Cycling myths or common-knowledge you'd like to see dispelled

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

tyred

Squire
Location
Ireland
Were cartridge bearing really needed then? The old style cup and cone bearing worked very well for decades, and still do. They are fully serviceable so unlike the cartridge in this throw away society are more environmentally friendly.

You are right of course but cartridge bearings are fully sealed and will have a much longer working life as dirt can't get into them.

They also no not load the threads on the BB shell in the same way so if the frame has slightly knackered BB threads it will probably work fine with a cartridge bearing whereas the cups will come loose or strip the thread completely.
 

All uphill

Still rolling along
Location
Somerset
Only poor people cycle.
 
Location
London
Were cartridge bearing really needed then? The old style cup and cone bearing worked very well for decades, and still do. They are fully serviceable so unlike the cartridge in this throw away society are more environmentally friendly.
I agree with not using to much disposable stuff but UN55s last a very long time - without being touched - in fact so long it's a good idea to take them out every so often and regrease the interface to check that they don't get stuck.
 
Location
London
Here's another myth: You need to understand, or even care about, bottom bracket standards if you want to ride a bike.

I had a bash at understanding all the different stuff but I gave up. And it hasn't hindered me. Same goes for headsets. Now I live in blissful ignorance.

Edit: on second thoughts I'm not sure it's a real myth. I don't think anyone says you have to. But just in case they do. You don't
absolutely fine if you are happy with what's fitted. I'd still take a look at both now and again though. Grease is the cyclist's friend.
 

a.twiddler

Veteran
I think it is a great shame that the design used in my Viscount Aerospace did not become commonplace as it is maintenence free and so simple and easy to rebuild using off the shelf sealed machine bearings available from any engineering or agricultural provider for pennies.

The one development in recent years that I think might offer a worthwhile advange are disk brakes.
A weakness of the Viscount Aerospace design was apparently the groove machined into the spindle which held the retaining circlip on each side. From photos I have seen in the past this was where spindle breakages occurred. I never managed to break one, and I did an awful lot of miles on mine, but it was a known issue with the design. However, the basic principle of the design seemed good to me, and an alternative to the use of a circlip groove would not have been impossible to devise.

As for discs, like the little girl with the curl on her forehead, when they are good, they are very very good, but when they are bad, they are horrid. I have had one of each, and still have the bike with the good ones. It is one of the few developments that doesn't make life harder in other respects.

For example, drum brakes are reliable and low maintenance. They don't wear out rims and cover everything with black dust, but they add weight and make wheel removal less easy. Discs can be reliable and low maintenance, but you can't ignore them like drums as mechanical ones at least can reach a critical point where pad wear can suddenly leave you with no brake. Properly designed, they don't add weight, and they don't wear out your rims and cover everything with black dust, and wheel removal can be simpler than even with rim brakes. Also, with the above brakes, if your wheel becomes out of true, eg pothole, broken spoke, etc the brakes still work. Rim brakes are simple, easy to adjust, light, and understood by most people. They don't usually affect wheel removal but do eventually wear out rims, cover everything in black dust, and are more sensitive to wet conditions. Also, if your rim goes out of true they can be affected. But for most people they do the job well enough. All these brake types have developed their own mythology over the years.

Tin opener, can of worms. Discs can generate many threads of their own! So I'll say no more.
 
Last edited:

SWSteve

Guru
Location
Bristol...ish
Also, the latest Specialised Tarmac SL7 is an innovative design focussed on being aero and for climbers, but the old Cannondale Super Six which was marketed as aero and for climbers in antiquated.
 

raleighnut

Legendary Member
The myths that helmets provide some sort of whole body protection from any form of injury likely to be encountered whilst cycling.
:laugh: It's the aura of smugness that protects you.
 

SWSteve

Guru
Location
Bristol...ish
Actually I imagine you probably would be some seconds faster over a 40km TT on a whizz bang bike, compared with a non-latest, non-light, non-aero etc. bike regardless of your weight and fitness.

I'm pretty heavy (ok, not 100kg any more but I'm no lightweight) and I do normally ride around at 12mph on the flat. I think I'd expect to shave a few seconds off such an effort by using a fancy bike. If I was interested in doing 40km TTs. But I'm not.

Whether it would be actually 25 seconds or more or less I don't have a clue.
I also expect they would see a difference, but doing some intervals/focussed training would also benefit them
 

classic33

Leg End Member
,
There have only really been a handful of really significant technical developments that can be regarded as game-changing. The Safety Bicycle generic design, pneumatic tyres, sprung saddles, internal hub gears, rider operated derailleurs,[ B] light butted steel frames, cable operated brakes, alloy rims, indexed gear shifting for derailleurs (remember SA hub gears have always been indexed!), carbon fibre. Most of what gets promoted now is just marketing spin and of insignificant value. The bulk of the important milestones happened well over fifty years ago, some over a hundred years ago.

Who'd ride a cycle where the cycle decided on what gear to be in?
 

a.twiddler

Veteran
Depends on the recumbent. High racers and more more upright recumbents will likely exceed the max height 635mm rule. But recumbents don’t have saddles so it’d be an interesting interpretation anyway.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/198/regulation/3/made
My Linear just exceeds the 635mm rule. Perhaps less seat padding or changing from 700c to 26" on the back would stop me being an outlaw? It does have pedal reflectors, which may be of interest to passing aircraft, or anyone who might be lying in the road as I pass by. Meanwhile I get to match eyeball to eyeball with motorists at junctions, or peer up the nostrils of 4 X 4 drivers.
 
Top Bottom