In case you really want to drill, the only thing you need is a 10mm drill bit, and a sandpaper to give a smooth finish.

It is true that the rim gets weaker, and very narrow rims should not be drilled, but I have performed this enlargement a couple of times and rode the wheels some honest hundreds of km in every kind of terrain, with no problem.

I did this because I like the ease to get at any gas pump to top tire pressure after trails, and also because schraeder tubes are more avaliable and less expensive where I live.

Drilling out your rims will reduce the strength of the rim and increase the likelihood of cutting the valve stem on your tube.

For a few dollars you can buy two of these:

This adapter threads onto a Presta valve and effectively turns it into a Schrader valve.

Presta valve tubes are the same price and are as widely available as Schrader valve tubes, so you shouldn't need to drill out your rims.

(Also, depending on how deep your rims are, finding Schrader valve tubes with valve stems long enough could be a challenge.)

For a discussion of the virtues of Presta v. Schrader valves, check here .

With MTB tires, there's really no issue in drilling out the valve hole to a larger size since the rims are so wide to begin with.

You can do it yourself with a drill bit (3/8" or 10mm) or have your LBS do it.

Sanding or reaming the hole afterwards is important, as well as making sure there aren't any sharp metal bits floating around afterwards that might puncture your tubes.

If you ever want to go back again (after having blown through your 10-pack of schraders), you'll find that you have the opposite problem -- the hole is now too large and the presta valve will fit loosely.

You can get "presta schrader rim adapters" that fill in this gap and prevent the tube from bulging through or the valve rattling: search term: https://www.google.com/search?q=schrader+presta+rim+adapter

It depends on the width of the rim, and how it's constructed.

If the rim is over about 32mm (about 1.25", measured from inside to inside)

then it probably has sufficient "meat" in the rim that drilling will not significantly weaken it.

But of course it would be silly to do this simply because you have a Scharader tube -- tubes are cheap.

Tubes may be cheap, but good luck filling a presta valve when you are on the road in the USA.

NO gas station has presta chucks.

And if you are living in the USA, it's a 3/8 inch drill bit to convert to schrader valve.

I have yet to see anyone have a wheel collapse due to converting to schrader valves.

The bike shops warn against it because they gotta sell those presta tubes they have in stock.

Only reason I can see for NOT converting is there may not be a schrader tube available in your size rim.

That's when you use the adapter shown above.

Look on YouTube and you will find videos on how to change from presta to schrader valves.

Actually, correct drill bit size is 21/64", not 3/8" http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sa-o.html - search for Schrader

21/64" is the proper size drill bit.

I found one of this size at Autozone.

If you drill from the tire-side in toward the hub, most of the sharp edges will end up on the outside of the rim and will never even impact the tube.

Just scrape off the worst of it

so you don't cut yourself on the edges.

In my case, sanding was not even required.

I have ridden on a drilled out rear wheel for the past six months and treated it to some rough cross country sections including small jumps (at most six feet of distance spent airborne), tree roots and steep rock gardens and there is no sign of metal fatigue around the drill site.

I am not sure how this sort of modification would impact a bike used for downhill biking.

I am so happy with my results that I just drilled out my brand new set of wheels because I appreciate the convenience of the schrader valve.

Question: My 26" mtb rims support presta sized tube stems, however can I drill the diameter of the holes in the rims bigger in order to support Schrader stemmed tubes? what is the proper way to do this, is there a kit?

Schrader tubes in Presta configured Rims?

iT is perfectly possible to drill out Presta rims so you can fit Schrader tubes. The correct drill size to do this, according to Sheldon Brown is 21/64", not 3/8"  http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sa-o.html.  Schrader valves are more convenient, especially for inflating tire at gas stations in US. However, there is no price saving as Presta and Schrader valves cost about the same. Before drilling, it is a good idea to check if a Schrader valve is available to fit the Presta rim.

This is easily done with a 10mm or 21/64" drill bit. There are warnings that this can weaken the rim, but especially with thicker MTB wheels this is not a great risk. Care should be taken to sand the hole and remove sharp metal bits before replacing the tube. Tubes with both valves are readily available, but some sizes may not be available with Schrader valves and it may not be possible to fill a Presta valve while on the road.

Tubes with both valves are readily available, but some sizes may not be available with Schrader valves and it may not be possible to fill a Presta valve on the road.


The main disadvantage to either toe clips or (even moreso) clipless pedals is that until you get used to them you're likely to have a few rather inelegant falls (like pulling up to a stoplight and just falling over).

There are other cases where they can contribute to falls (or exacerbate falls that would have occurred anyway), particularly in off-road conditions (which is one reason that off-road bikers often don't use them).

To me (being partly disabled) the main advantage is that I expend less energy keeping my feet on the pedals.

This isn't as trivial as it sounds:

Without some sort of retention system you must constantly work to keep your feet centered over the pedals -- get off-center and your foot slides off.

Of course, people mostly manage this unconsciously, but it still takes considerable effort/energy, especially when you're tired or struggling against a hill or headwind or whatever.

The ability to "pull" on the pedal and gain energy on the upstroke is probably not significant in the general case, but can be important when you need a brief burst of power/torque.

More important, and somewhat related to the previous paragraph, is the fact that you can extend your power stroke slightly, beginning a few degrees earlier and ending a few degrees later.

You don't get more peak torque, but you do get more energy per unit time.

There is some disagreement within the cycling community about how beneficial clipless pedals and toe clips are over regular platform pedals.

I won't get into the argument here, but feel free to read the above link for the best thought-out argument against clipless pedals.

However, the most commonly named advantage of clipless pedals and toe clips is the ability to pull up on the back stroke, theoretically creating 360 degrees of power.

As I understand it, this idea hasn't really held up under lab tests.

The additional advantages of toe clips are that they're cheap, easy to get in and out of, offer a large degree of float (the way that your foot moves around on the pedal), and can be worn with almost any shoe.

The disadvantages are that they can scuff up and/or wear holes in your shoes, they're not quite as easy to get out of as a platform pedal, and don't offer as much power through the whole 360 degrees of motion as clipless pedals do.

The additional advantages of clipless pedals are a more secure attachment to the pedal, and the ability to wear a shoe with a completely rigid bottom.

The disadvantages are that the reduced float can contribute to repetitive stress injuries, they require special (and often expensive shoes), and they're more difficult to get out of.

You even see experienced cyclists fall over at stoplights once in a while because the pedal refuses to disengage.

My personal preferences are platforms for downhill, trials, and urban riding, toe clips for commuting, clipless for mountain biking and road racing/training.

They are more efficient.

Firstly you need to do less work to keep your feet on the pedals.

Though it seems like that might be trivial

you do expend energy and or concentration on keeping you feet on the pedals

this will reduce that somewhat.

Additionally in some circumstances it is safer, your feet will not slip off the pedals when you go over a bump.

Finally you will be able to pull on the up stroke using different muscles and giving you more even power.

I had a problem with toe straps that I have not had with proper clip in pedals and shoes.

In order to remove your feet from toe straps, especially ones done too tightly you must take them straight back off the pedals.

This is most unnatural as the reflex action is to move them sideways especially if you are slowing down and staring to lean to one side.

It's surprising that this is as hot a topic as it is.

Clipless pedals are more efficient, and you can get stiffer shoes for them.

Competitor or not, if you step foot into clipless pedals I think you will notice the difference.

Go take a pair for a test ride and you will probably favor the increased control, especially if you ride longer distances.

Perhaps the main downside that can't be overcome one way or another, is the increased cost.

As for that infamous argument about whether or not you can produce more power, hopefully we will have enough real world data to bring the argument to rest.

To ride a bike efficiently the ball of your foot must be over the pedal spindle and to answer your question, toe clips and straps are one way of doing this.

Up to the mid-80s that was the method used by all serious cyclists.

You could buy small, medium and large toe clips for any size of shoe to fix your feet in the correct position.

Metal or leather shoe plates with a groove that fitted over the rear pedal plate were nailed to the soles of the leather shoes.

The strap had a quick release buckel and went through the pedal and through a loop on the toe clip.

When the foot engaged the pedal and the strap was pulled tight your foot was held very tight.

To get your foot out

you had to bend down and flick the strap buckle, lift your foot and pull it back.

The modern method is clipless pedals, they serve the same purpose, fixing the ball of your foot always over the pedal spindle.

The initial cost is quite expensive as you require special pedals, shoes and cleats.

When the cleats are fitted to the shoes you just have to push your foot down on the pedal till it clicks and to release it you turn your foot to the left or right.

The holding tension can be adjusted on the pedals to allow for easier entry and release.

They are very good

and I recommend you buy them.

To see and feel the benefit of fixing your feet just try going up a steep hill or sprinting as hard as you can, or ask yourself why do all the Pros use them.

Question: I'm considering getting some toe grips or straps for my bike.  What are the benefits of these over normal pedals?

Benefits of toe grips/toe straps

There are some advantages to toe grips as they keep your feet firmly on the pedal and allow you to apply more pressure, thus creating more power. They also mean you have to expend less effort keeping your feet on the pedal. There are, nevertheless, some disadvantages, namely they take a little getting used to as you have to pull your foot directly backwards to get it off the pedal. This may result in a few falls at first when you have to make a sudden stop. These disadvantages mean they are not much used ny the MTB community.

The main advantages of clipless pedals and toe clips include solid positioning of the feet in an efficient cycling position and possible (but unverified) added power from pulling up on the pedals. Professionals all use clipless pedals, which is a strong vote of confidence in their efficacy. Toe clips and clipless pedals have the potential disadvantage of the need to remove your foot from the fastening, which can cause unnecessary falls or exacerbate accidents. Toe clips have the advantage of being compatible with normal shoes, while clipless pedals allow more rigid soles with a more secure attachment to the sole.


This is a common problem, but really not a big deal.

I've usually heard it called "toe overlap".

I have it on all my bikes.

Basically, it's a bit shocking the first time it happens, but you get used to it .

It's no big deal.

If you're simply aware that it can happen at slow speeds, you'll avoid it easily enough.

Since it can only happen at slow speeds, it's not particularly dangerous.

It's most common on racing-style road bikes due to their short wheelbase or on smaller frame bikes.

Big tires and/or fenders can make it more likely.

Big feet and shoes that stick forward of your toes very far also make it more likely.

Possible solutions include: Try not to worry about it.

It's usually just an annoyance

and you get used to it pretty quickly.

Don't go slow

(can't turn the wheel far enough for it to be a problem unless you're going slow).

When going slow and making a sharp turn, pay attention to where your feet are.

Don't pedal while turning Pump the pedals instead of normal pedaling, so that only your inside foot goes forward Get your feet into a good position (outside foot just below where the pedal overlap happens) as you start to turn.

Also pay attention when starting from a stop.

Pedal with the ball of your foot over the spindle of the pedal.

This is generally considered the "correct" place, and leaves your foot only going a little forward of the pedal.

Some beginners put the arch of their foot on the pedal, which is likely to be uncomfortable on platform pedals, and puts your foot more forward.

Maybe slide your foot back a bit as you're making a slow turn, so that you pedal with your toes instead.

I find this uncomfortable, but it's tolerable for a few seconds.

When you're shopping for bikes, look at how much toe overlap there is.

You don't even need to ride the bike, you can tell by putting the pedal forward, putting a foot on the pedal at about the right position, and turning the handlebars.

Smaller riders may find that bikes with smaller wheels give them less toe overlap.

650b or 26" instead of 700c?

Really, don't worry about it too much.

My son had an toe-overlap issue, and it turned out the forks were on backwards.

I looked up how to take the forks out, and after I turned them around, the bike is perfect.

No toe-overlap!

Thanks for the suggestion.

This exact same thing happened to me, I realised my front bike wheel was the wrong way round!!

I was fuming as I had purchased it from Halfords?

So, I turned the bike wheel around and it was fine!

As in the link that OP posted and the suggestions here most of the actions focus on changing the riding technique.

There is one other option mentioned in the link and one that I thought of should the new technique be no solution.

change the fork rake - by replacing the front fork for the one providing larger wheelbase

you increase the distance between the front axle and the bottom bracket

thus you decrease the toe overlap, probably to the measure that it is not occurring.

On the other hand you also decrease the patch trail of the bike making it more agile when it comes to steering stability (it will be more difficult to ride "no hands") and you increase the wheelbase making the bike slightly more difficult to manoeuvre in slow tight corners.

Hence, solving one problem you create another.

change the cranks to one size shorter - changing from e.g. 170mm cranks to 165mm will decrease the toe overlap slightly.

This may be beneficial if the rider's inseam is on the shorter size - they won't need to stretch their legs that much.

On the downside is that shorter cranks require more power needed to maintain the same cadence.

But since you are replacing the cranks, replace the chainring for a size smaller.

The rider will need to increase their cadence but riding will feel like it requires less effort .

And a biker riding with higher cadence appears to be riding faster, let alone that lower load and faster repetitions (at the gym) allow for more fat burn and muscle tone up, opposed to high load and less repetitions

cause mainly muscle build up.

Just make sure your fork is oriented the correct direction.

I bought a Spot bike, and when it arrived to my house the factory had put the fork on the wrong direction.

Actually, they put the handle bars on the wrong direction, and when they oriented the handle bars correctly it turns the fork 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

This isn’t immediately obvious, and all you may notice is that the pedal hits the front tire.

Question: My girlfriend got a new city bike today and she touches the front wheel every time she has to make a hard turn.  Is there anyway to avoid this besides replacing the whole bike?  LATER EDIT: I think I found my answer  here .

Touching the front wheel with my foot when turning

Touching the front wheel of the bike when turning is a common problem but not a serious one. It usually only happens at slow speed. It is most common on racing style road bikes and bikes with big tires and/or fenders. Moreover, it may be related to the foot position on the pedal: arch on the pedal instead of the ball or the positioning/direction of the fork. To solve the issue, change your foot position and check the fork direction.

This is a common but minor problem that only occurs at slow speeds and can easily be avoided. It can occur on bicycles with a small wheelbase or frame, especially if the feet are too far forward due to putting the arch of the foot on the pedal. Inspect a bike for toe overlap before buying it. Sometimes the fork can be turned backwards, which makes the wheelbase shorter. Smaller wheels or shorter cranks can reduce the problem, as can replacing the fork. To avoid the problem when riding, pay attention to the position of your foot when going slowly and turning. Place the ball of your foot on the pedal rather than the arch, and move it back when turning at a slow speed.


If I understand the problem correctly, it sounds like you're sitting too far forward on this bike.

Whether you're too tall for your frame or not is difficult to diagnose without at least pictures, but you might consider that this bike is simply too small for you.

(If you're having trouble getting the handlebars far enough forward, that's a sign that this could be the case.)

Are you able to get the saddle high enough

so your knees are locked with the heel of your foot on the pedal?

You might also consider simply moving your saddle back on the rails.

That might give you a little more room.

I'd also repeat

Wadelp's suggestion - toe clips will help you keep your feet correctly positioned on the pedals.

You could always add some toe clips to your pedals they will keep your feet positioned on the pedals better.

Clipless pedals - like Shimano SPD or Crank Bros Egg Beaters - work great too, but they do require special shoes with cleats on them.

Ideally, the ball of your feet (the part just below the toes), should be on the pedal to transfer power to the pedals (efficiently and bio-mechanically healthy).

This is also likely causing your knees to "flare" away from the frame (like a V).

You'll want to keep your knee, toes and hip on the same vertical plane.

otherwise long term could lead to knee ligament problems.

It looks like the bike is too small for you.

At 185cm, I would think a 58-62cm frame is better suited depending on your leg length. see http://bicycling.about.com/od/howtoride/a/bike_sizing.htm and http://www.ebicycles.com/bicycle-tools/frame-sizer/road-bike/size-sheet?utf8=%E2%9C%93&u=in&r=man&h=1879.6&i=863.6&b=Calculate

You may want to try this online fit computer .

It does require several measurements, but the results are generally pretty good.

Regarding changing the geometry, you can sometimes make a small bike work, but it will never be as good as a properly-sized bike.

I know someone who rides a too-small Colnago because he's so attached to it.

He has a 120mm stem (maybe longer, can't recall), and his seat is as far back as possible.

He's around 1.83m tall, and his bike is a 54 or 55 (can't recall).

He was commuting on the bike, around 200 miles (322 km)/week.

But just because it works for him doesn't mean it will work for you.

It depends on your geometry, too.

Long legs, short arms would be worse on a too-small bike than short legs, long arms on the same bike, because you need a certain amount of leg extension to pedal efficiently.

Try an offset seat post , that will help get your seat back a little further.

Other than that, sure, a different seat tube angle would change the spatial relationship between your rear and your feet.

But that angle doesn't change too much between the various road bike frames.

Perhaps shortening the effective top-tube length (forcing you more upright) might help the feeling - you can get a shorter stem, or different handlebars.

It begs the question -

why do you care where your feet hit?

If the current scenario is comfortable, then why change it?

Unicyclists (mountain at least) ride with the pedal just in front of their heel.

Given your shoe size (58-59), I can imagine your feet are hitting the front wheel when you turn sharply - so maybe that's the reason...

On some bikes I have that problem, and I wear only 48.

More drastic changes could be switching seat types, like a banana seat (yes, you might look silly).

Or switching bicycle styles, say to a recumbent.

But, really, if the change doesn't "feel" right, have you tried it for an extended period of time?

I'm thinking a couple hours (cumulative) - to get past the initial reaction.

Maybe you've just been riding mid-foot so long it will take a while to change what feels comfortable.

What type of pedal are you using?

You're a relatively tall guy for a 55 cm bike.

You're almost my height, I think you would be much more comfortable on a frame that's closer to 59 cm.

Question: I am 1,85m tall, have shoes sized 58-59 (European) and have classic non sloped frame with seat tube 55cm. Problem is that my feet land with their middle on the pedals, not with the front part where the toes are.  I will try to move seat more to the back, but other than that, is it possible to look for different geometry on the frame, or are almost all frames the same in that respect?

Feet on the middle of the pedals

The problem of the foot position on the pedal appears to stem from sitting too far forward on this bike.  This may occur when the bike is too small for the rider. One option is to move the seat backwards. Toe clips will help you keep your feet correctly positioned on the pedals.  Clipless pedals - like Shimano SPD or Crank Bros Egg Beaters -  work great too, but they do require special shoes with cleats on them.

It sounds like the bike is too small, so moving the saddle back with an offset seat post could help, in addition to some other changes to the geometry. Toe clips or clipless pedals could keep your feet in the right position on the pedals. A larger bike with the right fit to your body would be a better solution though.

It sounds like the bike is too small, so moving the saddle back with an offset seat post could help, in addition to some other changes to the geometry. A larger bike with the right fit to your body would be a better solution though.


I don't think you will need to change the frame, I looked at one of the bianchi series a while back

and I saw the same frame (the Oltre - I can but dream) offered at different prices depending on the groupset.

But the groupsets available were from both shimano and campag.

There's variations with Dura Ace, Ultegra, Athena, Super Record

etc.

I can't imagine the actual frame would be different between these groupsets, otherwise surely it would have a different name?

Here's the link to that page: http://www.bianchi.com/Uk/Bikes/Bikes_List.aspx?RangeIDMaster=74825&CategoryIDMaster=74829

You may want to visit the Scott site, you may find something similar

However I can imagine you're going to have to change just about everything else, though, including wheels (well, as far as the freehub at least).

No.

There are no frame changes required.

The only time I could imagine this would be required is if you are looking at the electronic groupos, and frames that have specific battery mounts for one particular groupo.

However, even then I'm sure there'd be a workaround.

You'd have to change the rear wheel or have it rebuilt on a campy hub

(the shimano hub is not compatible with campy cogs), and of course all the components.

That said, nothing should need to be changed on the frame itself.

There are no compatibility issue at all.

For the most part, Campagnolo, SRAM and Shimano have designed their groupsets to work to common frame characteristics.

Drillings for electronic might be an issue in that Campagnolo EPS has until recently and still in the case of Chorus) needed an extra drilling for the Power Unit charge port, but that is a hurdle that any competent fitting technician should be able to clear.

Campagnolo make adapters for all of the current formats of BB with the exceptions of BB Rite in PowerTorque only (they do it in UltraTorque) and Specialized OSBB, neither of which is not a problem that applies here.

Shimano use third party solutions - they don't offer any in-house compatibility with anything other tha BSC or Italian threded BBs.

As your Scott is a modern bike, I'd be inclined to agree with some of the other answers here and say that I don't think you will require any modifications to your frame if you switch from Shimano to Campagnolo.

There are some areas which are not strictly frame related where you may need to be careful.

If you're switching to an EPS groupset then it's likely that your frame won't have specific mounts or routing for the electronic cabling.

However, in my experience you've often got options to run the cables externally quite neatly.

As already mentioned, you will need to either change your wheels (or the freehub body if possible on your current set) so that they can take a Campagnolo specific cassette.

If your frame was much older, I'd also suggest that you check the spacing between the dropouts to ensure there was sufficient room.

One area I have run into that's worth checking, is that if you intend to use an 11t sprocket at the rear with a compact chainset (or triple) that there is sufficient practical space between the chain and the chainstay.

You should be mindful of the bottom bracket setup on the R2 and make sure that any new Campagnolo system is compatible with it, or that you have a relevant converter if required.

The same goes for the front mech, make sure your new one is the same (band or braze on) as the existing Shimano one.

Again, not a problem for the R2, but if your frame was setup for longer reach brake calipers, I'd also suggest that you measure the existing ones before you order, to ensure that the new ones have sufficient depth.

If in doubt or if you want extra reassurance, I'd check in with your local Scott dealer to get their confirmation, they may also be able to offer advice on subtle changes they make when setting up for Campagnolo which will make your transition smoother.

Question: I want change the groupset on my Scott Addict R2 from Shimano to Campagnolo.  Is Campagnolo fully compatible or will I need to make frame changes?

Are frame changes needed to switch groupset from Shimano to Campagnolo?

No frame changes are required when changing from Shimano to Campagnolo groupset as, for the most part, Campagnolo, SRAM and Shimano have designed their groupsets to work to common frame characteristics. However probably just about everything else will have to be changed, including wheels (well, as far as the freehub at least). The Shimano hub is not compatible with campy cogs, and all the components.

The frame of modern bikes should be compatible with Campagnolo, SRAM and Shimano groupsets without any modifications. However, you should check compatibility with the bottom bracket as well as the available space between the chain and the chainstay for the chainset you want. The Shimano hub will need to be changed to fit the Campagnolo cogs though, and extra drilling may be necessary for electronic groupsets and cable routing. This will not be a problem for competent technicians though. Other parts like brakes may not be compatible, so talk to a Scott dealer for advice.


For downhill and all forms of trail riding (freeride, enduro, all mountain etc)

the prefered way is 1 finger (index) on each lever .

Anything else can be dangerous.

If the brakes are not powerful enough for dealing with this then they either need fix or replacement to proper brakes for this type of riding.

Also, riders position the levers closer to the stem (leaving 1 to 2 inches space between the grip and lever clamp) in order to enforce that only 1 finger can go on the lever.

This also helps the finger pull the lever from its most powerful spot.

I look at it the other way - what's the required number of fingers to maintain a hold of the handle bars.

On a sealed road it's close to 0, leaving 4 for braking.

In a serious rough/rocky track, it might take four, leaving none for the brakes (along with praying it smooths out soon).

Lose the handle bar, you lose brakes and steerage

- there's only one way that ends, and you are a passenger.

Going too fast with steerage - there is more than one possible outcome, which you have a degree of control over the outcome, and can usually minimize the damage.

Off road, I typically use my outer fingers first - pinky + 1 is the minimum for useful braking, never more than pinky + 2.

In general the fewer fingers on the brake lever the better, as it means more fingers can keep you holding on.

However in the real world, it depends on your grip strength and how powerful your brakes are, for how many fingers you can stop with.

On both road and mountain bikes I tend to keep 1 finger ready to brake when I don't think I'm going to need to stop quickly, mostly for feathering my brakes to slow.

When I think there is a more immediate need, such as going down a steep incline on road or technical singletrack section off-road, then I tend to use 2 fingers.

This tends to be my default.

Sometimes, I'll use 3 for an emergency stop if I'm surprised, but most of the time 2 seems to be better for that as well.

Some brakes may be easier to pull than others depending on the style and how well they are tuned.

Hydraulic disc brakes tend to be the easiest and require less effort (so I use one finger more often).

You could just flip the whole gang the bird and use Middle finger braking .

Throwing in some anecdotal stuff.

I had been fine riding XC with two fingers in the lever (middle+index)

but when I began riding DH, I often experienced grip loss of hand / forearm fatigue.

Somehow I discovered that I was way more comfortable using just the middle finger on the brakes.

It seems to be that my index fingers are much better gripping the handlebars than actuating the lever.

I supposed that lever placement had a role, so I moved the levers towards the stem so I could actuate them with my index finger.

The result: I was able to apply the brakes fairly well, but my fatigue problems worsened.

I reverted the setup to actuate the lever with the middle finger.

May be just my case, but it happens to be that my middle finger is just stronger applying the brakes.

This leaves me with 3 finger in the handlebar: pinky, annular and index, which provides me with enough grip for DH riding.

Now I use this technique even in XC or commuting.

Results more relaxed to me, less fatigue at the end of a ride or practice session.

So, conclusion after the long fairy tale:

*Try different positions at least for a ride or two, the perfect hand grip for you may not be in book!

Under normal riding situations on paved roads, I always reach for the brake levers with at least two fingers.

Just in case you hit a bump and a finger is "jarred" off of the lever, or a finger just slips off of the lever because of sweating, you still have one finger left on the brake lever to exert some braking force to a wheel.

Of course, each individual usually will seek whatever feels most comfortable to them.

Keeping control is the main thing.

On a downhill, you should only need really "light" pressure on the brakes to stay under control.

I still use my two fingers for the safety aspect, but "feather" the brakes using one dominant finger.

Professional racers use either 1-finger technique or 2-fingers technique for braking.

The 2-fingers technique is more efficient for hard braking and is useful only for racing or riding at high speeds (>200 km/h) while 1-finger braking is smoother and more precise and is useful for normal riding.

Furthermore, owner's manual for most bikes advice to squeeze the brake, not grab it and thus instructs to use one or 2 fingers for braking instead of 3 or 4.

Experienced riders know that on a bike, you should squeeze the front brake gradually so that some pressure will push the front wheel onto the ground, thus making a larger contact surface, thus allowing you to squeeze harder without risking the front wheel to block (the front wheel keeps the bike up while it is spinning, so blocking it will make the bike fall in about 1 second)

Question: I have seen people stop with one finger, two fingers or the whole hands on the levers. Is there a recommended number of fingers on the brake levers when stopping/anticipating an emergency stop? Do brake types or riding style (DH, road ..) affect this number?

How many fingers on the brake lever?

The number of fingers used for braking is usually one or two depending on the situation and the rider. Professionals tend to use 1 or 2 fingers while normal riders seem to favor 2. You need to balance the number of fingers used with staying in control of the bike. Obviously, in an emergency situation, more fingers may be needed.

This depends on your grip strength, road conditions, personal comfort and choice, speed and other factors. Try experimenting with different styles to find the best solution for you. Experienced riders often use one or maybe two fingers except for emergency braking. It is important to maintain control and not brake too hard, so most owner's manuals suggest using only one or two fingers and squeezing rather than grabbing. Squeezing the front brake gradually pushes the wheel down and allows further braking without blocking.

This depends on your grip strength, road conditions, personal comfort and choice, speed and other factors. Experienced riders often use one or maybe two fingers except for emergency braking. Try experimenting with different styles to find the best solution for you.


The common qualification here is an important one: truing is a skill that benefits from practice and experience (chicken, meet egg).

Your wheels are important, and it's important to have somebody who knows what they're doing at least check your work if you're just learning (or if you're disinclined to trust your well-being in dense traffic to wheels you trued yourself).

Having said that, a rim that isn't bent should have more or less even spoke tension across all the spokes when it is true.

On the other hand, a bent rim will require higher tension in some spots and lower tension in others.

So, noticeably uneven spoke tension in a true wheel is one sign that the rim might be bent.

If you remove the tire and loosen all spokes completely, or better remove them as well, and put the rim on a flat surface, it should become clear if the rim is bent or not.

Obviously this requires some work which may be unnecessary if the wheel simply needs truing, so I'd try that first.

If it fails and you are thinking of replacing or repairing the rim, it will need to be removed anyway.

Well, sometimes the rim is visibly bent, especially if there are creases in the sides.

But if not visibly bent, and you don't have an experienced eye, then you have to attempt to true the wheel and see if it trues up well.

Some minor dents in a rim can be repaired with the proper equipment, but others require rim replacement.

Beyond that you need to read a book.

(It should be noted that if the wheel is not particularly expensive then this is a good opportunity to learn wheel truing.

If you're reasonably careful (and use the right spoke wrench)

you won't screw it up much worse, and, unless you true it, you're going to have to take it to the shop anyway.

So a good time to give wheel truing a try.)

And in response to @WTHarper: It helps to know how the wheel got cocked up in the first place.

If it was hit by a car then the odds of a bent rim are pretty high.

If it "just happened" -- the wheel went out of alignment on its own -- then a bent rim is very unlikely (and a broken spoke is likely).

If it happened in a "soft" fall -- eg, the wheel slid out from under you on loose gravel -- then a bent rim is possible but unlikely.

It's more likely that some spokes were just stretched out.

If it happened in a hard fall or when hitting an obstruction then a bent rim is more likely but far from certain.

(And I should have mentioned checking for broken spokes:

First check that all spokes are tight, and if any are loose check whether they are in fact broken.

It would be very unusual for a wheel to not "taco" slightly when a spoke breaks, and replacing the spoke should get it back in true with relatively little effort.)

The best advice here is to take your wheel to an accomplished wheel builder who should be able to true your wheel if it's possible or rebuild it if it needs it.

Truing wheels is one of those things that's more Art than Science and once it starts going wrong, it just gets worse. http://sheldonbrown.com/tooltips/truing.html

First: don't try truing a wheel you rely on without experience!

If spoke tension is high on the side of the rim deviation, then you can improve the true by adjusting spoke tension.

If spoke tension is low on the side of the deviation or the tensions are roughly even, then the rim is bent and trying to fix it with tension will make the tension balance worse.

If you can hear tones pretty well, you can check tension by plucking spokes.

Either pluck at the cross (in which case be aware you're conflating the tension of two spokes) or damp the spokes at the cross and pluck one spoke rimward of the cross.

On undished wheels, you can compare the tensions of spokes on the two sides (i.e., coming from different flanges of the hub) directly.

If the wheel is dished (as with geared rear or most disc-brake wheels), you'll want to pay attention to the relative tension with respect to same-side spokes , and compare that between spokes on both sides of the wheel near the deviation.

For example, if I have a road rear wheel with a rim deviation to the left (non-drive), I know the right-flange (drive) spokes are at higher tension than the left, so I can't compare tones directly.

I'll pluck some left-flange spokes near the deviation, and then some other left-flange spokes around the wheel, and do likewise for right-flange spokes.

If left-flange spokes at the rim deviation are tighter than average, and right-flange spokes are looser than average, then I can true with a spoke wrench.

If it's the opposite, or if the sides are the same, then it's a judgement call (regarding whether truing will be able to correct the deviation while maintaining acceptably even tension).

The cause of your question should probably determine if the rim is bent or just needs "adjusting" by a qualified wheel builder.

If contact with a vehicle or other solid object is the cause of the question, then there's a good chance the wheel is actually bent and will likely need to be entirely re-built or replaced ( replacing may be more cost effective ).

If you just discovered the wheel seems to be "wobbling" in a certain spot or is rubbing the frame or forks in a certain area, the problem is likely a wheel rim that needs trueing by spoke adjustment or spoke replacement in a certain area of the wheel rim.

In either case, in the interest of safety and rim longevity, I'd suggest having a knowledgeable wheel builder at a bicycle shop take a look at the wheel.

That's better than worrying about a possible accident caused by a bad wheel.

Question: How can I tell if a rim is bent or if the wheel is just out of true?

How can I tell if a rim is bent or if the wheel is just out of true?

Sometimes the rim is visibly bent, especially if there are creases in the sides.  If it is not visibly bent, and you don't have an experienced eye, then you have to attempt to true the wheel and see if it trues up well. Uneven spoke tension is a sign of an untrue wheel.  If you remove the tire and loosen all spokes completely, or better remove them as well, and put the rim on a flat surface, it should become clear if the rim is bent or not.  However, in the interest of safety and rim longevity, it is better to let a knowledgeable wheel builder at a bicycle shop take a look at the wheel.

Truing a wheel is a skilled task and should not be done without experience. Wheels should be checked by a professional, even if just to check your work. However, a bent rim will have uneven spoke tension when true, may be visibly bent or have creases in the sides, and will not lie flat if the spokes are removed and the rim is placed on a flat surface. Some rim damage can be repaired, but replacement is often necessary. If the wheel is just wobbling in one spot, spoke adjustment or replacement can correct this. The origin of the problem can be a good indication of the damage: a sudden misalignment without an accident or after a soft fall is probably caused by a broken spoke, but a harder fall or collision could indicate a bent rim. The tension can be tested by plucking spokes and listening to the tone produced. The tensions on the left and right of the wheel can be contrasted on undished wheels, but on dished wheels (on geared wheels or most wheels with disc brakes), the relative tension of spokes on the same side should be copmared.

Truing a wheel is a skilled task and should not be done without experience. The tensions on the left and right of the wheel can be contrasted on undished wheels, but on dished wheels (on geared wheels or most wheels with disc brakes), the relative tension of spokes on the same side should be copmared.


WD-40 is mostly a solvent with a very light lubricant mixed in.

It's great for getting stuck parts moving again.

When you spray it on, the solvent dislodges whatever gunk may be causing the part to stick and then evaporates, leaving a light lubricant behind.

This will allow the previously stuck part to move again.

The reason it is generally not considered a good bicycle lubricant is because it is a light lubricant.

It's just fine for household items like door hinges, which aren't exposed to weather and don't get moved a couple hundred times a minute.

But the lubricant is not thick enough to adhere to rapidly moving bike parts for any length of time, especially when you add a little bit of road grit and/or rain.

Some people do use it for loosening up shifters in the winter time ( they stick when it's cold ) or cleaning chains and derailleurs.

You will notice in the answers and comments on the aforelinked question, and this one , that whether or not this is good practice is highly debatable.

Some people will use WD-40 as a cleaner and degreaser followed by a bicycle-specific lubricant, with or without a cleaning inbetween, depending on personal preferences.

I don't have any experience with their bicycle-specific products, but they're a solid company that's been in the business of cleaning and lubricating mechanical parts for a long time.

They also make Lava soap and 3-in-1 Oil, a product that was originally designed as a bicycle lubricant (although they did acquire both of those from other companies).

I actually didn't know until I read this question that they were making bicycle-specific lubricants now.

Given their history and the number of patents that they have to draw ideas and develop from, I'm certainly willing to give them a shot.

The worst case scenario is that I have to clean it off and go back to my previous products.

WD-40 (original) can be used as a de-greaser on bike parts.

It is a bit harsher than other bike specific de-greasers, or common house hold degreasers (like Simple Green ) that are often used by bike mechanics but essentially does the same thing.

Keep it mind that it is NOT

a lubricant, but a de-greaser.

After using any de-greaser you want to wash the area with soap and water and then apply a lubricant.

I have used the WD-40 bike specific lubricants and don't have any complaints.

The wet lube held up well in a few nasty cyclocross races, and the dry lube is what I've been using on my "indoor trainer" bike.

They have thrown a lot of money into the launch of these products over the last few months

and I expect that with this type of support, their products will become a household name in the bike space in the coming years.

The "W" in WD-40 stands for water and the "D" stands for displacement, and the 40 stands for the 40th.

attempt at being successful with the product.

WD-40 doesn't really lubricate much of anything.

It's actually a de-greaser, so it will remove any lubricant from bicycle chains, cables and other pivot joints.

If you're cleaning your chain for re-lubrication purposes with a product other than WD-40, then WD-40 will be fine to use.

It's also said to "rust proof" items, but probably because of it's ability to displace water which commonly causes rust to form.

I haven't tried any of the new products yet.

They have a bike "degreaser", a bike "foaming wash" and two different chain lubricants, as well as a frame protectant.

It will be interesting to see some reviews about these new products as far as pricing and how well they work.

I have used many types of bicycle lubrications over the years.

The short answer is that WD-40 can be used; my experience pretty much the averages out of allthe comments above.

The strength of WD-40 is that it is time efficient and cost efficient.

A small amount of money buys you a big can, and one application

both cleans and lubricates (a little).

When you spray it on you will see all the grime etc.

dripping off (not quite as good as properly degreasing using a chain cleaner ) and you will be left with a chain that is reasonably well lubricated.

The slightest bit of rain will wash it off, and even with no rain it will disappear quite quickly.

However it is very easy to re-apply.

I found that it worked for me for a bike I was just using for short rides (45 mins ~ 1 hr) on the road.

I would just give it a spray every 2 rides or so (or every time after rain).

I turned to this after years of using expensive bike-specific lubes.

They definitely do a better lubrication job, but I found the dry ones were washed off easily by the rain while the wet ones attracted a lot of dirt, while both required the chain to be properly cleaned before application.

The bottles were always expensive, so in the end I found that for that particular bike WD-40 provided a cheap-and-cheerful time and cost effective soln.

The chain will also wear out a little quicker if you use WD-40.

Your own choice will depend on how much time /money

you want to spend, how long your rides are, what type of riding (off or on road) etc.

The very best way to lubricate your chain is to properly wax it; this will take a whole morning but will then last a year, which also provides a good cost performance if you have a morning to spare on it.

I used WD-40 on my oil starved bike chain and gears, and it totally brought it back to life.

It was like magic!!

WD 40 washes out the manufacturers high quality lube from the chain links so do not use it.

Question: Is WD-40 really bad to apply on bikes? I was told so but still see people doing that.   Also I saw WD-40 launching their new products of bike lubricant and degreaser. Did anybody try those?

Can I use WD-40 on my bike?

WD-40 can be used on bikes and it is great for getting stuck parts moving again. The reason it is generally not considered a good bicycle lubricant is because it is a  light  lubricant.  However, the strength of WD-40 is that it is time efficient and cost efficient. There are some WD-40 bike specific lubricants and users do not have any complaints about them.

WD-40's main product is a solvent and degreaser with some light lubricant mixed in. It can loosen seized parts and provide very limited lubrication and rust protection, but is too light to last and not suitable as a bike lubricant. In fact, it will remove lubricant that is already on the chain. Rather, it can be used to clear grease and grime before adding lubricant. The company does make good quality bike-specific lubricants and other products that can be used for their intended purpose, and they do have a good reputation for their cleaning and lubricating products.

I don't have any experience with their bicycle-specific products, but they're a solid company that's been in the business of cleaning and lubricating mechanical parts for a long time.

The wet lube held up well in a few nasty cyclocross races, and the dry lube is what I've been using on my "indoor trainer" bike.

They have a bike "degreaser", a bike "foaming wash" and two different chain lubricants, as well as a frame protectant.

The strength of WD-40 is that it is time efficient and cost efficient.

It's also said to "rust proof" items, but probably because of it's ability to displace water which commonly causes rust to form.

Some people do use it for loosening up shifters in the winter time ( they stick when it's cold ) or cleaning chains and derailleurs.

When you spray it on, the solvent dislodges whatever gunk may be causing the part to stick and then evaporates, leaving a light lubricant behind.

It is a bit harsher than other bike specific de-greasers, or common house hold degreasers (like Simple Green ) that are often used by bike mechanics but essentially does the same thing.


The trick is to blow the water back up the tube and into the reservoir right after you take a drink.

This will keep your tube and bite valve from freezing.

This works well even at below freezing temperatures when skiing.

I see snowboarders with an insulating cover over the tube.

If that doesn't provide enough insulation, I've worn my pack under my jacket leaving the entire pack, tube and bite valve covered and insulated.

Here is a 3 foot Hydration Pack Insulated Drink Tube Cover on amazon for $7 US

Keep the bladder as close to your skin as possible.

This will help it utilize the same heat and insulation you are using.

Run the tube under your shoulder.

The area over your shoulder is more exposed to wind and will generally freeze faster.

After taking a drink, blow back into the tube to clear it.

If there is no water in the tube, there is nothing to freeze.

(Optional) Insulation.

Many companies make neoprene or other styles of insulated covers for their drinking tubes.

While these can help maintain some warmth, they can also make finding and breaking up ice chunks difficult.

You don't need to completely clear a tube to drink from it.

You just need to break the ice up some

so the warmer water (from your back) can run through it and accelerate the thaw process.

(Optional) Power.

There is at least one company that makes an on demand heating system|water bladder.

It uses a battery pack and heating element throughout the whole tube to melt the tube even if it is completely frozen.

The tube has a lot of surface area and not a lot of volume, so it's going to lose heat quickly compared to the reservoir.

In addition to insulating the tube mentioned by Glenn Gervais you can start with hot water in the reservoir and frequently drink a little bit to keep reheating the tube.

This Nordic skiing article discusses this technique in more detail.

You could also try a Nordic skiing water bottle holder like the one in this (5 part!)

article .

I've noticed while skiing that a horizontal bottle seems stay ice free at the valve longer.

In a vertical holder, turning the bottle upside down also helps.

I've never tried this, but you might also try to keep the water in the reservoir warm by attaching a chemical hand/foot warmer to the outside of the bag.

Test it first to check that it won't damage the plastic bag, though I wouldn't expect something made to keep near your skin would get hot enough.

Don't put it in the bag though.

If it leaks it's probably dangerous to your health.

Here's a summary of some the options I've found: Manual:

Blow back the water back in to your bladder to prevent freezing, this can cause your hydration reservoir to bulge though.

I've also heard this can introduce bacteria to the bladder, making it get funky faster.

This is less effective when you have a smaller amount of water in your bladder.

Use a compact reservoir and keep it under your jacket.

Run the tube under your jacket or down your arm under the jacket.

Keep it from being exposed when not in use.

Insulation: Neoprene insulation for your tube.

Bag makers have their own more expansive insulated systems than just a tube cover.

Osprey insulated delivery system, which has a zip up cover for your valve.

Camelback has the Antidote Thermal Control Kit which includes a cap cover for the bite valve and neoprene tube cover.

Salomon makes a fully insluated hydration tube and bladder with bite valve cover for nordic skiing.

Use foam packing material and tape to make an insulated sleeve for your bladder, to slow the cooling of water in the bladder itself.

Heat Managment:

Fill your bladder with warm or room temp water, so it will take longer to cool down.

Add hand warmers to the pocket in your hydration pack where your bladder lives.

May want to put this in a sock to prevent direct contact with the bladder.

This will keep the water around it warm, and prevent it from getting as cold so long as you keep drinking.

Chemical: Add a small amount of vodka to your water supply to prevent freezing by lowering the freezing point of the water.

I'm not quite sure of the appropriate amount.

Add electrolyte tablets to water, which should in theory lower the freezing point of water a bit.

Making it take longer for your water to freeze up.

Do not exceed the amount suggested by manufacturer of electrolyte tabs.

Not sure to what degree the freezing point would be lowered.

I use rather warm water to start with by filling approx 1/3 of the bag with cold water and then the rest from the hot water dispenser in the lodge.

Going forward

it’s

mostly a matter of remembering to drink enough regularly enough to replenish the warmth into the tube.

This temp change is obvious as you drink.

I’ve found that each chairlift ride seems to be perfect.

Putting a little glycerol (aka "glycerin" or "glycerine") in the water will help.

Glycerol is edible, sweet to the taste.

It will do double duty by giving you a few extra calories, and lowering the freezing point of your solution because it acts as an antifreeze.

Because it's also bacteriostatic, unlike sucrose/glucose, it also shouldn't encourage microbial growth in the hydration system.

Unfortunately, sports drinks probably shouldn't contain more than about 8% carbohydrate , and an 8% glycerol solution will only give you about 1-1.5˚C extra headroom .

Having a quick release in the hose can help a lot.

Generally, just the valve end freezes and the quick release allows you to get a drink.

Click the system back together and stick the frozen end in your jacket.

Generally it thaws in a few minutes.

The insulated hoses don't do all that much.

By far the best solution is the packs in which the hose is entirely enclosed in the pack strap.

Backcountry Access Stash packs are a example.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/8445/Fred the Magic Wonder Dog

Some hydration packs (such as Source Hydration Systems ) have a wider diameter than others and/or an insulated tube cover.

Both of those can help keep water from freezing in the tube.

Disclaimer: I am associated with Source Hydration Systems.

Question: I like to ride with a hydration pack when I mountain bike in the winter since all sorts of nasty stuff gets tossed up at my bottles.  However, I've had issues with the tube or valve getting clogged due to the water inside freezing during rides in the low 20s Fahrenheit (roughly -5°C). It's really hard to deal with this issue while you're out in the woods.  Is there anything I can do to prevent this from freezing so quickly?

How to keep my hydration pack tubes and valve from freezing?

The trickto preventing water from freezing in winter is to blow the water back up the tube and into the reservoir right after taking a drink.  Many companies make neoprene or other styles of insulated covers for their drinking tubes.  In fact, Salomon makes a fully insluated hydration tube and bladder with bite valve cover for nordic skiing.  If that doesn't provide enough insulation, wearing the pack under your jacket and leaving the entire pack, tube and bite valve covered and insulated works.  The bladder can be filled with warm or room temp water, so it will take longer to cool down. Moreover, a small amount of vodka, electrolyte tablets or glycerol can be added to your water supply to prevent freezing by lowering the freezing point of the water.

The tube is more likely to freeze than the bladder due to the surface area, so drink regularly enough that the water does not freeze in the tube, and blow the water back into the bladder after taking a sip. Some products insulate the tube, or you can cover it or run it close to your body to keep it warm. The bladder can also be insulated or filled with warm water to prevent freezing. This warm water will also help to keep the water in the tube from freezing. Hand warmers can be placed next to the bladder to keep it warm. Adding something like electrolyte tablets or glycerol to the water can lower the freezing point.

The tube is more likely to freeze than the bladder due to the surface area, so rink regularly enough that the water does not freeze in the tube, and blow the water back into the bladder after taking a sip.


Advice in book Racing Weight by Matt Fitzgerald goes something like this, paraphrased: Yes, training without carbohydrates will train your body to use stored fat better.

But your capacity to train will go down (not enough fuel!), and net result will be less improvement.

It references this study , which compares two groups of athletes on hi-carb and low-carb diet during a hard training block.

One of the general themes of the book is, you want to improve your performance and body composition, not your weight per se.

Exercise is fuelled by a combination of carbohydrate and fat.

In theory, if you exercise while your body is deprived of carbohydrate it will become better at utilising fat for energy.

I know some running coaches advocate this approach for marathon training: Any carbohydrates ingested will be used by the body for fuel, and we don't want this.

We want to deny the body carbohydrates in these runs so that the muscles will become better at sparing the carbohydrate stores, more efficient at burning fat and used to running with lowered blood glucose levels.

Now, many people think I'm crazy when I say this, but it works.

Personally, I wouldn't do it.

It's a lot of pain for what is probably a very small gain.

If you're looking to wring every last bit of performance out of your body

it's worth trying though.

The short answer is "No".

Intermittent fasting is not all about weight loss, although it can help with that, apparently without compromising performance .

There's research showing that this approach can increase the effect of training, in particular VO2 Max , which is often of interest to cyclists.

For example Adaptations to skeletal muscle with endurance exercise training in the acutely fed versus overnight-fasted state.

The FAST group showed a significantly greater training-induced increase in VO(2max) and resting muscle glycogen concentration than FED (P=0.014 and P=0.047 respectively), but there was no gender interaction.

This blog post is a few years old, but discussed the detail of a study comparing fasting or fed regimes in training.

There are also claims of long-term health improvements

, I think these are less well-studied, but there is some relevant research .

It does also help to lose weight, or improve power-to-weight ratio , although that may not be of interest to the OP.

If you're actually thinking of doing it, one of the essential points is to have a good recovery meal after training.

I ride mornings in a fasted state

and i believe it has helped, not just in terms of weight but also endurance.

This type of exercise should not be high intensity just moderate.

There is a scientific study that looked into this it was referenced in this NY Times blog article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/phys-ed-the-benefits-of-exercising-before-breakfast/

It's not just fat utilization but also glycogen, a chemical resembling starch that is stored in the liver and also directly in the muscles.

I don't know the ideal conditions for doing so, but the muscles can be "trained" to store more glycogen.

(In part this is what causes muscles to "bulk up".)

Presumably training in conditions where the blood glucose level is low would help to "train" the muscles to store glycogen, though this would be a long-term thing, over months, not something to work on a few days before a big ride.

And glycogen is important not only because it can help to fuel muscles several hours into a long ride, after blood glucose is exhausted, but also because it can help provide "peak energy" even when one is well-fed.

(Note that burning fat directly in the muscles is quite inefficient and can lead to "ketosis", causing a sense of fatigue and loss of mental acuity.

Fat is more efficiently "burned" in the liver, but the rate of fat processing by the liver is insufficient to support a sustained high-energy effort.)

It needs to be remembered that there is a lot of really crappy advice out there, often from "experts", re nutrition.

Probably 80% is bogus.

In particular, many "experts" who talk about "burning fat" have probably never even heard of glycogen.

My "expert" opinion is informed by having a genetic disorder (myoadenylate deaminase deficiency) that affects how muscles use energy, so I've taken interest in these topics for decades.

I believe the intensity level of training should be further considered; it's ok to take a walk first thing in the morning on an empty stomach, but an interval training session would probably be counter-productive.

Question: Preparing for a 100mile ride in August I was thinking of following a training plan which came in a "Sportive Guide" given away with Cycling Plus magazine this month.  Some of the days on the plan mention training for an hour before breakfast in order to burn fat.  Is this just about losing weight? (If so, I'm pretty sure I don't need to since I'm 6ft tall and weigh about 67kg) Or is there some reason that training before breakfast is somehow better?

Training fasted: just about weight loss?

Training before breakfast is advocated for training the muscles to use fat stores for energy. This process takes some time to develop, so the practice needs to be maintained for some time.It is a practice essentially used for weight loss and endurance training. There are some disadvantages though as the person may feel fatigued and lose mental alertness due to low blood sugar. mOREOVER, When implementing this type of training, it is important to have a good recovery meal after.

The idea is probably to train the body to burn fat rather than carbohydrates, and to store more glycogen. In theory, this should help the body to use fat for energy and have more stamina, while also contributing to weight loss. This can help in a number of ways, but it is a longer term strategy and it is important to eat afterwards. This might also be more effective with low or moderate intensity exercise to avoid fatigue.

The idea is probably to train the body to burn fat rather than carbohydrates, and to store more glycogen. In theory, this should help the body to use fat for energy and have more stamina, while also contributing to weight loss. However, this method could lead to increased tiredness


Just verified that the 510 can be attached to power while on/in use.

It continues to operate.

When the external power source is removed, it will give a message to that effect, but does not power down (like the nuvi/car versions do).

Note that you (obviously) have to open the weather seal to plug in power.

Also worth noting, the 510 will go into a different mode when you plug it into a computer.

Unsure if it will continue to record, but the screen shows the computer attached so suspect not.

For long trips like you describe, a device like these http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=phone+battery+backup should do the trick.

Garmin Edge 800, 810 and 1000 can be charged when exercise is active.

You can use for example power bank or usb dynamo charger (ie.

Busch&Muller E-werk, Luxos U light or Supernova The Plug).

It is not recommended to charge anything with usb when it is raining.

Also note that Garmin 1000's plug is in the bottom so cable might not fit when device is mounted on handlebar.

I use the Garmin 800 and an external battery with USB output.

The Garmin will keep running for days like that, with no backlight BUT the data recordingcannot cope with a 24 hour bike ride.

On my last two 24 hour cycle events, the Garmin corrupted the activity file at around 23 hours which was somewhat 'annoying'.

I have tested it on distance, with car journeys, and it can cope with 650km in 12 hours.

But cycling 560km in 24 hours is not feasible, it seems.

Probably too many data points.

You should stop the timing at 12 hours, reset, and start a new 12 hour session.

I just completed a 300K brevet last weekend and my Garmin 500 ran out of juice about 2 miles from the end of the 190 miles.

18 hours.

I just tried to plug it into an external battery that will charge phones and the Garmin 500, but the Garmin will not operate while plugged in and charging.

Note this is the Garmin 500, not the 510.

A friend used an 810 on the ride charging through an external battery on the same ride.

Yes you can charge the Edge 500 whilst riding at the same time, and record your ride as well. http://www.joewein.net/blog/2013/03/04/garmin-edge-usb-power-hack/

A generic USB cable will have the Edge switch to storage mode

but I've found the Garmin cables allow charging whilst using.

I have an external battery pack which I used on day-long back-country rides in the alps and could plug it in whilst on a chairlift or at a bar without interrupting the tracking.

Arguably I didn't need to

but it does mean that when I get a USB dynamo hub I have the cable ready to go.

as far as i understand it all garmins will charge off any cable/charger combination except for the Edge 500...

basically the cable needs to have pins 4 and 5 grounded to earth

not just pin 4, so a normal sync cable will not work you need a special charge cable, not content with paying the £12 for a usb cable for this particular use, i made my own by cutting the head off a normal lead and attaching a new head on it readily available off ebay for a few £.

obviously this requires very good soldering skills to achieve the other option

is link pins 4 and 5 together on the back of the garmin with a small bit of cable, i found a small length of the copper wire from an ethernet cable worked best, but is a pain to get in and out

and you have

ot take it out to sync with computer or it just doesnt recognise the computer.

I can confirm that the garmin 910XT watch is also able to be recharged while recording an activity, the display changes to charging & its %

so no information, the Garmin 500 cant be recharge as it will reset any activity unless there is a setting that I haven't seen.

I charge mine when on very long bike rides - but when the external power source also dies the Garmin automatically powers down unless you tap the X on the screen.

Really wish that Garmin would use bigger batteries!!!

Yes, it can.

I just did 200 mile ride and my Garmin Edge 800 charged fine when I plugged in my power brick after about 9 hours while riding.

Charged it right up

and I lost no data.

Question: Extended battery life is very neccesary for using the device on long brevets and multi-day endurance racing.  Can Garmin Edge cycling GPS units 500/510 and 800/810 be charged while riding via external battery pack like or USB dynamo charger?   Can you plug in while riding?  Are only certain devices able to charge the unit while it's recording / navigating?

Can Garmin Edge 500/510 and 800/810 be charged while riding?

The Garmin 510 can be attached to power while on/in use and the Garmin Edge 800, 810 and 1000 can also be charged when exercise is active. However, it is important to note that it is not recommended to charge anything with usb when it is raining.

This is possible, but it will go into a different mode if you connect it to the computer (or in some cases, use a generic USB cable). Connecting the cable requires opening the weather seal, so avoid this when in rain. The Garmin will record while charging, but will give a notification without pausing if the power source is removed. While this can be used long term, the Garmin is unable to record for longer than 24 hours.


Those end-caps are quite reusable.

If you take a pair of pliers and squeeze it gently so that the flattened portion opens up you can then slide it back onto the cable.

Using the pliers you can then re-crimp it on the cable.

Although it looks ugly and everyone will know that you are too cheap to buy a 10c end-cap.

A little bit of superglue placed at the end of the cut seems to help keep the individual wires from separating.

You could maybe cut it where it is not frayed and put a cap if the slack is long enough.

Or you could put a piece of duct tape just to avoid the fraying from reaching a place interfere with the derailleur.

Or you could try to gather the frayed-out strings and put a cap anyway Or if you really don't like it

, you can change the cable completely though it is overkill.

If you have an unneeded old wheel laying around, use a spoke nipple.

Remove the nipple from the spoke slide it over the cable and crimp with pliers.

I have successfully used A tiny bit of epoxy glue.

Another option is a bit of tin soldering wire: give it a couple of tight loops around the end of the cable then squash it with pliers.

Tin is soft enough to be defformed around the cable without deforming the cable.

Yet another option is to use an actual soldering iron to cover the very last centimeter of cable with tin.

It is quite difficult to solder the end of the already installed cable though.

If the cable is not too badly frayed it can be de-frayed with pliers, grabbing all the strands and twisting it in the right direction.

Do it before applying the cap end substitute.

I've used a cable crimp.

It looked terrible but it prevent the cable from unravelling before I got to the bike shop to discover that a bike shop will usually give you those end caps if you buy something else from the store.

The shops have them in the thousands and they probably paid about $3 for them.

I've used these cable connectors before...

you just break one off and screw it over the cable end.

They work great and look pretty "impressive".

You could use some heat shrink tubing ( example ) to keep the frayed cable together.

If you don't have a heat gun, most heat shrink tubing can be shrunk with a hot hair dryer.

In a pinch, use wirenuts .

They're available at hardware stores.

The smaller ones work better as a cable end-cap.

If you have slack in the cable, cut the frayed end and cap as usual.

If you don't have enough slack, use JB Weld to prevent further unraveling.

Work it into the fibers, and wrap with duct tape to hold tight while it cures.

Cut a bit of cable housing, peel the plastic, and squeeze as you would a conventional cap (using more force, though).

Doesn't look bad but is no substitute for actual end caps.

Question: I was adjusting the tension of my front derailleur cable and managed to pop off the cable end cap. The cable is now quite frayed at the end and I think it would be difficult to attach another cap.  What would work as a suitable replacement for a cap? I've read that perhaps superglue or duct tape could work?

What is a good replacement for a cable end cap?

End-caps are quite reusable. If the cable is not too badly frayed it can be de-frayed with pliers, grabbing all the strands and twisting it in the right direction. A little bit of superglue placed at the end of the cut seems to help keep the individual wires from separating. Other options include using a soldering iron, using the spoke nipple from an old wheel, a cable crimp or epoxy glue,

It may be possible to replace the cap or use another if you repair the frayed part. Superglue or twisting can be used to keep the ends together, or you can cut off the frayed part or even replace the cable. Other options include sealing the end with superglue, epoxy or solder, covering with electrical cable sheath or heat shrink tubing or using a cable crimp or cable connectors.


By this do you mean pedalling when unnecessary (and without increasing the bike's speed), for example, on descents?

I will do this on long descents just to keep my legs turning over and to prevent them getting too cold.

But I will mix it with coasting.

There is a theory that keeping the legs moving will keep your blood flowing and help pump lactic acid out of the muscles.

I can go along with this as I've felt the benefit, or at least I think I have.

I've also heard it argued that it's advantageous as regards making your technique smoother, but I don't think that's particularly proven.

But no personal experience, I've never really concentrated on my technique to that extent.

Further, you can talk to racing cyclists who will often say that soft pedalling is preferred when riding in a peloton, purely because coasting implies to other people that you're about to hit the brakes.

Again, no personal experience.

I know some of the regulars on here are either racers or ex-racers, maybe they can confirm?

In terms of speed (or power) surely it makes no difference, purely by the definition of "soft pedalling"?

In addition to the response provided by PeteH, I use "soft pedaling" when coasting to a stop on my downtube shifter/derailleur-equipped road bike in order to change gears before a stop.

Some bikes (such as those with internal hubs) do not need any chain motion to shift gears, but my bike does.

That's the only concrete reason why I would employ this technique, outside of the points outlined by PeteH.

When riding in a group you often find that small changes of speed can mean that you do not need to pedal when it slows down and have small bursts of power when it speeds up.

By soft pedaling when the group slows down your legs will already be spinning when its speeds up again.

I have often heard, and I agree, that the "muscular pump" is partly responsible for higher blood flow to specific muscle regions during activity.

The reason is that between muscular contractions the difference in pressure is such as to draw blood from the arterial side to the venous side.

It is a hypothesis and has not been conclusively proved.

That may be the reason why some athletes do it, and others don't.

Cassey, Darren; Hunt, Emma (2008), "Cardiovascular function in humans during exercise: role of the muscle pump"

The muscle pump raises muscle blood flow during locomotion.

Clifford PS, Hamann JJ, Valic Z, Buckwalter JB.

Counterpoint:

The muscle pump is not an important determinant of muscle blood flow during exercise.

J Appl Physiol.

Although I'm sure it's not the same, in MTB I use a very brief lapse of smooth pedalling while downshifting in a difficult ascent, it helps reducing noise and wear in the gearset.

I accelerate a little before the shift, then, as I actuate the shifter I pedal without load relying on inertia.

When I feel the new gear is fully engaged I resume normal pedalling.

This is also used when after a fast descent comes a very steep ascent, as you would normally be in a very long (hard) gear, soft pedalling is used to make sure you have the proper (selected) gear engaged when you need it.

It is specially useful when the bottom of this kind of transition has technical terrain that would make it impossible to keep all the momentum, forcing you to reduce speed a lot but not to stop nor dismount.

Just based on personal experience.

No to all your questions.

Jacques

Anquetil, when time trialing, was rumored to incorporate a soft pedal

stroke every few revolutions.

With his smooth pedaling and only archival vintage video it's hard to tell.

Could be baloney like the special oxygenated recovery beverage the Soviet track cyclist used.

Question: Is there any advantage to soft pedaling over coasting?   Does it provide any power to moving forward?  Is there any aid it gives to your leg muscles recovering?

What's the purpose of soft pedaling?

Soft pedalling is a technique generally used on long descents. One purpose is to keep the muscles working so that they do not get cold.It also ensures your legs are already spinning when it is time to pedal again. Moreover, it is a technique used to ensure you are in the correct gear when the descent comes to an end.

This does not add power, but could help to keep your legs from getting cold and keep blood flowing to the muscles. It also prepares you to start pedalling again, especially when in a group. It can also help to reduce noise from the gears and help you to transition to the right gear or new terrain.


In my experience, most light work can be done with the bike stored upside down (standing on the handlebars and seat).

Of course, I'm assuming that you're talking about a road bike.

Other bikes, like a mountainbike with a twist-shifters or trigger-shifting, might not be as well suited.

Before I bought a bike stand, I used the bike rack on my car.

I still use it in a pinch.

I have two large hooks attached to my basement ceiling.

I attach a 1 inch cargo strap (look for them in camping supplies) from the hook to my saddle and a second around the bars and stem.

This suspends the bike while allowing the wheels and crank to spin freely.

By adjusting the strap length I can position the bike so the area being worked on is close to eye level.

The hooks were less than $3 and the straps were $3 each.

I have double kickstand on the bike which can act as mini repair stand.

I pull the bike on the kickstand, and put some weight (u-lock and chain) on the front of the bike so it tilts forward and back wheel gets lifted in the air.

Here is a cheap ($20) bike stand that elevates the rear wheel:

http://www.amazon.com/Sunlite-Bracket-Bicycle-Display-Stand/dp/B000C17HJ4 Note that it works best with thinner-tubed steel bikes, and doesn't necessarily hold up a bike with a thick aluminum downtube optimally.

Turn the bike upside down and clamp the handle bar stem in the jaws of a WorkMate workbench and rest the seat on the opposite end of the WorkMate work surface.

Turning the seat around backwards on its stem may be helpful.

I use two high chairs (with straight backrest) With one or two broomsticks inbetween them to hold the bike up.

My solution for this is a kickstand.

It keeps the bicycle upright with both wheels on the ground.

If you need to adjust the gears, you can slightly tilt the bicycle to stand only on the kickstand and not on the rear wheel.

Then the rear wheel is free to rotate, but it requires continuously keeping the bicycle in the slightly tilted position.

It's a one-handed job though, so the other hand is free to rotate the cranks.

Don't put too high stress on the kickstand though or else you may be looking for a new frame, as you accidentally bent the chainstays of the old frame!

A cheap solution is a wall-mounted bike holding stand.

The simple ones are just a couple of prongs that stick out from the wall and support the top tube of your bike.

Something like this is $US40 or you can get fancy with this (will work better with sloping top tubes)

I suspect you could build one out of a 1.5m length of timber and some screws quite easily, although attaching it to the wall would require a little care.

The rope-based hanging bike storage systems also work well for this if you can put up with the bike swinging round.

Those allow better access, but the bike moves.

A solid wall mount won't move but you have to take the bike down and flip it round to access the other side, and you can't turn the handlebars much.

Question: I want to tweak my gears, from time to time: Adjust my front and rear derailleur limits, see if the shifts are smooth, make small adjustments on the cable tension, and so on.   Is there any way to get the bike in position without help of anyone?  I don't want to spend money on a bike stand.

How to position a bike for work without a stand

Most light work can be done with the bike stored upside down (standing on the handlebars and seat). However, the kickstand can also be used to hold the bike while you work. Other options include large hooks in the ceiling and a wall-mounted bike holding stand.

You can use a double kickstand or turn the bike upside down, resting it on the handlebars. The bike can be suspended from hooks on the ceiling or rested on a solid wall mount, turning it around to work on the other side.

You can also use a solid wall mount, turning it around to work on the other side.


This is a late answer I know, but I've found a solution to the rattling problem.

I've had an Abus 6500 for nearly 3 years now and the rattling always annoyed me.

I used to wrap a kind of nylon strap between the lock as I folded it and that partly solved it, although most of the rattle was coming from the joints themselves.

It was only just today when I thought of this: I sprayed some chain oil, the type that comes in a spray can, into the joints, between the bars.

As you may know, this oil is very liquid when sprayed but soon solidifies as the solvent evaporates.

This allows it to get right into the joint and GREATLY reduce rattle.

There is inevitably some that runs onto the parts you need to touch so a bit of cleaning up afterwards is necessary but the result for me is just astounding.

I just wish I'd thought of it 3 years ago!

I complained about the noise to ABUS and they told me they will substitute them, asap.

It's a design/factory problem.

I made judicious use of little 10mm o-rings on my Abus.

No more rattles.

Mine just arrived and I mounted it to my frame just like the picture above (though, my lock looks slightly different...

still the x-plus.)

It rattles just like every other attachment on my bicycle (including the chain when it's not taut).

I think it's quite normal...

it does have movable parts, after all.

I bet the rattling can be dampened by using a small felt pad wrapped around it or between the links, but I haven't tried this.

Personally, the rattling doesn't bother me because I'm so focused on the ride and just being out on the bike.

If you carry a bag, putting it in there would probably stifle much of the rattle.

Using a messenger bag would lower the load's center of gravity.

As for a bolt coming loose, if you can't fit anything of much strength (more than tweezers?)

between the bolt and the link, it's probably not too loose.

I can't see these links just falling apart in my own lock anyway...

so unless you notice a significant separation, I bet the lock is fine.

Incidentally, did you mount it using the velcro straps or by screwing it into the frame using the mounting points?

If you use the screws, it's possible that the lock is bumping against them causing the rattle, but then again, shaking the lock in my hand without other metal also produces a slight rattle.

If you try using the velcro to mount instead, perhaps the rattle will be reduced?

It's normal for the lock itself to rattle if you shake it, especially when it's folded up.

That said, I have an earlier model of the lock, and mine doesn't rattle audibly when it's in the rubber carrying case: the case is tight enough to stop it rattling.

It's possible that Abus have made the case a little looser in newer versions, to make it easier to insert and remove the lock.

Is it definitely the lock rattling, rather than the case itself?

The case has a metal plate that the bottle-cage bolts sit against, and if one of them is slightly loose, the weight of the lock would cause the case to rattle.

Try tightening the screws.

Alternatively, it could be that when inside the case, the lock is in contact with a bike component (such as the mounting for the front derailleur) and that's causing the rattle.

If you have a second mounting point, it might be worth trying that to avoid wear to the fouled component.

All Bordo locks rattle no matter

what in the water bottle mount, what I do is put it in my under seat saddlebag and put my wallet and cell phone ontop of it.

It won't rattle that way.

Question: I have the latest Abus Bordo Granite X-Plus 6500 folding lock:   It is cased inside a rubberized pouch that attaches to one of the bottle-cage locations:   Very convenient, but sadly, it  rattles while riding on an uneven surface , which can get quite annoying, and does not make for a smooth ride.   Firstly, is that normal, or is something wrong? (Has one of the bolts come looser than it should be?)  Secondly, how do I prevent this from happening?

Is it normal that the Abus Bordo folding lock rattles?

The ratle in the ABUS is a design/factory problem. Cyclist seem to notice the rattle more or less. Some suggestions for stopping it are tightening the screws, wrapping a nylon strap between the lock and putting it in a messenger bag. Apparently, if you complain to the company, they will replace it.

The lock rattles when shaken and also when mounted, so it may be that the joints are quite loose and the case has extra space. If the mounting screws are loose or the lock hits part of the bike while in movement, this will add to the noise and should be corrected. Wrapping fabric between moving parts or oiling the joints could help, or the lock could be placed in a bag or mounted to the bike with velcro.


Use proper positioning.

This is most important.

Unless the outermost lane is as wide as two SUVs , ride in its center.

When it's safe, reasonable and necessary to let drivers pass, kindly move over; but always leave at least 18 inches (0.5 m) between you and the curb.

The driver behind you may have to wait a minute or two, but they'll survive.

If they've waited a few minutes, be nice and pull over.

(Adapted mainly from Wikipedia citing Cyclecraft .)

Paradoxically, correct positioning will stop most drivers from buzzing you.

Correct positioning can be scary, but does get easier .

There's more to vehicular cycling.

You must read more about lane release .

Also read "Street Smarts" online: either the American edition or left-hand-drive edition .

If you want, you can also read Cyclecraft , or take a class , or watch some videos.

(Can anyone recommend some videos?)

On rare occasions, drivers may still buzz you.

To prevent this: Use a safety flag.

A spring-mounted one: e.g. a Flash Flag.

( Source. )

It must be spring-mounted, so that it can bend easily if hit.

(If you can't afford a flag: Maybe you could use a dollar-store pool noodle plus a washable marker pen.

See here. )

Or use a doll.

Put a baby-sized doll in a trailer or rear-mounted carrier.

About attempted murder: If a driver ever intentionally endangers your life, note down the license plate number, location, time, and date.

If you value your safety, don't touch the driver's car.

Contact

a cop : preferably immediately; but better later than never.

This post is marked as community wiki.

Please add to it.

Cars overtaking too closely is often down to the width of the road ( ref ): For a cyclist to be safely overtaken, the width required depends upon the width of the overtaking vehicle but in general a lane width of 4m is needed.

For widths of between 3 and 4m the cyclist will be 'squeezed'.

Road widths

less than 3m ensure the overtaking vehicle must wait behind the cyclist.

There's a more detailed discussion of road width and overtaking on humantransport.org .

The diagram below shows distances in feet: If you can choose a route with wide roads then you're unlikely to be overtaken in a dangerous manner.

Roads with (

at least) 2 lanes each way usually work well if the lanes are narrow enough that cars have to change lane to overtake you.

On narrower roads you can discourage dangerous overtaking by positioning yourself correctly (see this question on Claiming The Lane ).

If you position yourself at least 0.5m from the edge of the road you will have a little bit of room to manoeuvre if you are overtaken dangerously.

You can wobble strategically , or ride without a helmet and dress so as to appear as a woman from behind .

Sources: Linked above, as you can see.

The summary from the British study, from the source .

You won't be able to stop this completely.

There will be always car drivers how try to pass you, no matter what.

However, there are things you can do about this.

Most car drivers usually let enough space between you and the car, if possible.

So they will likely pass you closer when:

The road is narrow There is oncoming traffic Now

, you have a few strategies to encounter this situations: Riding more in the middle of the your lane so the car behind you can't pass you unless there is more space or no oncoming traffic Riding very right (when right-side traffic, otherwise left)

so cars can pass you without problems Stop and let the car pass Personally

, I prefer option 1 in the cities, because cars will have enough time to see you and slow down.

You still have enough space to ride to the side in risky situations to increase the space between you and the car.

2 is more risky in cities because it kind of invites cars to pass you close.

I usually to this on broad highways, because there most cars newer slow down to wait to pass you (at least in my experience).

I do option 3 on narrow roads with oncoming traffic.

These are usually side roads with few traffic anyway.

I don't like to stop, but in the end I will get hurt if a car hits me.

When I ride, I usually wear a little rearview mirror attachment on my glasses that allow me to see traffic behind me.

If I see a vehicle approaching

and I don't get the sense that they see me

, I'll actually crane my head around

so it's very obvious that I've spotted them.

Most drivers will notice you if you do that.

(obviously not to take away from the very thorough and technical answer by @unforgettableld - just a trick a friend taught me).

Question: Recently, a driver buzzed by me, leaving just a couple of inches between my handlebars and his car. It was very scary.  In general, how can I prevent cars from passing me too closely?  Please cite sources.

How can I prevent cars from passing me too closely?

To avoid cars overtaking too closely when riding a bike, most cyclists recommend riding in the middle of the lane or at least 0.5m away from the road edge. This has the double advantage of discouraging cars from overtaking unless there is room and affording you a little extra room if a car decides to overtake dangerously. Some cyclists also recommend carrying a safety flag.

Choose suitable roads with space to pass and position yourself away from the edge to discourage dangerous overtaking and allow room to maneuver. Use a flag or other object to indicate safe passing distance.Use a rearview mirror. Record details of the car, time and place in the event of dangerous driving.


I alternated tubulars and clinchers (different wheelsets) on my commuter bike for over a year and it was clear that I had fewer punctures with tubulars.

In fact, I have so few punctures that I have to reglue tires after a year or so since the glue dries up. YMMV.

when a tubular does flat, you almost never get a catastrophic deflation (bang), you get slow leaks.

if you're careful you can ride on a flat.

I finished the last mile (uphill) of a race on a flat.

they are more comfortable, especially when cornering because of the suppleness of the side walls.

you can get a sub 1500 gram wheelset for well under $500 (Campy Record and Mavic Reflex).

Try that with clinchers.

Tubular wheelsets are generally much lighter than clinchers. if you do get a slow leak, tufo or stan's tire sealant will almost certainly fix it.

Now all of my bikes run tubulars.

For my commuter bike I use Tufos which last forever despite the broken glass that you inevitably see on roads.

For racing Veloflex are superb.

And as was mentioned tubulars dominate the cyclocross scene.

Once you get the hang of gluing, it's not really a big deal.

The main disadvantage in cyclocross is that you need multiple wheelsets to be able to shift tires on short notice due to weather changes.

Dry vs mud, say, requires two completely different treads.

Finally, for most places in the US you have little choice but to buy your tubulars off the web since the LBS is unlikely to stock them.

See: http://www.worldclasscycles.com/tubulars.htm

I also got a set of tubular rims with an old vintage racing bike

and I've stuck with them.

I don't find them to be a hassle, but gluing does take a little technique and practice to be able to do it neatly.

I think most people who haven't done it are afraid of the gluing, but if you like to tinker with things its not difficult.

With sealant, I rarely have to change tires, so I find myself gluing a new rear tire about once every 2k miles.

You can find tubular road tires at bike shops and online at places like: http://www.biketiresdirect.com/search/tubular-road-tires http://www.competitivecyclist.com/components/tires.39.html and others

I'm sure.

What you'll find is there aren't as many sizes and brands as clincher tires, but there is a decent selection.

The two tires I'm riding on right now, and the two hanging in my garage have come off of eBay.

Tubular tires are very common in cyclecross; their construction and the way they mount to the rim make it possible to run a lower tire pressure.

Tubular tyres are still popular with racers and many others.

It is most certainly not true to say that no shop has them or that they are not used these days.

One of their most overlooked advantages is that carbon wheels for tubs are cheaper than their equivalents for clinchers.

Personally, I love riding tubulars and only use clinchers on my indoor training bicycle!

I've only ridden on tubs, have not had a flat in 25 years

and I find the gluing process zen like.

Never used the tape.

I have veloflex Carbon tubs on carbon rims on my Cervelo and various tubs Vittoria, gommitalia, contis, challenge etc on 19 vintage Italian bikes that I ride.

Mind you those Italian Steels are babied, not ridden on gravel!

I am religious about tire pressure and inspecting the tubs after each ride, pulling out glass shards etc.

I also let some air out to rest the tubs after each ride.

You can check out some of my collection .

Question: I bought an older second-hand racing bike, which has  tubular tires  mounted. I went to a bike shop and wanted to buy a spare tubular tire, but they told me:   Wow, such an old bike! No, we don't have tubular tires. No shop has them. They are not used anymore nowadays. Instead, use an inner tube an a tire.   Is that true? If so, why?

Are tubular tires still used today?

Tubular tires are still available and are popular with racers and cyclecross. Many people prefer them, one reason being they seem to puncture less often but, in the US, they usually have to be bought online as few local bike shops do not stock them.

Tubulars tend to have fewer punctures than clinchers, and are often used in cyclocross. They also have a following among racers. Disadvantages include difficulty switching tyres and finding them in local bike shops. Some people worry about the gluing, but it is not difficult with some practice. One benefit of tubulars for racers is that carbon wheels designed for them are cheaper.