What is this Viking that I have bought

[Annoying Twit]

Re:

Whoops! I see I haven't posted the requested photos yet. I'll try to get these photos.

I've used the bike in a triathlon now. It was a learning experience. I was quite a bit slower than my single speed in a previous triathlon, but it was a different course and also very different weather. I'm going to take this bike and ride the course of the previous triathlon to see how I compare.

I'm thinking carefully about what to do in the future. This bike was meant to be a stopgap until I decided what to do. And I feel that by far the biggest limiting factor is my strength, fitness, and technique. But, I also want to think about what to do for equipment in the future. One of my take home messages from yesterday is that I need a lower gear for the extreme hills.

It has a 14-24 (I presume) freewheel on the back. I'm not sure if it's Shimano compatible or something more arcane. I see that it's possible and quite inexpensive to obtain a 14-28T freewheel, e.g.http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stor ... _langId_-1

However, that would require a better or at least less worn out rear derallieur. Given that chains are different for different numbers of gears on the cassette/freewheel, which derailleurs would be likely to work well? I'm tempted to go for something like: http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/shim ... -prod85966 But, I presume that wouldn't work with a 5 speed chain. So, what would?

An alternative is to change the front gears to give a wider range. However, I note that the 'flash' bikes have a double sprocket at the front, and I've read reviews suggesting triple chainsets are not recommended for competition. My bike is already heavy compared to others (though I think it's compatible in weight with the latest B'Twin Triban 3 - which disappointed me as the previous carbon forked model is much lighter). Hence, I would be hesitant to add anything that makes it even heavier - which I presume that any triple chainset that I could justify the cost of would.

Would converting the rear mechanism to 14-28 rather than 14-24 give me a really noticeably lower low gear? If I did that, then would it be an option in the future to change the front sprockets, nothing else, to give an even wider range at the front. I've read that gear ratios that are far apart might not be good for the knees. Is this a concern?

Sorry about asking so many questions.

Edit: Just an additional point. I'm happy to spend some £££ on things that I can transfer to a subsequent bike. E.g. the pedals and bike shoes, and probably a seat in the future. But, I'm hesitant to spend too much on stuff that would be for this bike only. That's why I link to a cheap freewheel, but would like a better rear derailleur, on the assumption that this could be transferred. (Please correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect).

 

[Yardbent]

Re:

Would converting the rear mechanism to 14-28 rather than 14-24 give me a really noticeably lower low gear? If I did that, then would it be an option in the future to change the front sprockets, nothing else, to give an even wider range at the front. I've read that gear ratios that are far apart might not be good for the knees. Is this a concern?

have a look to see what changing cogs will do
http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

i have 14-28 5speed with a 42/52T chainset
not fit and 'elderly' .... :facepalm: ......i found the hills were a bit steep up here

bought a 36/50T from eBay - made a significant diff on the inner 36T cog
to the point that i may go back to the 42/52 as i improve

HTH....john

 

[Annoying Twit]

Re:

Thanks Yardbent. When I return home I'm going to have to do some more counting and measuring before I can fill in the form. However, I find that page encouraging. One reason I bought a cheaper bike because I thought I didn't have the knowledge to go out and get the 'right' bike for me. If I'm now thinking of gear ratios, crank lengths, and counting teeth for the first time in my life, this makes me think I'm learning the stuff I need to know in order to know what I really need from a bike.

I know that the largest cog at the front is 48T. At present, the 48T/14T combination (27" wheels, no idea of crank length) is a high enough gear for me. I need more strength and power (and bravery during descents) to make significant use of a higher gear, I believe. But, I wouldn't want to lose that gear. One thing I don't know is how different the front cogs can be without mechanical or usability problems. There's the temptation to go for very different front cogs, to get a wide range of available gear ratios while still having fairly closely spaced gears at the back. Would this work?

 

[Yardbent]

There's the temptation to go for very different front cogs, to get a wide range of available gear ratios while still having fairly closely spaced gears at the back. Would this work?........


i'm learning too, so lotsa reading

usually the front chainset has about a 10 T difference as per my original 42/52T
took a chance with the 36/50T ie a 16T jump but it works fine
i did have to remove 1 link from the chain

you 'may' be able to buy a smaller ring for yours ie making it a 36/48T
you'll need to research what you have

 

[keithglos]

Re:

You should be able to ride up anything with a 48 x 24. Your personal fitness cannot be replaced by more and lower gears in what appears to be a competition. I supect the competition will result in you riding effectively as a time trial.
After basic fitness you will need the lightest tyre and rim combination that is strong enough. The total weight of the bike is far less important.

When my wife was a leading time triallist in the 1960s I put a speedometer on her training bike. Very simple arithmetic will show you why. She then knew how much she was slowing down on quite small hills.

Imagine you want to average 20MPH. You have to cover 2 miles, one mile uphill, one mile down. If you climb at 15 mph, it takes 4 mins uphill, so you have to go down at 30mph to get the average. If you climb at 12 mph then you must descend at 60 mph. And at 10 mph the task is impossible. Generally in a time trial you cannot gain downhill what you lose uphill. Do the simple arithmetic.

Her favourite wheels had 6 ounce tubulars and 8 ounce rims. All a long time ago.

Keith

 

[Annoying Twit]

Thanks. I've had two separate pieces of advice not to change the gears. But, I've had other advice to keep my cadence at 90rpm up hills. I'll need legs of iron to manage that on steep hills with my current gears, but maybe that's what I need. It's tricky to find decent hills around here so I can do the V02Max training I've been advised to. I'm thinking about local hills, and trying to work out a 20km t

Even if I don't upgrade the bike now, I like to think about what I could do in the future. First off, I forgot that I was going to take the weird puncture resistant belts out of the wheels before the triathlon. I also think that 80psi wasn't enough, and I should have pumped the tyres up to 100psi or more. (More than the tyres/wheels are rated for, but I've had them at that pressure before). I note that while I have 27" wheels, it will be possible to drop my brake blocks 4mm, which means that I might be able to fit 700c wheels. Looking at the prices of 700c wheels on ebay, e.g. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Shimano-105-A ... 19ed1117ac It might be worth considering replacing the wheels when my current tyres wear out, though I have no idea which wheels are good for the money I'm prepared to pay, and how much of an advantage there would be in changing. Also, if I swapped wheels, I'd probably need a new rear derailleur because of differences (e.g. number of gears) in the rear gears.

Now in hindsight, I appreciate buying a cheap old bike. Because it's prompted me to think about the bits on it and how they can be improved. If I'd paid much more for a modern alloy bike, I'd be annoyed and disappointed if it needed upgrading. I checked the weight of a B'Twin Triban 3 the other day. The current model, not the older better model with carbon forks. The modern bike didn't feel much lighter than mine. And it costs £300. £300 is pocket change to most cyclists it seems, but I didn't want to spend that much and find that through ignorance I'd bought something that wasn't right for me. My Viking cost me £65. If I find it's not right for me, then I'm not that bothered. Even if I left it in the garage for days when I find my commuter bike has a flat and I'm late for work, it would be worth £65. But so far it seems fine. And if the gearing is within the ballpark, then apart from possibly heavy wheels, which might be a training advantage it seems to be enough for me right now.

Edit: Further up the thread, I thought about upgrading the brakes. Now that they're adjusted properly, they actually seem fine. I'm sure I've experienced better braking, but didn't feel that the brakes were a problem on the tri I did.

 

[Agency_Scum]

Re:

Viking ( click on link )

Hope this helps.

 

[Annoying Twit]

Thanks for the link.

I'm a bit confused though. The link says that nothing much has been heard of the marque since it moved to Ireland. But, the name is still in common usage. I have a modern Viking single speed. (It just happened that way, I didn't plan to own two Vikings).

 

[Annoying Twit]

Stolen!