Globalti
Legendary Member
Let me see if I can explain this: there's a thread in Cafe asking how you become a real cyclist. Some have replied that a real cyclist is anybody riding a bike, full stop. Others say that you qualify when you can maintain a bike and you understand the importance of checking it before riding.
Now I would say that a good cyclist might not be able to do repairs but should at least be competent in the basics of bike maintenance, which means ensuring the brakes and gears are adjusted, everything is in good order and the tyres at the right pressure. This is required by the Highway Code anyway. That cyclist should be able to tell you without looking about the condition of the bike and how it is set up. This means knowing how worn the transmission is and how much brake pad is left because they will have checked all that before setting off on a long ride or at least weekly when giving the bike a routine clean and check over. Not knowing the condition of your bike is a bit like driving your car with your rear window wiper going or your fog lamp illuminated - it says you don't know what's happening around you.
Now if the rider has checked the bike over they will know that it is in good enough condition to do the day's ride. Which brings me to my point: if that's the case, why bother carrying tools? For me the minimum is a spare tube, pump and two tyre levers; if anything happens beyond a puncture, it's a structural failure or an accident and so it's outside my control. If the problem can't be adjusted out or I can't borrow tools from a nearby house or farm it's probably beyond immediate repair anyway and it's time to call for rescue or stick out a thumb and hope a van or an estate car comes along.
Mountain biking has a slightly different ethos because MTBs are subject to much greater stresses and likelihood of damage and a breakdown in remote country could be positively dangerous. But on the road, with other vehicles passing and habitation nearby, I stick with the tube, pump and tyre levers and sometimes a phone. Sounds a little conceited I guess but what do others think?
Now I would say that a good cyclist might not be able to do repairs but should at least be competent in the basics of bike maintenance, which means ensuring the brakes and gears are adjusted, everything is in good order and the tyres at the right pressure. This is required by the Highway Code anyway. That cyclist should be able to tell you without looking about the condition of the bike and how it is set up. This means knowing how worn the transmission is and how much brake pad is left because they will have checked all that before setting off on a long ride or at least weekly when giving the bike a routine clean and check over. Not knowing the condition of your bike is a bit like driving your car with your rear window wiper going or your fog lamp illuminated - it says you don't know what's happening around you.
Now if the rider has checked the bike over they will know that it is in good enough condition to do the day's ride. Which brings me to my point: if that's the case, why bother carrying tools? For me the minimum is a spare tube, pump and two tyre levers; if anything happens beyond a puncture, it's a structural failure or an accident and so it's outside my control. If the problem can't be adjusted out or I can't borrow tools from a nearby house or farm it's probably beyond immediate repair anyway and it's time to call for rescue or stick out a thumb and hope a van or an estate car comes along.
Mountain biking has a slightly different ethos because MTBs are subject to much greater stresses and likelihood of damage and a breakdown in remote country could be positively dangerous. But on the road, with other vehicles passing and habitation nearby, I stick with the tube, pump and tyre levers and sometimes a phone. Sounds a little conceited I guess but what do others think?