[KiwiMike]

I’ve used an Uncommon Designs

I’ve used an Uncommon Designs Safety Case for the last two years – can’t really fault it. 

http://www.getuncommon.com/products/iphone/iphone5/safety/

 

And stuck to the back of it is a Quadlock Universal Mount – http://www.quadlockcase.co.uk/products/universal-adapter

 

The case comes with a headphone adapter, and is the slimmest, easiest-entry/exit waterproof case I’ve found. Sound quality can be a bit muffled, but hey – it’s waterproof. Can’t compare with the audio using the Nuud ones, but they are harder to get in/out.

 

[KiwiMike]

Tony Farrelly wrote:

Going back to the original topic – I can’t see why you are singling out ‘Eco bike cleaning products’ as being a particular rip-off. In terms of price the Green Oil bike cleaner that has you in such a lather is pretty much on a par with most other bike cleaners eco or otherwise. List price on a litre of Muc-off is £9 not that you’re likely to have to pay full list for it online, but chances are you won’t pay full list for the Green Oil one either.

 

Missed this Tony. I agree, it’s ‘Bike Cleaners In General’ that are a rip-off. The ‘Eco’ label is to me just a further layer of cynical Marketing BS bandwagon-riding.

I don’t think it’s possible to get higher eco-cred than Ecover dishwashing liquid, and also that product has to deal with seriously nasty baked-on shite (well, in our house anyway. kids burning milk on to the bottom of cast-iron pans etc)

Again I posit that the solution that Muc-Off sell you for $9/L is absolutely no more effective at getting a bike clean than a few pence worth of Ecover/Fairy in a half-bucket of hot water.

As above, I’d LOVE to see an independent test of this. I doubt very much that the manufacturers would. 

 

I know of one manufacturer who decided not to productise their developed world-beating degreaser, after the chemical patent search showed that they had just spent a considerable sum to re-invent Fairy liquid.

 

 

 

 

 

[KiwiMike]

gonedownhill wrote:

Kinda related question seeing as we have some chemists on the topic, is cycle specific wet lube (~£8 for 100ml) is any better than a bottle of 3in1 (£2)? 

A basic oil will attract dirt and keep it stuck. After an hour your drivetrain will be black with it, held in suspension as a grinding paste for all those lovely metal-metal interactions. And cleaning it off requires a properly-aggressive degreaser.

I’m liking the Wickens & Soderstrom No.5 lube a lot – review published soon.

 

Given a £14 bottle of decent lube can last a year, it’s a much less volatile value-for-money equation than £8 for a litre of bikewash that’s gone after a few weeks.

[KiwiMike]

adamthekiwi wrote:

Do you doubt it because you know what they are, or because they have chemically-sounding names and so must therefore be evil?

 

…

Using that to clean your bike will have a much less profound impact on the environment than your daily shower.

 

You, Sir, are my new hero. And this is why I love Road.CC – the forums have lurking industrial chemists with a high ability to string together a coherently devastating counter-argument.

[KiwiMike]

Simon E wrote:

with Green Oil you are getting *genuinely* environmentally friendly products from a *genuinely* environmentally friendly business.

I’m not doubting they are nice people. Just that like-for-like, paying 25 to 500 times the odds for a product with basically the same claims (biodegradeable, non-hazardous) just doesn’t make sense to me. I could take the hundreds of pounds saved and purchase a block of rainforest, thereby making a real difference without feeling greenmailed.

Simon E wrote:

From the Swarfega MSDS you linked to:

TETRAPOTASSIUM PYROPHOSPHATE, 2-AMINOETHANOL, BENZENE SULPHONIC ACID, SODIUM XYLENE SULPHONATE, ISOTRIDECANOL

You think these things are good for the environment and your skin? I doubt it.

It’s listed as both non-hazardous and biodegradable. I didn’t say you would want to eat it, slather it on your eyeballs, or raise fish in it. Unless you’re accusing the lab that did the testing and the manufacturer/retailers of criminal conspiracy, I’ll go with their verdict, thanks.

Simon E wrote:

If you want to have a bitch about ripoff pricing then look at brands like Muc-Off, who are charging a lot more for poncy crap – £9 for a brush, FFS! I’m sure Wilko will have something similar for £1.99.

Why not let people spend their money on what they want?

Many people are selling ‘eco-friendly’ products targeted at affluent cyclists. This is just one example – and at least this one apparently works. Many don’t.

People can spend money on what they like. I’m not stopping anyone spending anything, just calling bullshit on what seems to be questionable extra eco-smugness.

FWIW, I purchased a brush set from Finish Line maybe 10 years ago. It still works, many, many hundreds of washes later. Would the Wilko brush last as long? dunno.

[KiwiMike]

stem wrote:

I was told ages ago not to use washing up liquid for bikes and cars because it has too many corrosive salts. Can anyone confirm or deny that? (I do know you’re meant to rinse it off). You can get 5L of car shampoo pretty cheap abyway.

I’m with you on generic degreaser though.

 

Urban myth. The amount of ‘salt’ is tiny. Certainly a hell of a lot less than what you happily plaster your bike with for hundreds of hours a year, if you ride in the UK.

 

Been using dishwashing liquid for many years. Never seen a hint of corrosion. Like anything, rinse well – dishwashing liquid is designed to rinse away completely. 

[KiwiMike]

foot_loose wrote:

I always thought Swarfega was for cleaning your hands, not degreasing your bike or anything else.

You do know Swarfega make more than one product, right?

[KiwiMike]

If you are using ‘wavy’
If you are using ‘wavy’ rotors – ditch ’em. You don’t need mud shedding on a roadbike, and the wavy cutouts just create noise and weaken the feel. Fitting Hayes continuous rotors over the standard TRP wavy ones made a huge difference.

And yes, both were set up correctly and burnt in.

[KiwiMike]

IN_SPADES it did, thanks.
IN_SPADES it did, thanks. Look for forthcoming review of some very trick shoeage.

[KiwiMike]

Fish_n_Chips wrote:I think

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

I think you’ve given a warning to all of us who want to help out.

Let us know what it was in the end!

Will do – and yup, if the chain’s gone beyond 0.4-0.5% wear then the likely bill in time/materials is going be ‘large’.

[KiwiMike]

Thanks all for the advice –
Thanks all for the advice – I’m clearly not going mad (well, in this respect anyway).

She’s now taken it to a ‘proper shop’ where (I hope) they will find the same as I have.

One thing is sure as hell: next time someone brings me a bike with a chain that knackered, my opening gambit is ‘ This will cost you £115 in parts’ and go from there, not to do things bit-by-bit to hopefully save them some cash and end up being blamed for someone else’s malfeasance.

[KiwiMike]

CXR94Di2 wrote:If you have

CXR94Di2 wrote:

If you have changed the chain, cassette, and free hub for new parts, then its either there isn’t enough chain tension(look at chain length then derailleur tension) or the front crank teeth are worn. Need to work out if its front or rear jumping. Why don’t you ride the bike and see if you can provoke the condition.

Chain length is correct (both big-big full-link overlap outside of mech, and 12T-50T with pulleys 90º to chainstays. Mech moves freely across range – it’s a new 105. Skipping happens even in largest cog, so I’m pretty sure that rules out tension as the culprit.

[KiwiMike]

DaSy wrote:First thing is to

DaSy wrote:

First thing is to establish where the chain is skipping. I usually put it in a heavy gear and give it a hard push from stationary, and watch the chain on the chain rings to see if it skips over those teeth. If it skips but not on the front, then repeat whilst watching the chain on the cassette. I sometimes get the owner to ride it whilst I ride alongside watching the drivetrain to see where the fault is.

From what you have said, it does sound like chainrings, some of the lower end Shimano original rings are made of butter, and do wear quickly if the chain gets badly worn.

You need to establish where the problem is before buying new parts.

Thanks DaSy – thing is it was skipping off of both. Now I think it’s just the front, so was specifically interested in thoughts on whether a chainring that passed the historic ‘lift-test’ and wasn’t visibly hooked/shark-toothed could still skip.

[KiwiMike]

Colin Peyresourde wrote:Did

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Did you check the chain length on the new chain/chain set? That can cause skipping on all gears.

Yup, single link’s worth of overlap in big/big, sans mech.

[KiwiMike]

Fish_n_Chips wrote:One way to

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

One way to do this is to use a donor bike.

Swap the wheels, is the fault gone? Yes? Sorted it’s the cassette or freebhub.

No? Then could be chainrings or chain or front mech.

I’d swap parts rather than buy but not everyone has a donor or compatible parts to try.

Check the chainrings or frame and if no luck then get a 3rd opinion.

Thanks for the thoughts F’n’C, yep went down this path with a donor 105 10spd machine. The thing is, chain skipping can be caused by a bunch of factors – and they were *all* present – knackered chain, cogs, rings, bent mech (straightened), crapped-out freehub (replaced) – so you see that swapping in-out donor bits was a mug’s game – I thought I had it a number of times by ruling stuff out that transplanted with no issue or 100% issue, but then – nope. As the donor bike was worn to a far lesser degree (but was still worn) it wasn’t a genuine pass-fail test.

Swapping stuff in/out only works if just one component is shagged :-/

[Author]

Replies