Friday News And Views

BRAN 44 Ride

Well, today is the day I am leaving for the week-long Bicycle Ride Across Nebraska (BRAM) on its 44th annual ride. I will be doing their gravel route, which stands alongside the traditional paved route and has been in existence for only a few short years. 

Disclaimer:

I was contacted by BRAN to come along and be an "in ride" social media/story-teller for the event in hopes that I could bring more awareness to their gravel route. 

In turn, BRAN has given me free entry to the ride and all ride benefits which any paying rider gets are also available to me. Just to be clear on that. Other outside expenses, (some food, beverage, etc) are on my tab, as well as travel to and from the ending town of Arlington, Nebraska. Otherwise there is no money being exchanged here, so if you think I'm making bank off this opportunity, think again. 

Okay, with this out of the way, I must next say I am grateful to a few of you dear readers and friends who have reached out with encouragement to me on the occasion of this event. I appreciate all your support! Thank you!

Next, I want to thank you - the readers of Guitar Ted Productions - for being here to read about this experience. From tomorrow on through next weekend I will be posting randomly and perhaps multiple times daily to bring the feel of BRAN 44 gravel here for your consideration. More on this below. 

And yes, I ordered the jersey. Won't be here till late Summer, but this will be my souvenir, or at least one of them, from this event. 

Image courtesy of MOMBAT

Innovator, Iconoclast, Charlie Cunningham Dies:

Wednesday brought the sad news of Mountain Bike Hall of Fame member and one of the founders of Wilderness Trail Bikes, Charlie Cunningham's death. 

Charlie Cunningham had suffered a traumatic brain injury in 2015 and was recently in declining health. His life will be remembered for his numerous contributions to mountain biking and cycling in general. 

Using what at the time (late 1970's) was a rare metal for frames in aluminum, Cunningham created some of the most forward thinking mountain bikes of the 1980's. His life partner, Jacquie Phelan, was routinely seen winning mountain bike races, often coming in ahead of most of the elite men in the races she contested. All aboard a Cunningham mountain bike. 

In more recent years Jacquie was Charlie's caretaker. The couple lived in Marin County, California where Charlie maintained a shop where he made innovative products such as the roller cam brake and its variants. 

Charlie was an early adopter of drop bars off road and modified existing drop bars into what is now known as flared drop bars, or what was then called "dirt drops". These bars were very influential in the early 29"er days and essential for many gravel riders up to the present day. 

I'll leave you today with this quote, found on Charlie's Mountain Bike Hall of Fame page: " The bicycle is a way for people to gain contact with something that has been misplaced. .....They (bicycles) can be an alternative to the abuse of technology that is so widespread in our world today. The more one uses a bicycle, especially in a natural environment, the more sympathetic and understanding one becomes of oneself and the planet. "

Crux v5 (Image courtesy of Specialized Bicycles)

Trends In Gravel Racing Bikes

Interestingly a couple of trends from last season have faded somewhat in 2026. Two, possibly three things have perhaps been seen at their peak of popularity in 2025. 

First, the 2+ inch tire trend is perhaps at full swing yet at this point, but from comments made by racers previous to Unbound, I can see the trend slipping a bit. 

Sure, there are some bicycles hitting the marketplace now with massive, (for a road bike based bicycle) tire clearances. 2,2" clearances are easy to find now. However, many gravel specific tires are still maxing out at 50mm as are many gravel bicycles. 

The cycling industry has a way of "crossing a line" (see 3" wide 29"er Plus), and then retreating back to a more common sense place. My observations from racer commentary support a move to more aero, and less wide, front tires. In fact, one bike set up for Unbound had a skinnier front tire and a big rear tire, while another sported smooth tread up front and knobbier tread out back. All with aero in mind. 

"Real-world" gravel cyclists probably don't care, but in case you haven't noticed, the cycling market caters to what Pro cyclists want and are doing, event though these riders account for a minuscule amount of gravel riders. But hey! I'm not the one who decided it had to be this way. I just have noted it throughout the years.  

The second thing I've noted is a lot less buzz happening around telescopic front forks for gravel bikes. Certainly, they are offered on a few select builds from most brands. Most cutting edge gravel bikes allow for the usage of a suspension fork. However; again with the racer comments and what is actually being used, I'm seeing less of these devices out there. The same aero reasons exist for not using a suspension fork which saves watts of energy versus more aero rigid forks. 

Finally, aero itself maybe fading in primacy over everything else. Witness the new Specialized Crux v5, which was designed based upon research data gained from years of gravel racing. The Crux has aero qualities, but the design is not 100% aero focused. Given the massive success the Crux v5 experienced at Unbound recently, I would suspect the design style utilized in the production of the Crux v5 will be dissected and regurgitated by other brands quickly. 

And Now For Something Completely Different... 

Okay, with a light news week, and all my time focused on BRAN preparations, this is all you get this week! I'll start tomorrow with a pre-BRAN look at the ride, and then updates from the BRAN route will happen all week at random times. Please keep checking in for a look at my experiences on this week-long gravel tour of Northern Nebraska. 

I'll be posting on Instagram, Facebook, and Threads also all week long. Check on the #BRANgravel hashtag to find my posts, or look for me at g.ted.productions 

Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions! Now get out there and ride those bicycles!  

Roller Cams On The Brain

Roller cam brakes   (Image from a sale ad on social media)

Years ago when I started poking around on the internet, one of the rabbit holes I went down concerned flared drop bars for mountain bikes. If you decide to dive into that hole it won't take you long to find the name "Charlie Cunningham". 

Charlie was a tinkerer, a co-founder of WTB (Wilderness Trail Bikes), and had his own mountain bike frame building company with his name on the downtube. Amongst his many contributions to mountain biking, and cycling in general, Charlie developed a braking system which had better modulation and power than typical cantilever brakes of the 1980's. They had a look unlike anything else out there and were called "roller cam brakes" because they featured a triangular shaped "cam" and rollers, or little wheels, at the ends of the brake arms. 

When I saw that SunTour had licensed the design from Charlie, I started keeping an eye out for a bicycle with those brakes on it. In fact, I had one, (and still do) back in the 90's. It was a Mongoose All-Mountain Pro. It featured the "Cunningham Design" SunTour roller cam on the rear stays. Back in the 1990's, no one knew anything about these weird brakes, and so I was kind of left in the dark, besides some tantalizing tidbits I'd see from time to time in magazines, or in a WTB catalog of the day. 

So, I was fascinated with roller cam brakes from that time onward. I ended up with a bicycle that has them front and rear, (a Schwinn High Sierra), which will be featured soon here on the blog. But recently we had a "barn find" come into the Cedar Valley Bicycle Collective which had the brakes on it front and rear. What is more, this bike had the "proper" arrangement: The rear brake was under the chain stay, where it was intended to be. 

See, Charlie Cunningham thought that traditional cantilever boss design placement on the seat stay and lower on the front fork blades was inferior. This traditional placement allowed the stays and fork to bow outward under braking pressure, which represented a loss of braking efficiency. What is more, those typically spindly rear stays could also twist, further degrading braking performance. Charlie's design placed the bosses higher up on the fork blades, near the base of the Unicrown, which was a lot stronger and less prone to flexing outward. In the rear, Charlie advocated for a placement of the bosses to be on the chain stays, which were vastly stiffer and less prone to twisting than the rear seat stays were.Not every bicycle that used roller cam brakes on the rear put them on the chain stays though. Neither of my two examples have that placement.

The red arrow points to where the brake boss is on the chain stay

The roller cam brake idea caught traction, and in the years 1986, 87, and 88 roller cam brakes were a big deal on many mountain bikes with probably 1988 being the "high water mark" of the "under-the-chain stay brake" fad. 

However; riders revolted against these saying they were "mud-catchers". Many were decrying the difficulty in getting rear wheels off to repair flat tires, and their voices were heard. By 1989 rear and front cantilever brakes returned to their "proper places" on frames and the roller cam idea was relegated to WTB bikes, for the most part. They were never heard from again, especially when dual suspension bikes were developed and after 1996, when Shimano introduced the linear pull, "V" brake. WTB folded up production of roller cam brakes in the late 1990's. 

So, roller cam brakes are not often seen anymore since any bike you'd typically see these on is going to be rare, as MTB bikes weren't the big deal in the 1980's as they were in the 90's, and these examples are around 35 years old or so by now. So, when a Dorado branded bike slid into the Collective last week with these brakes, in a size I could ride, well, my brain went into hyper-drive about what I could do with it. 

I don't need this bike. However; I am so smitten by roller cam brakes that I cannot stop thinking about restoring this old, rare beast and turning it into a touring bike, or a gravel rig, or..... Who knows?! 

A little about this bike: It is a "Dorado" branded bike, which, as far as I can come up with, was a house branded MTB made for sale at Costco stores. But instead of being some cheapo, big-box type quality sled, they actually made these out of decent ChroMoly main triangles and slapped quality SunTour bits on them. I also gathered that in today's dollars, a bike like this cost about $700.00, so there probably are not too many "Dorado" bikes around anyway. 

The Bad: It needs paint. The bike sat in a barn for decades and it got pretty scratched up. The wheels need redone, and the cables, housings, and that sort of stuff is needing attention.

The Good: the roller cam brakes are intact, work, and the drive train is also intact with SunTour top mount friction shifters also intact. And....it would fit me like a glove. I took some basic measurement and not only is the saddle already at my optimum height, the top tube is perfect. It has a 9" long head tube, so I could even put drop bars on this.

What Will I do: Don't know yet..... Stay tuned, but I may just salvage the brakes and bits and keep them for spares for my two other roller cam bikes. OR- I may build this up and replace my current 'townie'. Again- I don't need another bike! 

Note: Charlie Cunningham is still alive and has fallen on some difficult times in terms of health. If you are so led, here is a link to a fundraiser to help with his medical bills and recovery costs.

Roller Cams On The Brain

Roller cam brakes   (Image from a sale ad on social media)

Years ago when I started poking around on the internet, one of the rabbit holes I went down concerned flared drop bars for mountain bikes. If you decide to dive into that hole it won't take you long to find the name "Charlie Cunningham". 

Charlie was a tinkerer, a co-founder of WTB (Wilderness Trail Bikes), and had his own mountain bike frame building company with his name on the downtube. Amongst his many contributions to mountain biking, and cycling in general, Charlie developed a braking system which had better modulation and power than typical cantilever brakes of the 1980's. They had a look unlike anything else out there and were called "roller cam brakes" because they featured a triangular shaped "cam" and rollers, or little wheels, at the ends of the brake arms. 

When I saw that SunTour had licensed the design from Charlie, I started keeping an eye out for a bicycle with those brakes on it. In fact, I had one, (and still do) back in the 90's. It was a Mongoose All-Mountain Pro. It featured the "Cunningham Design" SunTour roller cam on the rear stays. Back in the 1990's, no one knew anything about these weird brakes, and so I was kind of left in the dark, besides some tantalizing tidbits I'd see from time to time in magazines, or in a WTB catalog of the day. 

So, I was fascinated with roller cam brakes from that time onward. I ended up with a bicycle that has them front and rear, (a Schwinn High Sierra), which will be featured soon here on the blog. But recently we had a "barn find" come into the Cedar Valley Bicycle Collective which had the brakes on it front and rear. What is more, this bike had the "proper" arrangement: The rear brake was under the chain stay, where it was intended to be. 

See, Charlie Cunningham thought that traditional cantilever boss design placement on the seat stay and lower on the front fork blades was inferior. This traditional placement allowed the stays and fork to bow outward under braking pressure, which represented a loss of braking efficiency. What is more, those typically spindly rear stays could also twist, further degrading braking performance. Charlie's design placed the bosses higher up on the fork blades, near the base of the Unicrown, which was a lot stronger and less prone to flexing outward. In the rear, Charlie advocated for a placement of the bosses to be on the chain stays, which were vastly stiffer and less prone to twisting than the rear seat stays were.Not every bicycle that used roller cam brakes on the rear put them on the chain stays though. Neither of my two examples have that placement.

The red arrow points to where the brake boss is on the chain stay

The roller cam brake idea caught traction, and in the years 1986, 87, and 88 roller cam brakes were a big deal on many mountain bikes with probably 1988 being the "high water mark" of the "under-the-chain stay brake" fad. 

However; riders revolted against these saying they were "mud-catchers". Many were decrying the difficulty in getting rear wheels off to repair flat tires, and their voices were heard. By 1989 rear and front cantilever brakes returned to their "proper places" on frames and the roller cam idea was relegated to WTB bikes, for the most part. They were never heard from again, especially when dual suspension bikes were developed and after 1996, when Shimano introduced the linear pull, "V" brake. WTB folded up production of roller cam brakes in the late 1990's. 

So, roller cam brakes are not often seen anymore since any bike you'd typically see these on is going to be rare, as MTB bikes weren't the big deal in the 1980's as they were in the 90's, and these examples are around 35 years old or so by now. So, when a Dorado branded bike slid into the Collective last week with these brakes, in a size I could ride, well, my brain went into hyper-drive about what I could do with it. 

I don't need this bike. However; I am so smitten by roller cam brakes that I cannot stop thinking about restoring this old, rare beast and turning it into a touring bike, or a gravel rig, or..... Who knows?! 

A little about this bike: It is a "Dorado" branded bike, which, as far as I can come up with, was a house branded MTB made for sale at Costco stores. But instead of being some cheapo, big-box type quality sled, they actually made these out of decent ChroMoly main triangles and slapped quality SunTour bits on them. I also gathered that in today's dollars, a bike like this cost about $700.00, so there probably are not too many "Dorado" bikes around anyway. 

The Bad: It needs paint. The bike sat in a barn for decades and it got pretty scratched up. The wheels need redone, and the cables, housings, and that sort of stuff is needing attention.

The Good: the roller cam brakes are intact, work, and the drive train is also intact with SunTour top mount friction shifters also intact. And....it would fit me like a glove. I took some basic measurement and not only is the saddle already at my optimum height, the top tube is perfect. It has a 9" long head tube, so I could even put drop bars on this.

What Will I do: Don't know yet..... Stay tuned, but I may just salvage the brakes and bits and keep them for spares for my two other roller cam bikes. OR- I may build this up and replace my current 'townie'. Again- I don't need another bike! 

Note: Charlie Cunningham is still alive and has fallen on some difficult times in terms of health. If you are so led, here is a link to a fundraiser to help with his medical bills and recovery costs.

Concept Bike Revisited; Part 1

How do my ideas from a decade ago stack up with what is available today?

Last Friday I brought up my "Time For A Concept Bike" series from ten years ago. This was in response to what, at that time, I saw as a need for a specific "all-road" solution for what it was we were engaged in. Gravel riding, broken up pavement riding, dirt road riding, and maybe a touch of single track/adventure bushwhacking thrown in for good measure.

We had three types of bicycles in those days: Road racing styled bikes, mountain bikes, and touring/cyclo cross bikes. There were elements of all of these bikes which I liked from my perspective, and this might be a good time to mention something regarding perspective.

It was my perspective. This "concept bike" nonsense was never meant for anything other than my own personal goals for realizing a "better tool for the job". Whether or not anyone else was going to like it, or want it, was not my concern at that time. I had ideas that I was sure would be far better than what I had available to me at that time. Now, of course, if other people happened to like the idea, well.....okay. That would be great. But make no mistake- I was going to end up with a bicycle like this regardless. That the folks out there doing what I was doing ended up- more or less- on a similar page is amazing and cool. Totally not my plan though.

Now, back to the bike choices. I liked a few things about road geometry because, well, we were riding on roads, not single track. So, while mountain bike tires with their cushy, comfortable, and stable ride were attractive, the geometry of those bikes weren't lending themselves to a ride mainly in the saddle for hours at a time. The road bikes were a bit too "racy" though, and this was/is because paved roads which are smooth, don't require any concessions to stability or comfort which you have to have on rougher, looser surfaces like gravel and sometimes dirt. Not to mention that tire clearances on road racing based bikes was severely limited. It's interesting to note now how gravel riding has actually influenced the road racing bikes of 2020, many of which can now handle a 32mm-35mm tire. This was unheard of - no, it was unthinkable - ten years ago.

Cyclo cross bikes did have adequate tire clearances in may cases, but the specific nature of their design meant that they had certain features which did not translate well to long days in the saddle. CX bikes were meant for clearing barriers, pedaling in deep ruts, and had to be able to carve tight corners at slow speeds. Plus, efficiency was king, meaning any concessions for rider comfort were secondary, or not considered into their design. I recall many "pure" CX bikes in the 90's didn't even have water bottle bosses. Those were things that just got in the way.

I used to use mountain bikes on gravel, but it wasn't completely ideal.

So, coming from the design sheet that CX does, you can see where the deficiencies were in terms of coming over to do gravel riding. Of course, it is obvious that CX bikes were widely used in the 00's during modern gravel riding's rise to popularity, but once gravel bikes hit the scene, those bikes became far less common, and now are rare to see at gravel events.

One could make an argument for touring bikes here. They have the geometry, the tire clearances, and the capability for carrying necessities, but there are a couple things about them that were not what I wanted at all. First and foremost, any touring bike worth its salt is going to be designed to handle and ride best when fully loaded. This means that when the touring bike is unladen it rides differently. Without panniers and bags full of gear, the touring bike frame becomes a stiff beast which isn't fun to ride on for very long on rougher roads. Secondly, the chain stays on touring bikes are a bit cartoonishly long so that when bags are mounted on the rear, there is clearance for legs and feet. We aren't going to be needing panniers on gravel bikes, so my take was that the chain stays could be shorter and the frame tubing could be more forgiving without having 75lbs of gear strapped to it.

What I was after was an amalgam of all of the good things from all of the above bikes. Here were my parameters which I listed back in 2010.

• 71.5 degree head angle. (Could go to 72, but we'll see.)
• 73 degree seat angle.
• 50mm offset fork (Could change)
• Low bottom bracket height. (Something around 75-80mm drop)
• Not touring length chain stays, but not cyclo-cross short either. 
• Room for 42mm tires

My friend Ben Witt also was down with this idea. Now, it has to be mentioned, and remembering that this was 2010, we also had an odd idea here which probably is as controversial today as it was ten years ago. The reasoning we wanted this odd arrangement, which I will share here in a moment, was that we had a theory, borrowed from none other than mountain bike pioneer, Joe Breeze, that the longer each frame tube could be without interruption, the more compliance it will have. This will be understood here after I explain the odd component choice.

Paul Components Racer brake (Center mount style shown)

Yep! That's right. An old design refreshed by Paul Component Engineering, the Racer Brake. Why? Well, reread that paragraph above. Disc brakes, while they are all the rage, and work well, do something to frame design that isn't adding to rider comfort. It takes it away to a degree, as a matter of fact. Look closely at any flat mount brake on the left chain stay. See how that flat mount effectively interrupts the tubing? In effect, it stiffens that tube up, which may or may not be a good thing. I'll admit that the rear flat mount is less intrusive than the old IS disc brake mount was, but in the area of fork design, it doesn't matter if the mount for the brake is flat or IS. The fork compliance suffers, and that's an area which is critical to the comfort of a rider on rougher surfaces.

So, here was the idea Ben and I had. Crazy as it may sound. We wanted to use the braze on vesion of the Racer brake because it uses mounting posts which attach closer to the fork crown, allowing the blades to have an uninterrupted tube for better compliance from the drop out to the fork crown. Plus, the braze on makes the Racer brake more responsive. Now, here's the kicker. This is where minds get twisted and people think Ben and I are crazy.

The rear Racer brake we wanted to have with the same braze on mounts, but located under the chain stay, like some older mountain bikes do.

I can hear you all now screaming at your glowing screen that this is a stupid, idiotic idea. "What about mud! That's a horrible place for a brake!" Or.....is it? Here's why we wanted to do this, if you haven't already figured it out. We wanted brake-free seat stays for the best rider comfort we could get. In fact, we were going to spec the lightest, thinnest seat stay tubing that we could. Also, with the brake mounted to the chain stay, you get massive brake response. Hardly any flex there! And a shield could be made, ala Charlie Cunninham's ideas (many examples shown here) to ward off dust and debris. With fenders, this would be even less of an issue.

So, there are the reasons and the background for the 2010 concept bike. Next time we will see where these ideas, (minus the oddball brake ideas, of course) fit into today's scene and what I would do differently now if I were to have this bike built.

Concept Bike Revisited; Part 1

How do my ideas from a decade ago stack up with what is available today?

Last Friday I brought up my "Time For A Concept Bike" series from ten years ago. This was in response to what, at that time, I saw as a need for a specific "all-road" solution for what it was we were engaged in. Gravel riding, broken up pavement riding, dirt road riding, and maybe a touch of single track/adventure bushwhacking thrown in for good measure.

We had three types of bicycles in those days: Road racing styled bikes, mountain bikes, and touring/cyclo cross bikes. There were elements of all of these bikes which I liked from my perspective, and this might be a good time to mention something regarding perspective.

It was my perspective. This "concept bike" nonsense was never meant for anything other than my own personal goals for realizing a "better tool for the job". Whether or not anyone else was going to like it, or want it, was not my concern at that time. I had ideas that I was sure would be far better than what I had available to me at that time. Now, of course, if other people happened to like the idea, well.....okay. That would be great. But make no mistake- I was going to end up with a bicycle like this regardless. That the folks out there doing what I was doing ended up- more or less- on a similar page is amazing and cool. Totally not my plan though.

Now, back to the bike choices. I liked a few things about road geometry because, well, we were riding on roads, not single track. So, while mountain bike tires with their cushy, comfortable, and stable ride were attractive, the geometry of those bikes weren't lending themselves to a ride mainly in the saddle for hours at a time. The road bikes were a bit too "racy" though, and this was/is because paved roads which are smooth, don't require any concessions to stability or comfort which you have to have on rougher, looser surfaces like gravel and sometimes dirt. Not to mention that tire clearances on road racing based bikes was severely limited. It's interesting to note now how gravel riding has actually influenced the road racing bikes of 2020, many of which can now handle a 32mm-35mm tire. This was unheard of - no, it was unthinkable - ten years ago.

Cyclo cross bikes did have adequate tire clearances in may cases, but the specific nature of their design meant that they had certain features which did not translate well to long days in the saddle. CX bikes were meant for clearing barriers, pedaling in deep ruts, and had to be able to carve tight corners at slow speeds. Plus, efficiency was king, meaning any concessions for rider comfort were secondary, or not considered into their design. I recall many "pure" CX bikes in the 90's didn't even have water bottle bosses. Those were things that just got in the way.

I used to use mountain bikes on gravel, but it wasn't completely ideal.

So, coming from the design sheet that CX does, you can see where the deficiencies were in terms of coming over to do gravel riding. Of course, it is obvious that CX bikes were widely used in the 00's during modern gravel riding's rise to popularity, but once gravel bikes hit the scene, those bikes became far less common, and now are rare to see at gravel events.

One could make an argument for touring bikes here. They have the geometry, the tire clearances, and the capability for carrying necessities, but there are a couple things about them that were not what I wanted at all. First and foremost, any touring bike worth its salt is going to be designed to handle and ride best when fully loaded. This means that when the touring bike is unladen it rides differently. Without panniers and bags full of gear, the touring bike frame becomes a stiff beast which isn't fun to ride on for very long on rougher roads. Secondly, the chain stays on touring bikes are a bit cartoonishly long so that when bags are mounted on the rear, there is clearance for legs and feet. We aren't going to be needing panniers on gravel bikes, so my take was that the chain stays could be shorter and the frame tubing could be more forgiving without having 75lbs of gear strapped to it.

What I was after was an amalgam of all of the good things from all of the above bikes. Here were my parameters which I listed back in 2010.

• 71.5 degree head angle. (Could go to 72, but we'll see.)
• 73 degree seat angle.
• 50mm offset fork (Could change)
• Low bottom bracket height. (Something around 75-80mm drop)
• Not touring length chain stays, but not cyclo-cross short either. 
• Room for 42mm tires

My friend Ben Witt also was down with this idea. Now, it has to be mentioned, and remembering that this was 2010, we also had an odd idea here which probably is as controversial today as it was ten years ago. The reasoning we wanted this odd arrangement, which I will share here in a moment, was that we had a theory, borrowed from none other than mountain bike pioneer, Joe Breeze, that the longer each frame tube could be without interruption, the more compliance it will have. This will be understood here after I explain the odd component choice.

Paul Components Racer brake (Center mount style shown)

Yep! That's right. An old design refreshed by Paul Component Engineering, the Racer Brake. Why? Well, reread that paragraph above. Disc brakes, while they are all the rage, and work well, do something to frame design that isn't adding to rider comfort. It takes it away to a degree, as a matter of fact. Look closely at any flat mount brake on the left chain stay. See how that flat mount effectively interrupts the tubing? In effect, it stiffens that tube up, which may or may not be a good thing. I'll admit that the rear flat mount is less intrusive than the old IS disc brake mount was, but in the area of fork design, it doesn't matter if the mount for the brake is flat or IS. The fork compliance suffers, and that's an area which is critical to the comfort of a rider on rougher surfaces.

So, here was the idea Ben and I had. Crazy as it may sound. We wanted to use the braze on vesion of the Racer brake because it uses mounting posts which attach closer to the fork crown, allowing the blades to have an uninterrupted tube for better compliance from the drop out to the fork crown. Plus, the braze on makes the Racer brake more responsive. Now, here's the kicker. This is where minds get twisted and people think Ben and I are crazy.

The rear Racer brake we wanted to have with the same braze on mounts, but located under the chain stay, like some older mountain bikes do.

I can hear you all now screaming at your glowing screen that this is a stupid, idiotic idea. "What about mud! That's a horrible place for a brake!" Or.....is it? Here's why we wanted to do this, if you haven't already figured it out. We wanted brake-free seat stays for the best rider comfort we could get. In fact, we were going to spec the lightest, thinnest seat stay tubing that we could. Also, with the brake mounted to the chain stay, you get massive brake response. Hardly any flex there! And a shield could be made, ala Charlie Cunninham's ideas (many examples shown here) to ward off dust and debris. With fenders, this would be even less of an issue.

So, there are the reasons and the background for the 2010 concept bike. Next time we will see where these ideas, (minus the oddball brake ideas, of course) fit into today's scene and what I would do differently now if I were to have this bike built.

Review Of Parts Past: Ragley Luxy Bar

Today we are going to take a look at something you cannot get anymore. Parts and pieces that graced our rides in days past that were noted for some special characteristic, either good or bad, will be featured in this recurring theme from time to time here. I call it "Review Of Parts Past", but that will get shortened to "ROPP", so there! Today's featured part is the Ragley Luxy Bar.

My 2007 Badger Cycles Drop Bar Custom with a Ragley Luxy Bar

This "ROPP" is all about a drop bar that was in production for maybe less than a year. In fact, the rumor is that only one production run was ever made of this bar. I've written reams about the mysterious Ragley Luxy Bar, but maybe I haven't explained exactly why it is that I, and many others, really like this bar. 

The Luxy Bars as seen on my Gen I Fargo. That is a Bar Yak set up attached to it as well.

 First of all, the Luxy Bar did two things that previously available drop bars for off road did not do: They had swept extensions and really shallow drop. Here in my image to the left you get a feel for how much sweep the extensions have. This puts your hands, forearms, and upper arms in a very natural position that I find extremely comfortable.

Secondly, the extremely shallow drop is unrivaled by any other bar, with the possible exception of the original, (and also unavailable),  Gary Bar. Check out the shallowness of the Luxy's drop in the top image. This was important in that the shallower drop requires a less tall stem on many bikes to make it work. Note also in my image of the Badger that the drops end up just a few inches lower than my saddle. Perfectly where I would have straight bars on any "normal" hard tail. Yet, the drop bar has other positions the traditional mountain bike bar cannot begin to offer a rider. Finally, the extensions and the top/ramps of the bar are parallel to each other and the extensions don't point downward at a weird angle, like Woodchippers extensions do. This makes set up far easier and the extensions stay usable. This is the fatal flaw with Woodchippers and it is why I do not like them at all.

The Luxy Bar did two other things which I haven't found in any other off road drop bar. One was that despite the extreme sweep and the super shallow drop, the brake/shifter controls don't end up in a super odd position which compromises their functionality or comfort. The levers get laid over a tad, for sure, but there are other bars that had far worse positioning for the controls. The aforementioned Gary Bar being one of the worst in that regard.

The width of the Luxy Bar makes for a great drop bar for a single speed.

The other thing which no other off road drop bar does, or any road drop bar, to my knowledge, is the 31.8mm diameter of the entire bar top. The Luxy is a fat bar all the way to the ramps, and when you use the tops for an extended climb, or just for cruising, that 31.8mm diameter feels right in the hand. Plus, it doesn't waste space with a taper that robs you of precious real estate for mounting accessories, should you desire to do that. Honestly, it is such a brilliant idea that I am amazed that more companies don't employ the design.

The Luxy was not perfect, by any stretch. It was only ever offered in one width, to my knowledge, and that extreme sweep was an acquired taste, for sure. However; it did so many things so "right", I cannot imagine any off road bar that comes close to the Luxy's practicality and comfort. The best bar available today, in my opinion, is Salsa Cycles Cowchipper. It has a really good design, but it has more drop and a tapered top from 31.8mm to the traditional 23.8mm for the control clamp size. The sweep is no where near the same either, so for those looking for a great bar to use on a single speed set up, the Cowchipper is a tough sell. However; the Cowchipper's  less extreme sweep is a selling point for many that use geared set ups.

The Luxy Bar is, by a country mile, the most innovative off road drop bar since Charlie Cunningham bent Cinelli bars to his taste for his self-branded aluminum mountain bikes in the early 80's. Nothing ever was made like it before or has been since. Apparently, Chain Reaction Cycles UK, the parent company of Ragley Bikes, holds the original tooling and license for the design hostage to this day. Having new Luxy Bars would be a great thing, but don't hold yer breath. I doubt they will ever be produced again.

But I've been wrong before.

Review Of Parts Past: Ragley Luxy Bar

Today we are going to take a look at something you cannot get anymore. Parts and pieces that graced our rides in days past that were noted for some special characteristic, either good or bad, will be featured in this recurring theme from time to time here. I call it "Review Of Parts Past", but that will get shortened to "ROPP", so there! Today's featured part is the Ragley Luxy Bar.

My 2007 Badger Cycles Drop Bar Custom with a Ragley Luxy Bar

This "ROPP" is all about a drop bar that was in production for maybe less than a year. In fact, the rumor is that only one production run was ever made of this bar. I've written reams about the mysterious Ragley Luxy Bar, but maybe I haven't explained exactly why it is that I, and many others, really like this bar. 

The Luxy Bars as seen on my Gen I Fargo. That is a Bar Yak set up attached to it as well.

 First of all, the Luxy Bar did two things that previously available drop bars for off road did not do: They had swept extensions and really shallow drop. Here in my image to the left you get a feel for how much sweep the extensions have. This puts your hands, forearms, and upper arms in a very natural position that I find extremely comfortable.

Secondly, the extremely shallow drop is unrivaled by any other bar, with the possible exception of the original, (and also unavailable),  Gary Bar. Check out the shallowness of the Luxy's drop in the top image. This was important in that the shallower drop requires a less tall stem on many bikes to make it work. Note also in my image of the Badger that the drops end up just a few inches lower than my saddle. Perfectly where I would have straight bars on any "normal" hard tail. Yet, the drop bar has other positions the traditional mountain bike bar cannot begin to offer a rider. Finally, the extensions and the top/ramps of the bar are parallel to each other and the extensions don't point downward at a weird angle, like Woodchippers extensions do. This makes set up far easier and the extensions stay usable. This is the fatal flaw with Woodchippers and it is why I do not like them at all.

The Luxy Bar did two other things which I haven't found in any other off road drop bar. One was that despite the extreme sweep and the super shallow drop, the brake/shifter controls don't end up in a super odd position which compromises their functionality or comfort. The levers get laid over a tad, for sure, but there are other bars that had far worse positioning for the controls. The aforementioned Gary Bar being one of the worst in that regard.

The width of the Luxy Bar makes for a great drop bar for a single speed.

The other thing which no other off road drop bar does, or any road drop bar, to my knowledge, is the 31.8mm diameter of the entire bar top. The Luxy is a fat bar all the way to the ramps, and when you use the tops for an extended climb, or just for cruising, that 31.8mm diameter feels right in the hand. Plus, it doesn't waste space with a taper that robs you of precious real estate for mounting accessories, should you desire to do that. Honestly, it is such a brilliant idea that I am amazed that more companies don't employ the design.

The Luxy was not perfect, by any stretch. It was only ever offered in one width, to my knowledge, and that extreme sweep was an acquired taste, for sure. However; it did so many things so "right", I cannot imagine any off road bar that comes close to the Luxy's practicality and comfort. The best bar available today, in my opinion, is Salsa Cycles Cowchipper. It has a really good design, but it has more drop and a tapered top from 31.8mm to the traditional 23.8mm for the control clamp size. The sweep is no where near the same either, so for those looking for a great bar to use on a single speed set up, the Cowchipper is a tough sell. However; the Cowchipper's  less extreme sweep is a selling point for many that use geared set ups.

The Luxy Bar is, by a country mile, the most innovative off road drop bar since Charlie Cunningham bent Cinelli bars to his taste for his self-branded aluminum mountain bikes in the early 80's. Nothing ever was made like it before or has been since. Apparently, Chain Reaction Cycles UK, the parent company of Ragley Bikes, holds the original tooling and license for the design hostage to this day. Having new Luxy Bars would be a great thing, but don't hold yer breath. I doubt they will ever be produced again.

But I've been wrong before.

Off Road Drop Bars 101: Why Radius Matters

Yesterday I posted a review of the Soma Gator Bar and mentioned how I felt that the drop sections radius basically made the bar very difficult to like. It is my opinion, of course, but today I wanted to tell you why it is my opinion. I didn't just come to this opinion flippantly or by accident. Hopefully after this post, you will see why I feel the way that I do about this radius issue. I am not expecting that all will agree, or even a few, but hopefully this spurs you on to consider why it might matter to you. Well.......if you ever consider off road drop bars, that is. 

I am going to use a lot of visual aids today and first I want to point out a basic design feature of flat bars.

Basic flat bars are generally set up close to parallel with the ground.

Using my mini Blackburn pump for something actually useful, (that's another story!), you can see how the pump lines up with the spaces between the boards on my front porch. This represents how a mtb handle bar is typically level with the ground. The reason this works is because the position your hands end up in promotes an "elbows out" and up stance, or as some refer to it as- the attack position- which promotes better control over the bike in rougher terrain. Sweep and rise notwithstanding, this is the basic handle bar position for off roading.

This would be considered "bad" for a normal mtb bar to have as a feature.

 Most mountain bike handle bars with a basis in the flat style do not droop downward. This wouldn't be a preferred position for your hands in rough terrain because the bumps and lumps your front tire create going over a uneven surface would want to vibrate your hands down and outward, right off the handle bars. Typically this would be seen as a bad thing. Yes? Yes.....it would. This is important for a bit further down in the post.

Now we get into a bit of history. Off road drop bars, at least in the modern sense, started with Charlie Cunningham and his bikes which featured modified Cinelli bars and his own stems to get the extensions up to a point where a flat bar's grips would be at from the ground.

Charlie Cunningham with one of his drop bar equipped bikes. Image from MOMBAT

The bars were modified to flare out and sweep outward at the extensions a bit to allow for the wrists and forearms to have room to move side to side in difficult terrain without smacking the tops of the bars. It is important to note that these bars were designed to be ridden almost always in the drops. The brake hoods, (if there were anything other than the metal perch), weren't a place that was expected to be used much, if at all. The point was that the drop extensions oriented the wrists, arms, and shoulders in a much more natural, relaxed position. The theory being that this more ergonomic position was better for absorbing trail chatter, left the rider fresher longer, and required less energy to hold on to the handle bars. You will note that almost every drop barred 'Ham has the extensions level, or nearly so, with the ground.

After Charlie helped found Wilderness Trail Bikes, the company made its own version of the original Cunningham modified bars for years. I remember mounting several pairs of them to cyclo cross bikes in the 90's. Then, WTB went through several changes, and the drop bar was cut from the product line, and that would be that for years. After a time when used WTB Dirt Drops were fetching triple digit prices on the used market, a couple of dirt drop aficionados helped design the On One Midge Bar using the WTB Dirt Drop as the design foundation. The off road dirt drop market was born again with the rising popularity of 29"ers and "monster cross" bikes in the early 00's. Several off road drop bars have followed in the wake of the Midge bar, but many have veered wildly from the basis of thought behind drop bars for off roading.

A modern take on the off road drop bar- This is an Origin 8 Gary Sweep OS Bar

Off road drop bars these days are typically not designed with the original intentions of the bars that Charlie Cunningham would have made or that WTB used to sell. These days it would appear that "uniqueness" is valued above function. Above we have an example of a bar that hits a middle ground of sorts when it comes to bars meant for off road use in the drop bar flavor. I'm not going to get into stems, or much about lever placement here. I am going to talk about hand positions and how the critical feature of a drop bar's radius used to bend the hooks affects those hand positions.

The same bar as above, rotated so that the ramps/tops are parallel to the ground. (Note spaces in porch boards as a reference)

If we take a bar like the Origin 8 Gary Sweep OS as an example, (shown above), we can see that by placing a priority on hand comfort at the ramps/hoods by placing that section level points the extensions downward at an angle which does a couple of things. Number one- It causes that "sloping downward" bar position like I described would be bad with a flat bar above. Bumps and lumps caused by the front wheel running over rougher ground is going to cause the hand to want to slip downward. The rider will have to counter this with a tighter grip. Not what we want in an off road drop bar, which should require less grip if the extensions are closer to level to the ground. Secondly, it cants the wrists backward into your forearms. This raises tension in the muscles, which again- is the antithesis to the reasons behind having a drop bar for off road use.

An effective lever placement could be anywhere between the two red lines, depending upon the rider's preference.

Now let's talk about lever placement in a general sense. Remembering that the primary hand position for an off road drop bar should be set up in the drops, that will dictate that you be able to reach and operate the brake lever, or "brifter", if using a multi-speed set up, from the extensions. That's why bars with more "open radius" drops are difficult to get right. If the bar is rotated too high, and the levers mounted so the hoods come off the ramps at a level to the ground way, usually you can't reach the lever effectively from the drops, and that is a big problem. You might say, "Well then! If I cannot get a good hoods position, then why bother?"  Yes. Exactly, but also keep in mind that the primary place you need to have working above all others is in the drops.

Now perhaps you can see that a really "open radius" design really limits the effectiveness of an off road drop design. You may have flare and sweep in the drops, but if you almost cannot use that position, what is the point? In the case of the Gary Sweep OS, a slight compromise in the ramps- having them slope downward slightly, away from the rider as seated, yields an extension position that points slightly downward, but is still usable. I find that if the extensions point in the general direction of the rear axle of the bike, it is okay. Anything forward of that, if the extensions point at the cranks, or even closer to the front wheel, that is a bar that is set up, or designed completely with disregard to the entire reason for having an off road drop bar. Again- why bother if that is the case? 

Examples of the Jones Bar. (Image courtesy of Jones Bikes)

Finally, an off road, flared, swept drop bar is not for everyone. I get that, but if you think that a design with an extension pointing downward radically is a good thing, consider the Jones Bar. Do you ever see anyone pointing the extensions of a Jones Bar so radically downward? I have not. You may say, "It's a completely different handlebar. " Well, it is, but it isn't. I think of a Jones Bar as a "flat plane off road drop bar". There is sweep, multiple hand positions, and a definite component of reach, which drop bars have as well. Jones Bars are designed with multiple hand positions in mind, just like a good off road drop bar should have as well, but it is obvious that the "primary" position is where the grips and levers are. Just like a good off road drop bar should have. Again, if the radius of an off road drop bar precludes any of the aforementioned traits, and doesn't promote the ergonomic features that Cunningham and Jones promote, it is the antithesis of an off road drop bar design. 

That's my opinion, and with the above explanation, I think it is apparent why I feel that way. You have to decide for yourself what is right for you. 

Off Road Drop Bars 101: Why Radius Matters

Yesterday I posted a review of the Soma Gator Bar and mentioned how I felt that the drop sections radius basically made the bar very difficult to like. It is my opinion, of course, but today I wanted to tell you why it is my opinion. I didn't just come to this opinion flippantly or by accident. Hopefully after this post, you will see why I feel the way that I do about this radius issue. I am not expecting that all will agree, or even a few, but hopefully this spurs you on to consider why it might matter to you. Well.......if you ever consider off road drop bars, that is. 

I am going to use a lot of visual aids today and first I want to point out a basic design feature of flat bars.

Basic flat bars are generally set up close to parallel with the ground.

Using my mini Blackburn pump for something actually useful, (that's another story!), you can see how the pump lines up with the spaces between the boards on my front porch. This represents how a mtb handle bar is typically level with the ground. The reason this works is because the position your hands end up in promotes an "elbows out" and up stance, or as some refer to it as- the attack position- which promotes better control over the bike in rougher terrain. Sweep and rise notwithstanding, this is the basic handle bar position for off roading.

This would be considered "bad" for a normal mtb bar to have as a feature.

 Most mountain bike handle bars with a basis in the flat style do not droop downward. This wouldn't be a preferred position for your hands in rough terrain because the bumps and lumps your front tire create going over a uneven surface would want to vibrate your hands down and outward, right off the handle bars. Typically this would be seen as a bad thing. Yes? Yes.....it would. This is important for a bit further down in the post.

Now we get into a bit of history. Off road drop bars, at least in the modern sense, started with Charlie Cunningham and his bikes which featured modified Cinelli bars and his own stems to get the extensions up to a point where a flat bar's grips would be at from the ground.

Charlie Cunningham with one of his drop bar equipped bikes. Image from MOMBAT

The bars were modified to flare out and sweep outward at the extensions a bit to allow for the wrists and forearms to have room to move side to side in difficult terrain without smacking the tops of the bars. It is important to note that these bars were designed to be ridden almost always in the drops. The brake hoods, (if there were anything other than the metal perch), weren't a place that was expected to be used much, if at all. The point was that the drop extensions oriented the wrists, arms, and shoulders in a much more natural, relaxed position. The theory being that this more ergonomic position was better for absorbing trail chatter, left the rider fresher longer, and required less energy to hold on to the handle bars. You will note that almost every drop barred 'Ham has the extensions level, or nearly so, with the ground.

After Charlie helped found Wilderness Trail Bikes, the company made its own version of the original Cunningham modified bars for years. I remember mounting several pairs of them to cyclo cross bikes in the 90's. Then, WTB went through several changes, and the drop bar was cut from the product line, and that would be that for years. After a time when used WTB Dirt Drops were fetching triple digit prices on the used market, a couple of dirt drop aficionados helped design the On One Midge Bar using the WTB Dirt Drop as the design foundation. The off road dirt drop market was born again with the rising popularity of 29"ers and "monster cross" bikes in the early 00's. Several off road drop bars have followed in the wake of the Midge bar, but many have veered wildly from the basis of thought behind drop bars for off roading.

A modern take on the off road drop bar- This is an Origin 8 Gary Sweep OS Bar

Off road drop bars these days are typically not designed with the original intentions of the bars that Charlie Cunningham would have made or that WTB used to sell. These days it would appear that "uniqueness" is valued above function. Above we have an example of a bar that hits a middle ground of sorts when it comes to bars meant for off road use in the drop bar flavor. I'm not going to get into stems, or much about lever placement here. I am going to talk about hand positions and how the critical feature of a drop bar's radius used to bend the hooks affects those hand positions.

The same bar as above, rotated so that the ramps/tops are parallel to the ground. (Note spaces in porch boards as a reference)

If we take a bar like the Origin 8 Gary Sweep OS as an example, (shown above), we can see that by placing a priority on hand comfort at the ramps/hoods by placing that section level points the extensions downward at an angle which does a couple of things. Number one- It causes that "sloping downward" bar position like I described would be bad with a flat bar above. Bumps and lumps caused by the front wheel running over rougher ground is going to cause the hand to want to slip downward. The rider will have to counter this with a tighter grip. Not what we want in an off road drop bar, which should require less grip if the extensions are closer to level to the ground. Secondly, it cants the wrists backward into your forearms. This raises tension in the muscles, which again- is the antithesis to the reasons behind having a drop bar for off road use.

An effective lever placement could be anywhere between the two red lines, depending upon the rider's preference.

Now let's talk about lever placement in a general sense. Remembering that the primary hand position for an off road drop bar should be set up in the drops, that will dictate that you be able to reach and operate the brake lever, or "brifter", if using a multi-speed set up, from the extensions. That's why bars with more "open radius" drops are difficult to get right. If the bar is rotated too high, and the levers mounted so the hoods come off the ramps at a level to the ground way, usually you can't reach the lever effectively from the drops, and that is a big problem. You might say, "Well then! If I cannot get a good hoods position, then why bother?"  Yes. Exactly, but also keep in mind that the primary place you need to have working above all others is in the drops.

Now perhaps you can see that a really "open radius" design really limits the effectiveness of an off road drop design. You may have flare and sweep in the drops, but if you almost cannot use that position, what is the point? In the case of the Gary Sweep OS, a slight compromise in the ramps- having them slope downward slightly, away from the rider as seated, yields an extension position that points slightly downward, but is still usable. I find that if the extensions point in the general direction of the rear axle of the bike, it is okay. Anything forward of that, if the extensions point at the cranks, or even closer to the front wheel, that is a bar that is set up, or designed completely with disregard to the entire reason for having an off road drop bar. Again- why bother if that is the case? 

Examples of the Jones Bar. (Image courtesy of Jones Bikes)

Finally, an off road, flared, swept drop bar is not for everyone. I get that, but if you think that a design with an extension pointing downward radically is a good thing, consider the Jones Bar. Do you ever see anyone pointing the extensions of a Jones Bar so radically downward? I have not. You may say, "It's a completely different handlebar. " Well, it is, but it isn't. I think of a Jones Bar as a "flat plane off road drop bar". There is sweep, multiple hand positions, and a definite component of reach, which drop bars have as well. Jones Bars are designed with multiple hand positions in mind, just like a good off road drop bar should have as well, but it is obvious that the "primary" position is where the grips and levers are. Just like a good off road drop bar should have. Again, if the radius of an off road drop bar precludes any of the aforementioned traits, and doesn't promote the ergonomic features that Cunningham and Jones promote, it is the antithesis of an off road drop bar design. 

That's my opinion, and with the above explanation, I think it is apparent why I feel that way. You have to decide for yourself what is right for you. 

Musings On Hubs

King hub: Image courtesy of Cyclingnews.com

I got an email from a mechanic friend of mine the other day asking me to discuss hubs. You know....those things in the middle of your bicycle wheels that the spokes attach to? Yeah.....those are hubs.

And, believe it or not, hubs are not at all created equal. This starts to bring in opinions on what works best, and what doesn't. However; there is one small detail that all hubs need to perform well, and if neglected, you really don't have a leg to stand on comparing your hub to another hub, especially if you are having issues. What would that be?

Service. Maintenance. You know.......overhauling your hubs.  It has to be said- your hubs and your entire bicycle, for that matter, need to be checked and maintained on a regular basis. Really. I don't know where folks get the idea that you don't have to do anything to a bike to keep it rolling. You do have to work at it. These things need attention, and if you don't give them attention, they will bolt on you like an un-loved woman.

So, with that out of the way, and assuming you are taking great care of your particular hubs, what is it that works best?

Shimano internally geared 3 speed hub diagram

Well, best for what? In the case of my friend, his question was in reference to gravel grinding. Gravel is an insidious enemy of bicycle parts. Just harmless dust, eh? Well, that stuff gets into hubs, and then acts like a grinding agent. It will pit and destroy hub bearings fast. How you keep it out is with seals.

Not the marine animal. No, we're talking about little rubber, plastic, and metal barricades against intrusion by dust, dirt, and water. Sounds great then. Get some seals and you're all good, right? Not so fast there.....

There are bearings, and there are bearings. Some are sealed with plastic barriers in a stainless steel case, much like what you see in the Chris King hub, and some are ball bearings that rely on a "labyrinth seal" system, which is what Shimano mtb hubs have used, amongst others. Which is better is a matter of opinion, but generally speaking, the type in the Chris King hub, or "sealed bearings", as they are known as, get the lions share of nods amongst aficionados of mechanicing.  

The thing is, if a bunch of grit does make its way into the "sealed bearing", it is going to stay there until it chews everything up eventually. The labyrinth seal lets things in and out, so maybe you will get long life, maybe not. Again, servicing a labyrinth sealed system is pretty easy, but you actually have to do it. The sealed bearing system could be serviced too, but it isn't as easily done.

A serviceable hub?

My grandfather was a farmer a long time ago. When I was a young lad, I would follow him everywhere he went, watching his every move. He was my hero at the time. Well, as he would go to hitch up an implement to the ole John Deere A Model, he would grab a grease gun from the engine bay, and grease the implement before he used it by squirting a few pumps of grease into a zert  on different points on the implement. This forced old, watered down, dirty grease out, and replaced it with new, fresh grease. Maintenance.

You know what? There were bicycle hubs that you could do the same thing with. Brilliant idea, and too bad it doesn't exist as new anymore. It was developed by Charlie Cunningham of WTB, and it was called "Grease Guard". Suntour licensed the technology for a while as well. I had a full XC Pro Suntour Grease Guard gruppo on my first serious mtb, and like my grandfather, I greased those bearings regularly. Never had any problems keeping those bearings smooth and trouble free. In fact, the wheels still live on my Xtracycled Schwinn, and the hubs have never been apart. Don't need to be. As long as I can grease them.

Seems to me it is an idea worth reviving, especially for us dirt and gravel riders.

Musings On Hubs

King hub: Image courtesy of Cyclingnews.com

I got an email from a mechanic friend of mine the other day asking me to discuss hubs. You know....those things in the middle of your bicycle wheels that the spokes attach to? Yeah.....those are hubs.

And, believe it or not, hubs are not at all created equal. This starts to bring in opinions on what works best, and what doesn't. However; there is one small detail that all hubs need to perform well, and if neglected, you really don't have a leg to stand on comparing your hub to another hub, especially if you are having issues. What would that be?

Service. Maintenance. You know.......overhauling your hubs.  It has to be said- your hubs and your entire bicycle, for that matter, need to be checked and maintained on a regular basis. Really. I don't know where folks get the idea that you don't have to do anything to a bike to keep it rolling. You do have to work at it. These things need attention, and if you don't give them attention, they will bolt on you like an un-loved woman.

So, with that out of the way, and assuming you are taking great care of your particular hubs, what is it that works best?

Shimano internally geared 3 speed hub diagram

Well, best for what? In the case of my friend, his question was in reference to gravel grinding. Gravel is an insidious enemy of bicycle parts. Just harmless dust, eh? Well, that stuff gets into hubs, and then acts like a grinding agent. It will pit and destroy hub bearings fast. How you keep it out is with seals.

Not the marine animal. No, we're talking about little rubber, plastic, and metal barricades against intrusion by dust, dirt, and water. Sounds great then. Get some seals and you're all good, right? Not so fast there.....

There are bearings, and there are bearings. Some are sealed with plastic barriers in a stainless steel case, much like what you see in the Chris King hub, and some are ball bearings that rely on a "labyrinth seal" system, which is what Shimano mtb hubs have used, amongst others. Which is better is a matter of opinion, but generally speaking, the type in the Chris King hub, or "sealed bearings", as they are known as, get the lions share of nods amongst aficionados of mechanicing.  

The thing is, if a bunch of grit does make its way into the "sealed bearing", it is going to stay there until it chews everything up eventually. The labyrinth seal lets things in and out, so maybe you will get long life, maybe not. Again, servicing a labyrinth sealed system is pretty easy, but you actually have to do it. The sealed bearing system could be serviced too, but it isn't as easily done.

A serviceable hub?

My grandfather was a farmer a long time ago. When I was a young lad, I would follow him everywhere he went, watching his every move. He was my hero at the time. Well, as he would go to hitch up an implement to the ole John Deere A Model, he would grab a grease gun from the engine bay, and grease the implement before he used it by squirting a few pumps of grease into a zert  on different points on the implement. This forced old, watered down, dirty grease out, and replaced it with new, fresh grease. Maintenance.

You know what? There were bicycle hubs that you could do the same thing with. Brilliant idea, and too bad it doesn't exist as new anymore. It was developed by Charlie Cunningham of WTB, and it was called "Grease Guard". Suntour licensed the technology for a while as well. I had a full XC Pro Suntour Grease Guard gruppo on my first serious mtb, and like my grandfather, I greased those bearings regularly. Never had any problems keeping those bearings smooth and trouble free. In fact, the wheels still live on my Xtracycled Schwinn, and the hubs have never been apart. Don't need to be. As long as I can grease them.

Seems to me it is an idea worth reviving, especially for us dirt and gravel riders.