Worn bits - I've had my fun

[FishFright]

Looks like you have a fun project lined up @Rooster1

I'd replace the gear cables too while you've got the patient on the operating table. Maybe brake cables as well if you have such archaic things.

Now to order subtly wrong parts, re-order the right ones, drop them on the floor and lose crucial bits, discover that your tools have gone missing, fit widget X upside down and have to take it all apart ... and then fit it backwards, all the while covering yourself liberally with oil and grease. ... If you are a ham-fisted fool like me, that is.

That perfectly describes the type of day I've had in the shop today !

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

The only exception would be changing the headset in the unlikely event that it needs it.

I am not sure which Defy you have but they all seem to be at least 10 speed so you are going to need to get used the short life of the tyres, chains and cassettes, they are not like 5 speed freewheels and 27 1/4 touring tyres.

Setting aside any issue of how the OP treats the bike, it's not a very good advert for modern bike engineering is it?
I'm as certain as I can be, that every single one of my bikes is still on it's original factory headset after anything up to 47 years, and I wouldn't mind betting the majority are on their original chainrings, mechs and rear gears too.I

 

[Gunk]

As you know @SkipdiverJohn I restore a lot of older bikes, most stuff pre 1990 is completely serviceable, I rarely have to throw a part away unless it’s damaged.

 

[itboffin]

I don’t get why people says disc brake pads wear much quicker I have three MTB bikes and one road disc and none of them needs pads changing any sooner than my calliper brakes, in fact my oldest MTB has never had its pads changed since 2008

 

[Tom B]

It

I don’t get why people says disc brake pads wear much quicker I have three MTB bikes and one road disc and none of them needs pads changing any sooner than my calliper brakes, in fact my oldest MTB has never had its pads changed since 2008

It'll depend massively on the duty cycle.
I've dissolved some resin pads on a single 20 my mile gritty muddy ride over the hills. That got a bit expensive so I switched to sintered. I've got one bike that is used mainly on the road and has sintered pads, they're about 10yr old.

Setting aside any issue of how the OP treats the bike, it's not a very good advert for modern bike engineering is it?
I'm as certain as I can be, that every single one of my bikes is still on it's original factory headset after anything up to 47 years, and I wouldn't mind betting the majority are on their original chainrings, mechs and rear gears too.I

I think the modern lightweight nature of components doesn't help. The headset bearing setup on my 1990s bike weights about 10 times a modern set up.

 

[Chislenko]

And the poor shopkeeper who spent his time assessing the faults and telling you what you needed to do doesn't get a penny for his time and trouble.... Nice?

I'm with Skol here.. Having worked in the motor trade for many years I lost count of the amount of customers who wanted free diagnosis then take their vehicle somewhere else to have the work done.

Whilst a technician is doing free diagnosis the company are not making any money.

Eventually we started charging a diagnosis fee, which would be deducted from the cost of repair if we carried out the repair.

I know of one local mobile bike mechanic who charges an "inspection fee" before he does any work and it doesn't seem to affect his business. And fair play to him, he could drive 10 miles, spend 20 minutes inspecting your bike then get told "I won't have the work done just wanted to know what was wrong with it" Wouldn't be in business very long if all that time and expense was for free diagnosis.

 

[Foghat]

On a 'very dirty' bike too, according to post #46.

I could just about understand taking a dirty bike in if the problem was with malfunctioning hydraulic brakes, as the dirt could aid diagnosis, but for a general or drivetrain inspection it seems rather disrespectful towards the mechanics.

 

[Tom B]

On a 'very dirty' bike too, according to post #46.

A couple of LBS around here charge a dirty bike cleaning fee before doing anything if someone turns up with a dirty bike.
They then clean it to a workable standard.

 

[Lovacott]

How many rings on the crankset?
If more than one surely all of the rings wouldn't have been "knackered"?

It's a three ring set ( 42-34-24 ) with the smallest being the one with the worst wear.

Shimano FC-TY501, cost £19.50.

My commute is hilly and muddy but because I'd fitted a new chain back in the summer, I thought it would be good for at least a year but when I bought a chain checker tool a few months back and tried it, it slipped in with ease on the 1% side. I swapped out the chain for a new one but that only made the chain suck worse.

The chain suck got that bad that I ended up stopping out the bottom ring by adjusting the limit screw to prevent its selection until the new crankset arrived (made some of the hills bloody hard work though).

I'm now on a new chain, chainrings and freewheel and I've boosted up the cleaning and maintenance schedule.

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good morning,

Setting aside any issue of how the OP treats the bike, it's not a very good advert for modern bike engineering is it?
I'm as certain as I can be, that every single one of my bikes is still on it's original factory headset after anything up to 47 years, and I wouldn't mind betting the majority are on their original chainrings, mechs and rear gears too.I

I am not in complete agreement, apart from the headset, as I regard a lot of modern bikes, such as all Defys as competition level equipment, although they are often being bought and used as general purpose equipment.

I have no problem with competition level equipment such as 10speed plus components having what I would consider an unacceptable lifespan for a general purpose bike as the compromises needed to make cheap 10speed outweigh the disadvantages for equipment intended for competition.

I did once wonder what the response to Sora Di2 would be
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/fantasy-question–-specialized-allez-sora-di2-or-mechanical-105.247736/
this does of course presume that Di2 is a good thing.

I would love to see 7/8 speed 105 as a current product range. Although I can see the problem in offering it, the option to be able to buy 7/8spd 105 is one that I wouldn't be surprised to see taken up in large volumes, although often as a second purchase.

Having 10speed and 8speed bikes with the same cassette range 11-25 but 50t 10sp and 52t 8sp I do feel confident in saying that for me the 8sp bike is a better bike for general purpose use but I would prefer the 10sp if I intended to go compete.

However I do 10mile TTs on a RTTC (or whatever they are called now) measured course by myself on the 8sp just for personal interest, so an increase in speed by improving equipment is meaningless to me.

Recently I have been using the Shimano RS10 (16/20 spoke) wheels from my plastic bike on my steel bike as I want to see how long they will last. They definitely feel different but if there is any speed advantage it is lost within experimental error, as they are 2.77kg (edit from 2.77g) including tyres, tubes and cassette they are just over 0.9kg lighter than the (36/36) wheels they replace they may be expected to offer less gyroscopic stability.

But it is very clear in my mind that I am playing with competition equipment and using it as general purpose equipment, I don't intend to take the experiment to the point where I add the supermarket shopping hanging from the brake levers that the 36 spoke wheels are happy with.

I am surprised that you haven't ever worn out any aluminium chain rings, I got just under 20k miles from one when commuting in all weathers and riding through gritty snow and puddles, and find that perfectly acceptable. :-)

Bye

Ian

 

[Blue Hills]

It's a three ring set ( 42-34-24 ) with the smallest being the one with the worst wear.

Shimano FC-TY501, cost £19.50.

My commute is hilly and muddy but because I'd fitted a new chain back in the summer, I thought it would be good for at least a year but when I bought a chain checker tool a few months back and tried it, it slipped in with ease on the 1% side. I swapped out the chain for a new one but that only made the chain suck worse.

The chain suck got that bad that I ended up stopping out the bottom ring by adjusting the limit screw to prevent its selection until the new crankset arrived (made some of the hills bloody hard work though).

I'm now on a new chain, chainrings and freewheel and I've boosted up the cleaning and maintenance schedule.

Ah, if that cheap (am not criticising) a crankset, such unfortunately is the way of things it would very probably have been cheaper to just buy a new set. I'd look at the old rings though - one or two may still have some use in them.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I'd look at the old rings though - one or two may still have some use in them.

On my triples, I guarantee the granny ring will be the last one to wear out - but then I'm not riding it in Devon!. When I first started riding on MTB/Touring triple chainsets, I tended to be a bit lazy if I'm honest. I generally stuck it in the middle front ring and left it there most of the time, unless I really really needed a granny gear or I was spinning out with a tailwind. After a while, it dawned on me that I was going to end up binning a 2/3rds OK transmission component (if riveted together) because the middle ring would end up knackered whilst the others were like new.
Now I make a conscious effort to ride my triples in the big ring when conditions are easy on tarmac, and i tend to restrict the use of the smaller ones for gradients or rougher terrain where speeds are generally lower. I've gone from maybe using 2% Small, 80% Middle, 18% Large to something more like 5% Small, 45% Middle, 50% Large.
Of course if you have individually replaceable chainrings, and they are freely available in the tooth count you want, then you can be lazy in your gear usage with no penalty, but on the cheaper stuff intelligent gear selection will significantly extend component life.

 

[Gunk]

I tended to be a bit lazy if I'm honest. I generally stuck it in the middle front ring and left it there most of the time

If you live on the flat there is a tendency to just leave it in one ring, Here in Oxford I very rarely use the smaller chain ring, 53T seems to be fine for most conditions.

 

[Blue Hills]

On my triples, I guarantee the granny ring will be the last one to wear out - but then I'm not riding it in Devon!. When I first started riding on MTB/Touring triple chainsets, I tended to be a bit lazy if I'm honest. I generally stuck it in the middle front ring and left it there most of the time, unless I really really needed a granny gear or I was spinning out with a tailwind. After a while, it dawned on me that I was going to end up binning a 2/3rds OK transmission component (if riveted together) because the middle ring would end up knackered whilst the others were like new.
Now I make a conscious effort to ride my triples in the big ring when conditions are easy on tarmac, and i tend to restrict the use of the smaller ones for gradients or rougher terrain where speeds are generally lower. I've gone from maybe using 2% Small, 80% Middle, 18% Large to something more like 5% Small, 45% Middle, 50% Large.
Of course if you have individually replaceable chainrings, and they are freely available in the tooth count you want, then you can be lazy in your gear usage with no penalty, but on the cheaper stuff intelligent gear selection will significantly extend component life.

I'd never buy a crankset with rivetted chainrings though have inherited one or two on old bikes.
On many Shimano triple cranksets the small ring is often steel I think.
To allow for the fact I think that each tooth will get more wear.
They could be had until recently (particularly from Germany) for less than a fiver.

 

[Lovacott]

Now I make a conscious effort to ride my triples in the big ring when conditions are easy on tarmac, and i tend to restrict the use of the smaller ones for gradients or rougher terrain where speeds are generally lower. I've gone from maybe using 2% Small, 80% Middle, 18% Large to something more like 5% Small, 45% Middle, 50% Large.

I was being lazy and staying in the small ring when I was on easy hills if I knew I had a big hill or section coming up. This was partly due to my changes down on the front being difficult during climbs because of issues with my old front mech.

Now, with a new front mech sorted and sweet gear changes, I use the most appropriate for the section I'm on and only use the small ring on three very steep sections with the rest of the route being a 50/50 split between big and middle.

My crankset is a riveted job so like you, it's a shame to bin the whole thing because of excessive wear on a single ring.