano both sell 1x drivetrain groupsets and now some frame manufacturers are dropping support for front derailleurs.

There are plenty of bikes available with a single chainring.

However, only certain types of bicycles come with single chainrings.

People generally buy according to their needs, and products are generally offered in accordance with demand.

The two main categories of bikes that often come with a single chainring are comfort/city bikes and track/single-speed bikes.

Comfort bikes such as beach cruisers often have coaster brakes, chain guards, and other features to minimize the amount of maintenance required.

Track bikes were originally designed for racing at velodromes, but they have developed a broader appeal due to trendiness and low maintenance requirements.

On the other hand, road bikes and mountain bikes generally have a wide range of gears to allow a wide range of speeds.

If they came with only a single chainring, they would not meet the needs of most cyclists, so they wouldn't be bought.

In short, there are plenty of bicycles with single chainrings, and they tend to be bikes that are designed to be low maintenance.

Bikes designed for performance usually come with a wide range of gears.

I suspect marketing.

More is always better.

If you were naive to bikes and you saw two derailleur bikes for $499: One with 9 gears (1 x 9) or one with 27 gears (3 x 9).

Which do you think they will choose?

In western society, more is always and without question better.

The single chainring bike might have better components (due to being simpler at the same price point), but people will fixate on the number of gears.

That said, I have noticed quite a few 8 speed hub internal hub bikes on the market now.

Single chain ring with essentially the same number of gears as a single chainring derailleur bike, but they can do a marketing end run around the issue of number of gears with a different sell, namely the reduced maintenance and simplicity associated with an internal hub.

Aside - I will avoid any discussion of whether or not internal hubs are simpler and lower maintenance, just that this is the common "knowledge" about internal hub bikes.

UPDATE

well the market forces have swung and now many high end bikes are switching to 1x (11 to 13 speed cassettes make this feasible), so more 1x are now finding their way to lower end bikes.

A wide range of gears on the rear is 11 T to 34 T which lets you vary your mechanical advantage by about 310% on a bike with only a rear derailleur .

The front derailleur is (compared to the rear derailleur) a simple piece of equipment that greatly increases your ability to go fast on the flats while climbing comfortably.

Adding a front crankset that goes from 24 T to 52 T lets you vary your mechanical advantage by ((52/11) / (24/34)) or 670% with both derailleurs between large-front/small-rear and small-front/large-rear.

(The actual mechanical advantage has to take into account the ratio between the pedal circle circumference and the drive-wheel circumference, but I'm dividing mechanical advantages here so that constant divides out.)

Bikes with only a front derailleur aren't made today because they don't pick up the slack in the chain, though I've heard that early model chained bikes were often ridden with slack chains.

In case of road bikes, back in 2012 (when question was asked), there was simply no option.

There was some cyclocross setup but didn't really sell in this market.

Road single chainring group set only available in 2015 by SRAM.

I just switched to their 1x11 (48t 11-36) from 2x10 (50/36 11-26).

Hardly miss the closer ratio of the 2x10 or top speed, which probably would be important if you race.

I really appreciate the easier effort needed to clean bottom bracket area.

I can see that 1x12 setup is coming, so expect to see more people switch from double chainrings.

And then we'll probably can have single chainring specific frames, i.e. without the extra cable stops, hole and routing for front derailleur.

Question: Bikes with two or three chainrings are the norm, and then there are singlespeeds, but except for kids' bikes, you see almost no stock bikes with a single chainring in front but a cassette and derailleur in the back. It seems like for a lot of people this would be a nice balance with respect to simplicity, weight, maintenance, so why are there so few?

Why are there almost no bikes with a single chainring?

There are plenty of bikes available with a single chainring.  However, only certain types of bicycles come with single chainrings. The two main categories of bikes that often come with a single chainring are comfort/city bikes and track/single-speed bikes. Comfort bikes such as beach cruisers often have coaster brakes, chain guards, and other features to minimize the amount of maintenance required.  On the other hand, road bikes and mountain bikes generally have a wide range of gears to allow a wide range of speeds. However, more bikes are appearing on the market with a single chain ring and they are generally being marketed for the reduced maintenance and simplicity associated with an internal hub.

Setups without front derailleurs are common on bikes designed to be low maintenance, especially with hub gears. On performance bikes, the second gear greatly increases the range and reduces the angle between the front and back chainring on high and low gears. However, new technology allows a wider range and more chainrings, allowing manufacturers to use a single front chainring. While many people assume that more gears are automatically better, the popularity of hub gears in city bikes and the introduction of 11 to 13 speed cassettes is changing the market in this regard.


On old steel bikes a good reason would be to prevent the seatpost from rusting onto the frame, thus preventing saddle height adjustment.

More recently I understand from my LBS that you do it to prevent water from seeping into the frame along the (imperfectly sealed) seatpost.

Depending on your frame you could end up carrying one or more kilo's of water with you if you have a lot of rainy rides.

I present you with evidence that seatposts can, in fact, seize ! Alloy and steel seatposts are both perfectly capable of seizing to both alloy and steel frames.

IIRC, carbon seatpost/frame combinations may need carbon assembly paste for almost the opposite reason: to increase friction and reduce the torque required for a good grip.

In addition to the seizure problem that others have mentioned, greasing the seatpost also prevents another problem: creaks.

I once spent weeks chasing down a creak that I initially thought was coming from the crank or bottom bracket.

After disassembling and reassembling all that stuff, then tightening almost every single bolt on the bike, someone suggested that the creak could be coming from the seatpost rubbing inside of the seat tube

and I should grease it.

Bingo!

Problem solved.

Depends: Frame and post material matters.

With metal, bonding or rust can occur Carbon posts can need the friction because they tend to be a smoother material

There can be imperfections that are too small for us to notice, so the grease can help to fill the gap for the seatpost retention to work

That bit of grease on the seat post into the seat tube will help "seal" the seat tube from getting any moisture into the bike frame.

It may also keep the seat post from seizing in the seat tube.

It does happen if the seat isn't moved for years.

Question: When I bought a new bike my LBS put grease on the part of the seatpost that inserts into the frame.   Why is this? Surely it can't seize?

Why did the bike shop put grease on my seatpost?

For steel bikes the seat post is greased for two reasons mainly. First to stop the seat post from rusting onto the frame. Second to act as a sealant and prevent any moisture getting into the frame.  Carbon seat posts, on the other hand, need the grease to create friction as they are so smooth. Furthermore, the grease also stops the seat from creaking.

Steel seatposts can rust onto the frame, so grease can prevent rust and stop moisture from entering the frame, while filling in slight imperfections that can impede seatpost retention. Grease also prevents seatposts from creaking. Carbon bikes may need assembly paste to increase friction and grip.


Grab some of the disinfecting wipes in the round containers that you normally use for kitchen counters, etc.

I like the Clorox brand in the yellow

(Lemon Fresh!).

Wrap around bars and squeeze a bit as you twist/rotate in the same direction as the wrap.

With cork based wrap this is fairly effective.

With some of the slicker surfaced wraps (Lizard, etc), it's downright awesome.

If you start cleaning with the wipes on a regular schedule your wrap will get even cleaner over time.

I use a citrus degreaser and its great.

I clean my entire bike with it, but it gets the sweat and oils off the tape

so the dirt stops sticking.

I use a cleaning product called Simple Green.

It's bio-degradable ( good for the environment ) and really does a complete cleaning job!

You can mix it at different strengths from a 1/2 gallon or 1 gallon refill size.

It comes in a spray bottle initially.

I use it to clean my bicycle rather than soap and water.

It is safe to use and doesn't harm the paint.

Just spray it on the bike or a soft cloth, and wipe the grease and dirt/dust off easily.

No need to rinse the bike.

It should gently remove the dirt/sweat from your handlebar tape.

If the grips are cork, use just a little Simple Green on a soft cloth and wipe gently and remove from the tape.

Don't allow the Simple Green to stay on the tape for an extended period ( which is determined by the strength you mix the Simple Green ).

Same goes for wiping the bike using Simple Green.

Don't allow it to dry on the paint.

Wipe it on and with a dampened second cloth, wipe it off.

You'll find more uses for Simple Green besides your bike!

If you're married, better buy two bottles so your spouse can have their own bottle!

Dishwashing liquid and a small amount of baking soda, warm water, on an old sock or rag.

Wipe with damp rag.

Clean and bright.

Most of the dirt on my handlebar tape is from cleaning debris from tires while cycling.

I've used Cif or Jif as it used to be called.

Its a cream bathroom and kitchen surface cleaner.

Works wonders.

I've never gone wrong cleaning wraps using a soapy rag and elbow grease.

I use an old bit of towel and dish soap.

This has done a great job cleaning up thoroughly bike-greased and sweat-upon wraps.

baby wipes all day son - best, cheapest option to rim to rim, and you can even get them in organic!

I've even used coconut oil as an on the spot bike lube.

Question: I have bought not so long ago (about two month) brand new and the shiny white from my handle tap have become pretty dirty:    I am tempted to just change the tape to another color - that would be problem solved for me - but that would basically be a dirty hack. How can I clean the white tape and remove the dirt?

How to clean white handlebar tape?

Various products are recommended for cleaning handlebar wrap. These include disinfecting wipes, baby wipes, citrus degreaser, Simple Green, dishwashing liquid with baking soda and Cif.

Regular cleaning with cleaning wipes is an effective solution. A damp cloth and a cleaning product like citrus degreaser, Simple Green or dishwashing liquid and baking soda can also work.


It is all subjective, but I would say that a public place is better (as I have previously answered to a similar question ).

Most bike thefts are opportunistic; unless you've got an especially desirable bike the theft is not about your bike, it's about stealing any bike.

So the key is to reducing the opportunity to steal your bike: as you point out, reducing the amount of time to work on the lock(s) make it less desirable and more identifiable (dirt, scuffs, mods) give alternatives - parking next to a shiny newer more expensive looking one with a poorer lock I would also say to try to use a public bike rack - then you've also got a chance that a fellow cyclist would interrupt or at least deter a thief.

Several times I've seen someone suspicious loitering around a bike rack when locking/unlocking my bike and I've taken longer about it so as to make them feel uncomfortable and move on.

I don't want my bike nicked and spending a few minutes to maybe slightly protect someone else's makes me feel like a good citizen.

In the end it might matter more WHO is around the rack (policemen, guards, janitors, public workers, parking lot workers, hot-dog stand owners, etc.)

than HOW MANY people.

I'd rather, when available, leave my bike under one lonely ever-present alert pair of eyes than in a crowd of anonymous passers-by.

I've seen videos showing people stealing bikes amidst a crowd of onlookers while no one intervenes.

Locking in a crowded place isn't necessarily going to save your bike.

On the other hand, lots of bikes are stolen from locked garages.

I'm not aware of any statistics about what storage method is safer.

I've never had a bike stolen, but from what I've heard in my social circles, most people's bikes have been stolen while they had locked it up during an outing in the evening, or overnight.

It's always "when I left the bar it was gone," or "in the morning it was gone."

For this reason, I think it's safest to bring your bike into your home overnight.

I would say a quieter place is better.

less people see it, less likely a thief see's it also.

I have had a bike stolen, well a bike wheel actually, stolen from outside my offices - in front of a security guard and cctv camera (both useless it would seem).

Is this link any use?

This ex-bike-thief basically says to lock your bike the busier the better.

As I have posted on here previously, I think if someone decides they are going to go out of their way to steal your bike

, I'm not sure you'll be able to stop them.

But presumably your bike is/will be insured?

If so, read the policy thoroughly and make sure you comply with the minimum specified security requirements.

At least if it does get stolen you'll have some compensation.

In my case the policy covers the grade of lock I need to use (in the UK

there is a standard called "Sold Secure", its arguable whether locks that conform to this standard are better than locks that don't, but it is a standard that appears to keep the insurance companies happy), what I lock the bike to, and how long I can lock it for.

EDIT: If the link above was useful, there's a further excellent link from the Guardian - How to protect your bike from being stripped for parts

Its really not sure, both way have their own disadvantages.

I will say never park your bike anywhere, where there is a chance of you losing its sight, whether busy or quite place.

When you have to be permanently out for several hours, then Find a good secured parking spot to park your bikes.

There should be a guard around or someone who is responsible.

make sure he knows you have parked a bike.

Or, you can also ask him to keep an eye on the bike (depending on the nature of the person)

If its possible, make irregular visits to the parking spot.

Confusing the thief.

Complete your work and rush to your bike :) At my city, I park around a firm thing.

Whether poles, or railing, to increase the difficulty ( but its not allowed everywhere, so not so helpful ).

Hal Ruzal, a bike security expert, has a series of videos on YouTube , some of which are done in conjunction with the police.

In one he answers just this very question.

His answer is not what you may think and does not match the current top answer here.

He says it is much better to lock it in a quiet area.

This is because the thieves are more edgy in terms of being seen or heard.

In a busy area they are not noticed and the noises and things they do blend in with all else that is going on.

He has spoken to thieves and knows how they work / think.

He often grades bikes based on how well they are locked.

If you can keep your eye on it then that is a different matter of course.

And of course it must be locked to something secure which may also determine where you lock it.

I would also add that locking it next to other bikes does not work as some answers suggest.

As the thief blends in.

You look and think he is just unlocking his bike next to yours -

but he is after your bike!

I once came out of an office where I locked my bike next to others to find a guy suddenly jump.

I swore

I saw him trying to unlock my bike and move away.

He seemed to then pretend he was unlocking the bike next to mine!

I was not sure

so just left it as my lock and bike were not damaged.

He may have been trying to pick the lock.

But it shows how they blend in this way.

Question: When I lock my bicycle I try to lock it on quiet spots, usually on street racks situated on secondary streets.  I think it will be less visible so it  will attract less looks. On the other hand, if a thief wants to steal it, he will have more time to act before someone spots him.  Is it better to lock the bicycle in crowded or quiet locations?

Lock my bicycle on busy or quiet places?

There is little consensus on whether your bike is more likely to get stolen if parked in a crowded place or a quiet street and there do not seem to be any official figures on the matter. Both places have advantages and disadvantages. However, the nicer your bike is, the more likely it is to get stolen, it is believed. Thus, parking next to a better-looking  bike may be the best answer. Apparently, most bikes are stolen in the evening or at night so it is probably better to keep your bike inside at that time.

It is difficult to say objectively which is better, but thieves tend to be opportunistic and may be able to use the anonymity of crowds as well as the isolation of a quieter place. Leaving it during an outing or overnight seems to be more risky. Most thieves are not targeting individual bikes, so making a bike more difficult to steal and less appealing can help. Crowds are unlikely to stop a thief, especially when moving staying for a short time, but a security guard or vendor might be more aware of their surroundings and more willing to intervene.


The Good or less worn tire should go on the front wheel as indicated in this Sheldon Brown Article on Tire Rotation

Although the article does hint to the fact that you should not be really rotating tires to the front wheel that may have been used on the rear wheel.

The only time tire rotation is appropriate on a bicycle is when you are replacing the rear tire.

If you feel like taking the trouble, and use the same type of tire front and rear, you should move the front tire to the rear wheel, and install the new tire in front.

The reason for this is that the front tire is much more critical for safety than the rear, so you should have the more reliable tire on the front.

If you have a blowout, if it is on the rear tire, you have a very good chance of bringing the bike to a controlled stop.

If your front tire blows, you can lose steering control, and a crash is a real possibility.

Generally you want the best tread on the front, as a front tire skid is much more dangerous than a rear tire skid.

However, I tend to ride my tires until the cord nearly shows, and, given that flats are about 5x more common on rear tires than front tires (and front-tire flats are much easier to fix), I'd be tempted to put the better tire on the rear, to reduce flat potential.

@MrDaniel

has a very good answer, however if the bike is used XC MTB a blowout is less of a concern than handling when compared to a road bike, as MTB tires (in true off road conditions) loose performance as they loose tread, unlike a road tire.

Your riding style and ground you ride will dictate to some extent what you do.

If you have steep, slippery uphills and traction your most important problem, a better tread on the back helps.

If control is your problem and you find the front a bit sketchy - then the new one on the front would be better.

If in doubt, don't loose any sleep over it - put it on either the one you are replacing (easy - only one tire change) or the front.

Don't forget that with MTB tires they are all quite different characteristics, build for particular combinations of riding conditions and tradeoffs.

Some are designed specifically for back or front, or you change the rotation direction between front and back - therefore it is not as simple as just considering tread wear.

Least worn tyre on the front, always.

I have pretty worn tyres, the back is completely smooth, and the front has maybe half a mm of tread in the middle.

Both have lugs on the shoulders.

We have been training hard for an upcoming 12-hour MTB endurance social event.

All my rear-wheel slips have been recoverable, (at least a dozen), while both front wheel slips were complete wipeouts resulting in skidding, blood and one smashed phone.

That said - "sufficient" tread on both is a really good idea.

You can get away with less tread on the road than off-road Except when the road is wet.

If you have low tread on a road bike on a wet road - you will probably go down.

Place the less worn tire on the front.

You need very little tread to achieve traction on the rear tire when climbing.

Though counter intuitive, tire tread has very little impact on keeping your rear tire from slipping and spinning out on a climb.

Maintaining traction is much more about torque, and weight and body positioning on the bike.

I intentionally use a rear tire with low worn out center tread to reduce drag and increase rolling efficiency.

Center tread on the rear tire may help keep the tail from bouncing and sliding around a bit, but this is not critical in maintaining control.

Very thoughtful considerations, especially directing the thinking towards MTB terrain given that so many folks drive to trails and might not worry about pavement wear and those safety concerns as much.

My knee-jerk reaction to the original question was a more superficial performance thought for a MTB: If you rely on a knobby tread and encounter sloppy (muddy/wet) conditions with a worn-down rear tire and a newer front tire, you might be better served rotating the newer tire to the drive tire in the rear.

It would have to be a pretty bald rear tire to make the swap noticeable though.

If I have two bald tires and only enough money for one tire, I'd definitely replace the back one first if the conditions are sloppy.

Question: Where should I put the least worn tyre? on the front or the back? This is for XC MTB.

Least worn tyre: front or back?

The good or less worn tire should go on the front wheel as indicated in this Sheldon Brown Article on  Tire Rotation. The reason for this is that the front tire is much more critical for safety than the rear, so you should have the more reliable tire on the front. However, for MTB, there seems to be a lack of consensus, although many believe it is important to have the better tread on the rear wheel when driving over sloppy ground. That said - "sufficient" tread on both is a really good idea.

Experts indicate that the less worn tyre should always go on the front, since a front blowout is much more likely to result in a crash. However, it is a good idea not to allow too much wear on either tyre. Some MTB riders would prefer to replace the rear tyre, as this increases grip when climbing and as rear tyres are more likely to have a blowout. Front and back MTB tyres may be different for particular terrain, so it may not be possible to rotate the tyres.


Breathe

however you need to in order to get oxygen in.

This goes for your mouth, nose or a combination of both.

Riders warming up on their trainers have cotton in their noses that contains something like vapor rub that helps open up the nasal passages.

They don't have it in their noses during the race itself.

For some people, weather conditions (specifically: temperature and humidity) make a big difference.

Not so much for direct intake of oxygen, but because repeated inhalation of cold, dry air directly through the mouth can cause significantly more irritation of the airways and lungs , triggering asthma symptoms.

Breathing through the nose warms and slightly moistens the air before it goes to your windpipe and lungs and can decrease this effect.

Nose-breathing has the added benefit of filtering out particulate matter.

As far as I know, breathing through the nose might be the healthier option if you don't need the extra oxygen (for say, intense uphill efforts).

Breathing through the nose will optimize the temperature, humidity of the air you breath in and also makes any pollution reach your lungs a bit less probable.

There are also some other subtle effects, but since I'm no expert, I won't go into that.

You might want to research that if you are very interested.

During an intense effort, I would say deep (diaphragm) breathing through the nose and the mouth is the most effective way to fill your lungs with fresh air.

You might want to practice diaphragm breathing off the bike as well to get used to it.

It isn't very natural for the first time.

So the tldr version is: Nose when not intense effort Nose and mouth when intense effort Also try to keep your mouth humid when you breath through it (drink very small sips of water frequently).

A dry mouth is very unpleasant and also unhealthy (gums, throat).

On the cotton wool (it's pure speculation):

maybe something is put on them, probably to clean up the upper respiratory tract from mucus.

I think it kinda depends on what type of ride you are going for.

Generally, breathing from mouth provides more amount of oxygen compared to from nose.

So it comes down to this IMO (& Experience):

Nose:

You have to respire quickly to get enough oxygen to lungs

Mouth:

You can breath slowly but you can still get enough oxygen into lungs very quickly.

So, breath

depending on how you are riding .

If you are sprinting you will want to get as more oxygen as you can into the lungs, but if you are going on a casual ride, breathing from nose is enough and safe (from bugs etc).

Some people get "Exercise-induced asthma" --

a.k..a. exercise-induced bronchoconstriction -- they say it's from breathing (air

that's cold, dry, and/or polluted) through your mouth.

It's especially true of/among cyclists (who exercise for a relatively long time).

If that's you, you might it's worth it to breath in only through your nose.

It may not be easy to tell whether you get (mild) asthma -- given that the symptom is, like, "shortness of breath while exercising".

I think it may be "unable to breathe as deeply as normal, either in or out" -- but don't take my word for it.

Youtube:

Why Do So Many Pro Cyclists Have Asthma?

Question: I just watched the 'Road to Glory' documentary about Team Sky.  I noticed when they were warming up on their Turbos, some of them had cotton wool up their noses.  Is this because it's better to breathe through your mouth than nose?  If so, why don't they have cotton wool up their noses during the actual race?

Is it better to breathe through your nose or mouth when cycling?

Most people agree that breathing through your nose is more benficial under normal conditions. It has the advantage of warming and moistening the air and filtering out dust and pollution. However, breathing the mouth provides more oxygen and thus is better when under extreme physical effort, for example climbing steep hills.

Some athletes use cotton containing decongestent to free up their passages before a ride. Breathing through your nose warms the air and filters out some particles, which decreases the chance of irritation and asthma symptoms. Nose breathing provides less oxygen, but may be healthier and more suitable for warming up and less intense efforts. When sprinting, athletes breathe through their mouth and nose together.