Why I hate bike shops I

My two year old bike had developed a rather odd (to me) problem.

When it was on the smallest rear cog, it would periodically 'jump', by which I
mean that the pedal would leap forward a few degrees and there would be an
unpleasant noise from the transmission. At first I though this was an adjustment
thing, and indeed, it did seem to get better with a little fiddling around on
the rear derailer adjuster.

However, it got worse, so I took it to the LBS.

Ah, said the man; "you've got wear on the rear sprocket, and the chain is
stretched".

Odd, I thought. I've had this bike a fifth of the time I had the last one, and
the transmission on that was still fine when I got rid of it.

Still, if that was the problem, so be it, it would have to be fixed.

On the way home, my inner tube exploded, by which I mean that it went bang, and
completely deflated.

Getting home, I discover that for the third time, the rear tyre has spilt along
the side wall. Again, very odd that three rear tyres should have gone in two
years on this bike, whilst the previous bike managed ten years on two (and the
second was still in good nick). (And no, I do not overinflate the tyres. I've
got two pressure gauges just to be on the safe side).

So I go and get a new tyre and inner tune and fit them, but notice that there
are three broken spokes. Odd, I think, that this is the second episode of spoke
breakage in two years, whereas my old bike didn't break any until it was ten
years old.

So, off I toddle, pushing the bike to the LBS. I explain what needs to be done,
and the man says it will be ready today. OK, I say, and he then announces that
he's noticed that spokes are a bit corroded, so will it be OK to fit a new
wheel, as they are likely to start going ping as he replaces and tightens the
old ones. No option here, really, so I say yes, although I'm wondering why this
bike has corroded spokes after two years when my last bike's spokes lasted for
ten.

Anyway, today I pick up the bike; shiny new chain, shiney new rear cogs, shiny
new wheel: £64.

I start riding it, and discover that now *all* the rear cogs do this skipping.
No time to go back this morning, so I push the bike home, and check that the
gears are aligned properly.

So now I'm £64 down, with an unusable bike that will have to go back to the LBS,
where I imagine I'm going to hear something bizarre about something expensive
that will need replacing to make the whole thing work (and which will presumably
mean that the chain and rear cogs didn't need replacing at all - they worked
*far* better than the new ones).


And it's the sort of people who do this that people are suggesting I should
allow to guide me as to how to spend several hundred pounds on a piece of
equipment that I expect to use for thousands of hours over the next few years.

Paul D wrote:

: And it's the sort of people who do this that people are suggesting I should
: allow to guide me as to how to spend several hundred pounds on a piece of
: equipment that I expect to use for thousands of hours over the next few years.

There's many bad bike shops out there I'm afraid to say. There's also many good
ones though.

Where are you? Prehaps we could recommend some decent shops for you to visit?

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

Paul D wrote:

When it was on the smallest rear cog, it would periodically 'jump', by =
which I
mean that the pedal would leap forward a few degrees and there would be=
an
unpleasant noise from the transmission. At first I though this was an a=
djustment
thing, and indeed, it did seem to get better with a little fiddling aro=
und on
the rear derailer adjuster.
=20
However, it got worse, so I took it to the LBS.
=20
Ah, said the man; "you've got wear on the rear sprocket, and the chain =
is
stretched".

That sounds fairly reasonable as a possible diagnosis.

Odd, I thought. I've had this bike a fifth of the time I had the last o=
ne, and
the transmission on that was still fine when I got rid of it.

Two years isn't an unreasonable amount of time. If you're spending a=20
lot of time on the smallest rear cog then note that that one wears=20
quicker than others as it has considerably fewer teeth to spread the=20
wear over. Overuse of top probably suggests a bit of a mashing=20
pedalling style which will accelerate wear.

On the way home, my inner tube exploded, by which I mean that it went b=
ang, and
completely deflated.
=20
Getting home, I discover that for the third time, the rear tyre has spi=
lt along
the side wall. Again, very odd that three rear tyres should have gone i=
n two
years on this bike, whilst the previous bike managed ten years on two (=
and the
second was still in good nick). (And no, I do not overinflate the tyres=
=2E I've
got two pressure gauges just to be on the safe side).

Either you're using poor tyres or, possibly, there is something about=20
the setup of the bike which is increasing their wear on the sidewall.

So I go and get a new tyre and inner tune and fit them, but notice that=
there
are three broken spokes. Odd, I think, that this is the second episode =
of spoke
breakage in two years, whereas my old bike didn't break any until it wa=
s ten
years old.

Spokes tend to go for reasons of trauma, like hitting a biggish pothole, =

though also the case that there are spokes and spokes, and better wheels =

have better spokes. Stainless steel double butted on my bikes, and=20
they're still good as new with no corrosion, not the case on all bikes=20
of the same age, or even rather younger. Once one goes there is usually =

unequal tension around the wheel and it increases you chances of another =

one going. It will also tend to put the wheel out of true, which might=20
lead to brakes rubbing on the tyre sidewalls and destroying tyres at an=20
unreasonably fast rate...

old ones. No option here, really, so I say yes, although I'm wondering =
why this
bike has corroded spokes after two years when my last bike's spokes las=
ted for
ten.

See above, it's entirely possible your old bike had much higher quality=20
spokes.

Anyway, today I pick up the bike; shiny new chain, shiney new rear cogs=
, shiny
new wheel: =A364.
=20
I start riding it, and discover that now *all* the rear cogs do this sk=
ipping.
No time to go back this morning, so I push the bike home, and check tha=
t the
gears are aligned properly.
=20
So now I'm =A364 down, with an unusable bike that will have to go back =
to the LBS,
where I imagine I'm going to hear something bizarre about something exp=
ensive

It's not entirely unusual for new gears to need some fiddling. It=20
certainly isn't unheard of for the sort of wear that requires a new=20
chain and cassette to be mirrored on the chainwheels, so now the=20
skipping might well be from there. I don't know if this /is/ the case,=20
but it might be, and if it is it is *not* the fault of the shop.

that will need replacing to make the whole thing work (and which will p=
resumably
mean that the chain and rear cogs didn't need replacing at all - they w=
orked
*far* better than the new ones).

The transmission functions as a whole. A chainwheel/chain/cassette=20
which has worn down together may well object to a single part changing, =

or a single part left unchanged.

And it's the sort of people who do this that people are suggesting I sh=
ould
allow to guide me as to how to spend several hundred pounds on a piece =
of
equipment that I expect to use for thousands of hours over the next few=
years.

Again, nothing in the above proves that the shop is in any way bad. I=20
don't necessarily mean they're good, but there's no damning evidence=20
they're bad.

What was slightly better service I had when I went in to a shop with a=20
skipping gear was that the owner told me the above and said we'd start=20
with the chain, and see if that did it, and if it didn't we'd try the=20
block, and if that didn't do then a chainwheel /would/ finish the job.=20
I was prepared in advance for spending the higher total, but he did the=20
job in increments to see if the whole lot needed done. it did, as it=20
turned out. Note the only difference to your case is I was warned in=20
advance it might cost more, but that's the only difference. I was happy =

with that shop, is another difference, of course, but then I'm not=20
currently in a finding fault with anything bicycular frame of negative=20
thought.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:32:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Ah, said the man; "you've got wear on the rear sprocket, and the chain =
is
stretched".

That sounds fairly reasonable as a possible diagnosis.

Well, he did look at it. And, since the bike is extremely undergeared for the
use to which I put it, it spends most of it's life running in the highest
possible gear.

Overuse of top probably suggests a bit of a mashing=20
pedalling style which will accelerate wear.

Or that the bike is undergeared for the use to which it's put.

Either you're using poor tyres or, possibly, there is something about=20
the setup of the bike which is increasing their wear on the sidewall.

Yes, that much is obvious. Shouldn't at least one of the two different bike
shops I've taken it too been able to spot that there was something wrong with
the setup?

Other than that, I'm just using standard tyres that you get when you ask for a
eplacement tyre at an LBS.

See above, it's entirely possible your old bike had much higher quality=20
spokes.

Possibly, but considering it was just about the most basic bike available (a
BIKE bike), that certainly shouldn't have been the case.

It's not entirely unusual for new gears to need some fiddling.

Well, in that case, I would have expected the bike shop operative to have done a
little thing called a 'test ride', and f*****g well found out.

Not charged me £64 and handed me back a useless bike.

It=20
certainly isn't unheard of for the sort of wear that requires a new=20
chain and cassette to be mirrored on the chainwheels, so now the=20
skipping might well be from there. I don't know if this /is/ the case,=20
but it might be, and if it is it is *not* the fault of the shop.

It may not be the fault of the bike shop that the chain ring has worn, but it
most certainly is the case that they should have been able to *see* that it was
worn.

I find it *extraordinarily* unlikely that all three chainrings have worn so
badly in two years that they will only work (perfectly except for use with one
of the rear gears), with a stretched chain, and will become totally unusable
when a new one is put on (I don't believe that the new rear cog set can affect
the behaviour of the chain ring to any great extent).

And it's the sort of people who do this that people are suggesting I sh=
ould
allow to guide me as to how to spend several hundred pounds on a piece =
of
equipment that I expect to use for thousands of hours over the next few=
years.

Again, nothing in the above proves that the shop is in any way bad. I=20
don't necessarily mean they're good, but there's no damning evidence=20
they're bad.

Rubbish.

In the first place, they should have been able to see that all three chainrings
were so badly worn that there are unusable (despite the fact that the larger has
had 95% or the wear, the two smaller ones only being used on steep hills).

In the second place, they should have told me that it was possible that a new
chainset might be needed.

In the third place, they should have *tested* the work they did.

At the moment, I've paid out £73.50 (including the tyre and tube) for a useless
bike that they have said is only worth at the most £50 in px.

But then I'm not=20
currently in a finding fault with anything bicycular frame of negative=20
thought.

I don't think that complaining about being charged £64 for some work that has
reduced the bike to complete unusability and wasn't even tested before being
handed over is unreasonable.

If anyone thinks it is, then I think they definitely belong in the "nutter"
camp.

Paul D wrote:

: Or that the bike is undergeared for the use to which it's put.

People often think this, but it's vary rarely true. It may be true in your
case of course - how many teeth are there on the big ring (probably 42 or 44?)
and the little cog (probably 11 or 12)


--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

On this great day..Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:32:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Paul D wrote:

When it was on the smallest rear cog, it would periodically 'jump', by =
which I
mean that the pedal would leap forward a few degrees and there would be=
an
unpleasant noise from the transmission. At first I though this was an a=
djustment
thing, and indeed, it did seem to get better with a little fiddling aro=
und on
the rear derailer adjuster.
=20
However, it got worse, so I took it to the LBS.
=20
Ah, said the man; "you've got wear on the rear sprocket, and the chain =
is
stretched".

That sounds fairly reasonable as a possible diagnosis.

Odd, I thought. I've had this bike a fifth of the time I had the last o=
ne, and
the transmission on that was still fine when I got rid of it.

Two years isn't an unreasonable amount of time. If you're spending a=20
lot of time on the smallest rear cog then note that that one wears=20
quicker than others as it has considerably fewer teeth to spread the=20
wear over. Overuse of top probably suggests a bit of a mashing=20
pedalling style which will accelerate wear.

On the way home, my inner tube exploded, by which I mean that it went b=
ang, and
completely deflated.
=20
Getting home, I discover that for the third time, the rear tyre has spi=
lt along
the side wall. Again, very odd that three rear tyres should have gone i=
n two
years on this bike, whilst the previous bike managed ten years on two (=
and the
second was still in good nick). (And no, I do not overinflate the tyres=
=2E I've
got two pressure gauges just to be on the safe side).

Either you're using poor tyres or, possibly, there is something about=20
the setup of the bike which is increasing their wear on the sidewall.

So I go and get a new tyre and inner tune and fit them, but notice that=
there
are three broken spokes. Odd, I think, that this is the second episode =
of spoke
breakage in two years, whereas my old bike didn't break any until it wa=
s ten
years old.

Spokes tend to go for reasons of trauma, like hitting a biggish pothole, =

though also the case that there are spokes and spokes, and better wheels =

have better spokes. Stainless steel double butted on my bikes, and=20
they're still good as new with no corrosion, not the case on all bikes=20
of the same age, or even rather younger. Once one goes there is usually =

unequal tension around the wheel and it increases you chances of another =

one going. It will also tend to put the wheel out of true, which might=20
lead to brakes rubbing on the tyre sidewalls and destroying tyres at an=20
unreasonably fast rate...

old ones. No option here, really, so I say yes, although I'm wondering =
why this
bike has corroded spokes after two years when my last bike's spokes las=
ted for
ten.

See above, it's entirely possible your old bike had much higher quality=20
spokes.

Anyway, today I pick up the bike; shiny new chain, shiney new rear cogs=
, shiny
new wheel: =A364.
=20
I start riding it, and discover that now *all* the rear cogs do this sk=
ipping.
No time to go back this morning, so I push the bike home, and check tha=
t the
gears are aligned properly.
=20
So now I'm =A364 down, with an unusable bike that will have to go back =
to the LBS,
where I imagine I'm going to hear something bizarre about something exp=
ensive

It's not entirely unusual for new gears to need some fiddling. It=20
certainly isn't unheard of for the sort of wear that requires a new=20
chain and cassette to be mirrored on the chainwheels, so now the=20
skipping might well be from there. I don't know if this /is/ the case,=20
but it might be, and if it is it is *not* the fault of the shop.

that will need replacing to make the whole thing work (and which will p=
resumably
mean that the chain and rear cogs didn't need replacing at all - they w=
orked
*far* better than the new ones).

The transmission functions as a whole. A chainwheel/chain/cassette=20
which has worn down together may well object to a single part changing, =

or a single part left unchanged.

And it's the sort of people who do this that people are suggesting I sh=
ould
allow to guide me as to how to spend several hundred pounds on a piece =
of
equipment that I expect to use for thousands of hours over the next few=
years.

Again, nothing in the above proves that the shop is in any way bad. I=20
don't necessarily mean they're good, but there's no damning evidence=20
they're bad.

What was slightly better service I had when I went in to a shop with a=20
skipping gear was that the owner told me the above and said we'd start=20
with the chain, and see if that did it, and if it didn't we'd try the=20
block, and if that didn't do then a chainwheel /would/ finish the job.=20
I was prepared in advance for spending the higher total, but he did the=20
job in increments to see if the whole lot needed done. it did, as it=20
turned out. Note the only difference to your case is I was warned in=20
advance it might cost more, but that's the only difference. I was happy =

with that shop, is another difference, of course, but then I'm not=20
currently in a finding fault with anything bicycular frame of negative=20
thought.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/


Why do I see that annoying "=20" at the end of every line of your post?

Mike

Pullout "stop" to reply by email

Paul D wrote:
My two year old bike had developed a rather odd (to me) problem.

When it was on the smallest rear cog, it would periodically 'jump',
by which I mean that the pedal would leap forward a few degrees and
there would be an unpleasant noise from the transmission. At first I
though this was an adjustment thing, and indeed, it did seem to get
better with a little fiddling around on the rear derailer adjuster.

However, it got worse, so I took it to the LBS.

Ah, said the man; "you've got wear on the rear sprocket, and the
chain is stretched".

Sounds reasonable, although there are other potential causes as well/

Odd, I thought. I've had this bike a fifth of the time I had the last
one, and the transmission on that was still fine when I got rid of it.

Does this bike have smaller cogs & rings? They wear out faster.
Different brands/models of gears can wear out faster than others, too.

Still, if that was the problem, so be it, it would have to be fixed.

On the way home, my inner tube exploded, by which I mean that it went
bang, and completely deflated.

Getting home, I discover that for the third time, the rear tyre has
spilt along the side wall. Again, very odd that three rear tyres
should have gone in two years on this bike, whilst the previous bike
managed ten years on two (and the second was still in good nick).
(And no, I do not overinflate the tyres. I've got two pressure gauges
just to be on the safe side).

So I go and get a new tyre

Same model again?

and inner tune and fit them, but notice
that there are three broken spokes. Odd, I think, that this is the
second episode of spoke breakage in two years, whereas my old bike
didn't break any until it was ten years old.

So, off I toddle, pushing the bike to the LBS. I explain what needs
to be done, and the man says it will be ready today. OK, I say, and
he then announces that he's noticed that spokes are a bit corroded,
so will it be OK to fit a new wheel, as they are likely to start
going ping as he replaces and tightens the old ones. No option here,
really, so I say yes, although I'm wondering why this bike has
corroded spokes after two years when my last bike's spokes lasted for
ten.

Poor wheel build, if not poorer spokes as well.

Anyway, today I pick up the bike; shiny new chain, shiney new rear
cogs, shiny new wheel: £64.

I start riding it, and discover that now *all* the rear cogs do this
skipping. No time to go back this morning, so I push the bike home,
and check that the gears are aligned properly.

So now I'm £64 down, with an unusable bike that will have to go back
to the LBS, where I imagine I'm going to hear something bizarre about
something expensive that will need replacing to make the whole thing
work (and which will presumably mean that the chain and rear cogs
didn't need replacing at all - they worked
*far* better than the new ones).

It will be quite easy for any decent mechanic to track down the problem.
They should get the bike working for no extra charge. I would check for
stiff links first.

And it's the sort of people who do this that people are suggesting I
should allow to guide me as to how to spend several hundred pounds on
a piece of equipment that I expect to use for thousands of hours over
the next few years.

There's more than one sort of person working in the business and there's
more than one bike shop in the world, hopefully more than one within
travelling distance from you.

~PB

On 28 Apr 2005 13:35:02 GMT, "Arthur Clune" wrote:

Paul D wrote:

: Or that the bike is undergeared for the use to which it's put.

People often think this, but it's vary rarely true. It may be true in your
case of course - how many teeth are there on the big ring (probably 42 or 44?)
and the little cog (probably 11 or 12)

42/14 26" wheel.

I don't know why you would think I'd say it was undergeared if it wasn't.

If I'm going down a hill, or there is any following wind, I can't peddle fast
enough to actually feel a decent amount of resistance in my legs.

i.e. taken to the extreme, I can completely exhaust myself whilst not putting
anywhere close to the pressure I'm capable of on the pedals.

Just calculated that at 23.2 mph for 100 rpm pedal speed.
25.5 for 110, which seems to be near enough my maximum.

I did manage to get up to 120 rpm on a static bike with no resistance for a few
seconds, once.

Mike wrote:

Why do I see that annoying "=20" at the end of every line of your post?

'Cause I guess your news client doesn't grok what Moz 1.4/SPARC posts
for EOLs. If I look up my posts on Google Groups there's no =20 there.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:

Spokes tend to go for reasons of trauma, like hitting a biggish
pothole

Spokes fatigue all the time just from normal riding on smooth roads (as
the spokes are repeatdly loaded and unloaded), and will also weaken from
any corrosion, then a bump finally triggers a breakage. Better (eg.
double butted) spokes in better-built wheels will fatigue less, and
stainless steel spokes won't corrode, Paul.

~PB