So you simply are going to ignore the evidence and make your mind up that the evidence is wrong? I suggest you look again at the CTC link and the links and discussion about rotational injuries in my earlier posts. Numerous studies show that as more cyclists wear helmets casualty rates do not fall.

Casualty rates not falling does not make helmets a bad thing though. Given that most people wear helmets these days I strongly suspect there is not enough evidence to show the real result of not wearing them at all. The evidence that is there is from a minority, and from what kind of riders, what skills do they have, what trails do they ride? Being such a small number compared to those who do wear, it’s highly likely that they are just lucky. Rates not falling despite increasing number of wearers can also indicate that there are an increasing number of riders, rather than an increasing number of existing riders taking to wearing helmets. More riders, more accidents.

If casualty rates massively increased by wearing them, I’d be very concerned. This isn’t the case.

Besides, wearing a helmet doesn’t stop you having an accident anyway. It’s more to do with what injuries you can sustain when you do have an accident.

I can’t say for certain if my helmet saved my life the other week when I ended up unconscious in Frimley ICU for a couple of days, but I struggle to see at all from any evidence that’s been presented anywhere and from my own experience myself and with another rider in a similar situation, just what benefit not wearing a helmet would be at all. Regardless of any supposed studies, I strongly believe the helmet can make a huge difference. NHS staff appear to have the same opinion and I’ve heard quotes of “that probably saved your life”.

Sure, they’re not academics sat behind a desk binding statistics together for a “study”. They’re just people on the front line who deal with this stuff regularly (and Frimley deals with Swinley accidents on a very regular basis).

It is not about vanity not wearing one – all helmets are uncomfortable sweaty and unpleasant to wear.

Aside from a full face which is hot and sweaty, I’ve got no problem at all wearing a helmet from both aesthetic and comfort point of views.

Always ess-ram for me. Don’t know why, it just seems to make sense for something that isn’t a word but just letters.

Could be my geeky computer background though. RAM, SRAM :D

“sram” or “shram” just sounds wrong.

And for the soft southerners like me… From Swinley – the A&E and CT scanner at Frimley Park is not too far – as I found out 3 weeks ago

Likewise, doing it myself on the 9th. Frimley Park is a great place, very close, and the ICU + CT scanner especially are well run.

Ambulances can attend reasonably easily at the car park and some can get down the fire roads, and air ambulance is an option also.

I find it strange why there are so many arguments against helmet use, often backed up by studies that try to prove the benefit is not as great as thought.

Regardless of these studies, the benefits still massively outweigh not wearing one at all. Yes you may get into an accident and the helmet does nothing. But then it has not harmed you wearing one either. On the other hand you could get into something more serious and it sasves your life.

I’ve seen these arguments more over ski helmets and I’m convinced it’s mostly down to vanity. Interestingly ski helmets are worn far more in North America than Europe and they’ve just become accepted. Almost trendy.

Anyway, I don’t want to become the helmet police, but taking a big smash the other week in Swinley putting me unconscious in Frimley ICU, I feel the helmet may have saved my life, or at least reduced the effect of the impact. I’m not going to insist people wear them, but I do recommend them if only to help out ambulance crews, hospital staff, and friends/family. At the very least so they aren’t having to deal with someone potentially becoming a vegetable or worse having to deal with a death certificate.

Oh and helmet is only one part of what I needed. I could have done with spine protection also, but I was lucky in what I fractured is going to heal okay. I could quite easily be looking at a wheelchair from now on.

Yes, but it might be difficult getting you off from some remote area of pitch – maybe needing a helicopter like those seen on Swinley on a reasonably regular basis.

Though the frequency of them on Swinley is more down to the fact the place attracts novices who then promptly try the jumps and Labyrinth sections without any skills.

Surrey Hills is generally ridden by relatively local types who’ve moved up from tame places like Swinley. There are tourists who come for a day to try it out but they session Barry’s and the like and can’t find most the stuff on Pitch without a guide.

Been involved with a few recoveries from the hills now, and generally it’s not too bad so long as you can direct the ambulance to one of the car parks. Good thing about Hurtwood is they are numbered. Leith is more tricky but they do have names. Usually they send the rapid response car, and they can assess the situation quickly, and deal with most of the typical stuff.

I still think what we need in this country is something like a national permit system with insurance built in. Landowners could opt into the scheme, we pay for the permit, which would absolve the landowner of any (or most) liability, the permit is an agreement that we take all the risks, and the insurance element would be to cover costs of recovery from private land and any potential disruption to the landowner.

Probably unworkable, but if we had something along these lines, more landowners would be happy for MTB activities, and the scheme could also be used to encourage and educate about responsible riding.

Anyway, what’s going on here? Not sure why so much anger. Let’s just get out there and ride, enjoy the hills, and work with the locals and landowners. Annoying each other and the locals is just going to result in being kicked off the land.

I’m surprised, though I do wonder if there’s enough information on members to show who’s an MTBer.

I’m a member, though I’ve had trouble with the site. Couldn’t log on to my account for some time, and got it reset. Payment site to renew this year had problems when it redirected to the payment part. Set up direct debit this year, but nothing shows up on my account for My Contributions.

Also, I ticked MTB in my profile, but looked just now and it’s not ticked.

I do encourage others to join and I know a couple have.

I love wales. Can’t quite believe I’m gonna be living there next week!

You might not love it so much when the weather gets to you. :D

He, and the riders he is talking to in more detail, also have some plans for the messy rooty rolls/drops on Pitch, particularly the one into Car Park 2 and the ones at the end of the Proper Beau network further up ie those where we are more likely to come into conflict with users of the woods. These plans are of a shallower, more twisty, sustainable, not following the fall-line nature

Oh dear :(

The rooty descent into CP2 is one of the best bits of Pitch. It’s much like the old ending to BKB before it was sanitised. Not sure what conflict there is there other than people pop out into the car park, but never seen any harm there.

I’d prefer if Pitch was largely left alone. Keep the tourist trails to Holmbury which is where most people will go and generally where the magazines and books refer to. The locals can stick to Pitch and further jewels beyond.

Most just involve a little bit of clearance and marking lines with logs. Little impact and the walkers even appreciate it.

My 2p is that around the Hurtwood there are plenty of natural trails and sanctioned trails that can be ridden. I’d rather it was kept to the general tourists riding the official trails and the rest of us can continue the sneaky riding on trails that haven’t really been ‘built’ which is generally tolerated, or few complaints arise about them. The natural stuff is fun.

Anything else should be done by working with sanctioned local trail builder groups, and with permission. Not only to make them official but to build sensible trails as a bunch of kids out with a shovel tend to just make a mess and what they build doesn’t cope with wear’n’tear and the weather.

Though I’d rather the place didn’t turn into a trail centre.

Given that the Hurtwood is rather unique in having an open access policy, I’d rather we work with them and not piss them off.

Oh and the impact on the landowners includes affecting their business. This isn’t just inherited woods for some snooty Lord to go hunting in, these are working logging forests.

And yeah, I think it’s worth joining the Friends of the Hurtwood[/url], but no it’s not funding trail building and you have to remember they are not on the side of MTBers, or on the side of walkers and horse riders either. They work to maintain the estates and balance use between everyone. It’s been working pretty well for some time but the problems occur when the local residents (some of whom have a lot of influence) get pissed off. Only thing is you don’t get much feedback as a result of joining, but do get the occasional newsletter though haven’t had one in a while. They can be useful as they can mention issues raised at meetings, including where locals are getting pissed off about the MTBers.

Final thing is the Friends of the Hurtwood are looking funding cuts thanks to general cutbacks. This might affect what things they focus on and if a lot of time and money is involved with ensuring unofficial trails are not being built where they shouldn’t be (or risking them getting sued if anyone breaks their neck), then they might start to restrict access.

Besides Holmbury Hill isn’t where it’s at. There are much better parts of the Surrey Hills ;)

i have a blog for my coaching etc..

Cracking good blog it is too. Have to say I’m very impressed with the write up on each of the sessions. Just need to sign up to one myself.

Chucking around is what I do. Yeah it’s too heavy for distance/race/enduro XC kind of stuff (personally I’m moving towards hard tails for that anyway). I’m a weekend warrior who likes to muck about on the trails and it’s ideal really. Copes nicely on DH too (Aston and Cwmcarn), and rocky trail centres like CYB it worked well on. Yes there are amazingly better bikes, but for someone starting out on full-suss and just mucking about it’s value for money. End of the day it’s just another bike. Ride it and have fun.

They’d all bought i-drives, they’d all broke after 20 minutes, GT wouldn’t supply any spares so they all vowed never to buy GT again.

And that’s the thing. Where did the assumption come from that they’d break easily? Just because Halfords sold them I bet.

It’s crap. The last one they sold, the 09 XCR is rock solid. Hell, mine’s been chucked all over the place including flying down the side of trails (without a rider), hit trees, rocks, all kinds and not broken a thing.

Anyway, if you did break anything the only spares you need are the frame (which is under a 2 year warranty) and bars (bars are standard, so you get a replacement that fits). All the rest of the bike is not made of GT components but well known, well supported brands (e.g. SRAM, Shimano, Fox, FSA).

Thing is, Halfords had very little to do with the bike. At least not the XCR 09 model. The frame was from the GT factory (yes okay Taiwan). They specced components to get it to a cheap price and the bike was supplied to them and they stuck it in the shops. The only Halfords component on it is a small sticker saying it’s supplied to Halfords. Few people bought them as they were expensive compared to Halfords own brand junk.

Thankfully for buyers of an i-drive from Halfords is Halfords are monkeys and don’t know anything about the bikes as they are not their bikes. They just know about selling their own Apollos, so you can buy the bike and they won’t mess about with it. Just don’t take it back there for a “free” service. DIY.

They get good reviews too which are largely overlooked.

The year they bought out the first prod i-drive bike (xcr?).

Don’t know when that was, but they have changed a lot. The Halfords supplied i-drive XCR is still basically the same but the bugs and potential breaks (wishbone for example) have been fixed. They’re good bikes now and amazing value for money. You could almost just chuck the frame and it would still be a good deal on the components. Not that the frame is bad. The 6061 frame anchors the back wheel to the ground in a way that you won’t get any unexpected kick and bounce off roots and rocks but still absorb the bumps.

But that’s just Halfords. Now they’ve been dumped and GT do loads of higher spec models across the range and the 2011 range are getting some respect. The “i-drive” name has been dropped but i-drive is still the suspension used.

FYI – The i-drive models (at least) in Halfords were not Halfords produced with a GT sticker on it. They are GT frames and Halfords fit components on them that meet the price they want to sell them at. Frankly if you look at what they crammed on for just under £1k I can’t see they’d have made much money on them. Stuff like the recon & fox shocks, juicy brakes, shadow mech, leaves little money left for the frame, bars, wheels and so on.

The only negative thing I find with the i-drive is just the less cool image and massive depreciation (tip – sell the components rather than the bike, you’ll make more money!). Performs great, the i-drive is “different” compared to stuff these days but I find it’s got amazing grip, and the bike is good for upgrades.

You should see Jedi’s videos!

Yeah, forgot about that, but that's the other option in the Civic.

However I tried that and found I had to take both front and rear wheels off to fit the bike in, and then there's the problem of how to secure the bike else it will fall back and forward as you accelerate and brake. I ended up with the rear mech scratching one of the door armrests :( . Could stick it in a bike bag and then in the footwell. I don't like removing the back wheel often though as it takes an age to get the damn Juicy aligned.

Something I'd like to learn too as there are a load of drops I'd like to try. I'd be interesting in some sort of skills course that teaches this kind of stuff where I could just practice on simple stuff and build up to bigger ones.

I don't have the no fear attitude I had as a kid, so at the moment I come to a drop and just crap myself :D . There's no way I'm going to just go for it without knowing what I'm doing though. At the very least it will cost me money to not be working! :D

May have to look into that. Just don't want a tow bar sticking out when I'm not using it but that sounds like a good option. If it can look as neat as the exhaust holes on the new Civs that would be great. Might ask the Honda dudes when it's in for a service.

Honda also do an in-car mount that fits in the under floor bit in the boot. Still means having a bike in the car though and it's expensive, plus you lose the extra space (or if you have the spare wheel, it's not an option or you lose the spare wheel).

I've got a high mount rack from my old car (with the dumbell things), but I've been told Honda do not advise you use them on the civic. Civinfo threads pretty much say the same and a number of the websites selling racks show compatibility and the Civic is shown as incompatible.

The stress on the glass and the spoiler is one thing and also the straps would be difficult to thread up past the rubber seal. Not sure where the bottom straps would mount to either.

At the moment the bike just goes in the back of the car with a sheet (front wheel off). Still means the car gets dirty. I might look into a bike bag.

Don't really want a roof rack. Don't want the hassle of removing/fitting the rack all the time or leaving it on and having wind noise when driving, plus down country lanes the bike can clip overhanging trees.

Other option is a tow bar fitting. I don't have a tow bar and don't really want one, but it's an option I may look into. Though having the bike in the boot is handy for just keeping it in there ready for jumping out for a ride whenever I want.

Funny you mention this, but I've been getting much the same over the last 6 months or so. Usually the smallest fingers on both hands and doesn't seem to be that I'm lying on them. I can wake up flat on my back with my hands at the sides and yet the fingers are dead.

Odd also that I don't get pins & needles with this. They're just numb for a while and then half an hour or so later they wake up after a bit of movement.

First time I got this, they didn't wake for ages and it freaked me out a bit.

I've got those ergonomic grips for the mtb and they feel comfortable. I checked with all the guides possible that they're at the right angle and I'm sitting correctly with the arms in the right position.

I've just been learning to live with it, but might mention it to the doctor at some point, but it's hassle going to the doctors, especially trying to get one that will listen or care.

got a jack? yup.

got a wrench? yup.

then what's your problem….?
If you're changing a wheel yes, but are you going to buy a spare set of alloys for your winter tyres? ! I don't even have space to store them if I was going to waste my money on them.

Changing an actual tyre on a wheel (i.e. not changing the wheel), I'm not even sure how to do it properly, and nor do I think my pump would manage to inflate it. Doubt I could even get the thing off the rim anyway. It's bad enough with a bike tyre. Would need balancing and all that surely also?

Having the f2.8 stop gives you loads of control on depth of field

Whilst a wider aperture does allow for a shallower DOF, the long length of the lens also can bring out some great shallow DOF shots, and more so if you focus close (the three key factors to DOF, aperture, focal length & focal distance).

The main reason for f/2.8 on a long lens is for fast action shots in low light, as the wide aperture at a long length allows for faster shutter speeds to freeze action (hence the word 'fast'). It's the kind of thing you need for shooting football matches which is why they all have those £3k fast telephoto lenses at those matches!! Bit beyond my budget :D

Not sure if this is for bike photos, but they are probably better shot with a flash. No need for a fast lens then.

And don't assume that the only way to get sharp is with a fast lens. Generally any prime (fixed length) lens is very sharp anyway. As I say, my f/4 300m is pin sharp. Just it's a bit big and heavy really :D

All the salting does is lower the freezing point of water by a few degrees on the road to reduce the chance of ice forming at 0C (and remember, if it gets cold enough it will still freeze even with salt). Once enough snow is settling, the salt does crap all. What's required with snow is snow ploughs, the correct tyres (or a 4×4), and/or sensible driving.

On the flat you can drive on the kind of piddly little amounts of snow we get in the south easy enough even with so called "summer" tyres (though the tyres we have in the UK are generally fine for typical mild wet conditions), especially once enough people are driving it. High gear, lower tyre pressure, slow but not too slow and keep momentum and stick to straight lines as much as possible. Don't slam on the brakes, change down to slow down and light touch on the brakes. Ideally you want ABS on the car. Stability systems are a help when moving but you need to turn them off if you're on the snow trying to move away else you'll get nowhere.

Winter tyres are fine, except in my case they're really only any use for the short stretches between the untreated side roads, and the well treated main roads that are clear. Keep them on for the duration of a typical British winter down south and they'll be a complete waste. Average temperature rarely goes below 7C and we just usually have mild wet conditions. They're expensive and hard to get hold of in this part of the country (tyre fitters think you're barmy for asking for them, asking if you're taking a trip abroad or something!), and do you want to be getting tyres changed twice a year with all the hassle that's involved? (especially if it involves going to brainless monkeys like KwikFit).

Just deal with it. It'll be gone in a week or two for us southerners.

A 2.8 long zoom is going to cost you a fair bit whatever brand. It's the amount of complexity and glass required to get it fast at such lengths that makes it expensive (and heavy).

You'll find a little bit cheaper with Sigma and Tamron brands, but it will be hard to match the quality of the Nikon 70-200. Maybe look out for the older 70-200 model though as I think they upgraded it recently and the new model is more expensive of course.

Also, buying an import from Hong Kong can save money. Try http://www.onestop-digital.com and http://www.digitalrev.com (they're also on ebay along with a bunch of other HK retailers).

Do you really need f/2.8 though? I've got a fixed length 300mm f/4 Nikkor which is amazingly sharp and a vast amount cheaper than the 2.8 equivalent. Combined with a 1.4 teleconverter I can get 420mm out of it with no difference to the sharpness (though loss of one stop). Heavy again though. When it comes to dragging a camera around on a bike, I just go for my 18-200 vr. Not a fast lens, and not amazingly sharp, but it's a fine all rounder and compact enough to chuck in a backpack.

What do you reckon to Hound House Road & Ride Way, going from Shere? For a bike that is, not car. Park up somewhere round Shere and just straight along the road up to the top of Pitch Hill.

Or if going from Gomshall, what's a good route on the bike to Peaslake?

Want to get out somewhere, but access is the main problem. Other options for me are Tunnel Hill and Swinley (car park was closed on Wednesday). Not sure Swinley would be much good in the snow. Pitch/Holmbury were great before Christmas in the snow, but far more snow now.

"freezing limbs and a dirty bike afterwards"
I found the snow results in quite a clean bike. My tyres look like new after my last trip in the snow! :D

Don't know if it's changed, but the main car park at Swinley was closed anyway on Wednesday. In my 2 wheel drive car I attempted various parking places nearby but anything off the road was just resulting in me getting stuck. Even the car park at the water park was a nightmare.

What's the road like over Tunnel Hill? That's normally my route to work, but I've avoided it over the last few days. I've skidded down round those bends before and it's not nice (it's a dangerous enough road as it is without ice on top). If you can get to the car park by the canal that would be sufficient though.

Think of trying Surrey Hills today. They were great before Christmas in the snow and surprisingly easy to ride in the snow. I guess could be too much now, and I suspect it's impossible to drive there.

What's really important though is how this affects my riding through the woods and hills :D

At least it's not as bad as the potential impact on my skiing.

Wow, it's made BBC News!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/8349871.stm

Not sure that's a good thing though as it means a lot of advertisement and that means a lot more riders.

this isn't a subject that's open to debate.

'debate' is something you do when you're deciding whether to give women the vote.

but you can't debate evidence.
The debate is about man's influence. The evidence on global warming and climate chance is not disputed. Man's contribution is certainly debatable. Myself, I'd say it's not that there is a contribution, but to what extent that contribution makes a blind bit of difference.

THE NORTH POLE HAS NEARLY MELTED.

Only in the summer, and it hasn't nearly melted. Current predictions have been revised as this year's sea ice minimum has actually grown, not receeded, and belief is that it may be gone by 2030, in the summer. Sea ice will form in the winter even with the predicted global temperature rises as the angle of the earth results in temperatures still lower than freezing.

Should be noted that sea ice melting makes only a very tiny difference to sea levels (due to salination), as ice displaces water (try it yourself by melting ice in a glass of water :wink: ). Same goes for Antarctic sea ice. Think of those satellite photos of ice sheets breaking up, then forget about them as you can be assured your house on the coast will not be in danger from these :wink: . The only concern with melting ice is from glaciers and ice sheets on land, and only if they are likely to slide into the sea at a faster rate than they currently do (as coastal glaciers naturally slide into the sea, but are usually replenished).

Note that sea ice minimums are based on "since records began" which was in 1979. Hence why so many of the "lowest on record" reports have been in the last few decades. That the last few decades have been warmer is again not debatable. I refer again to the fact we are just out of a mini ice age (extending from around 1400 to the early 1900s).

Funny thing climate science. Scientific consensus in the 1960s concluded that we were heading for global cooling rather than warming!

Always remember back doing Geography A Level I had a graph from some text book of global temperatures (this was long before Global Warming was a public issue). The graph showed a clear 400 year cycle and guess what? We're on the rising edge of that cycle at the moment, thus it is getting warmer.

In fact I believe we are technically leaving or just left a mini ice age.

However, I don't deny that man has some impact on the climate. What I do have an issue with is the conclusions that are drawn from this impact. They are based on running models that do not (and perhaps cannot given the complexity of the planet Earth) account for all factors. The more media and politically orientated groups generalise and exaggerate the impact. It drives funding for research and more importantly drives political ambition for changes that benefit certain countries (e.g. those who cannot sustain their consumption of oil).

For example the melting of the ice caps. We're only just now getting it through to the public and governments that melting of the Arctic sea ice actually makes virtually no difference to sea levels. The same goes for the sea ice in the Antarctic. We've had the big scare images of great big Antarctic ice sheets breaking up, but this really has little impact on earth and no rise in sea levels. Rising sea levels comes from ice melt on land falling into the sea. Most of the dramatic footage of ice falling into the sea actually comes from glaciers doing exactly what coastal glaciers do, slide into the sea! (and have been for thousands or millions of years). The question is the rate of flow, which in some cases is shown to be accelerating, but there's little accounting for the way glaciers "top up" (noting that increased precipitation as a result of recent climate change causes more snow fall which can turn to ice).

Then there's the ice shelf in the Antarctic itself. Some of the more sensational scientific papers, media reports and government reports presents us with an image that it will all melt and we'll have massive rises in sea levels. However take a look at the predicted temperature rises, then consider that much of the Antarctic sits at temperatures of -40C and is covered in ice nearly 3 miles deep. This isn't going to melt. Even if it could, the place is mountanous and much of it will form lakes, not just all fall into the sea. The reality is that we may get melt on the coastal regions, though this has been shown to be true of western Antarctic but actually the reverse in the east.

There are too many anomalies. Not reported so much, but the Antarctic ice melt has recently been shown to now be at the lowest amount in recorded history, and possibly overestimated in previous years.

I don't deny climate change. Climate changes and is changing. I don't deny it's warming up in places. It is (as a skier I'm only too aware of this!). I don't deny we have some influence. It's how much that influence is and how devastating it is that I have an issue with. I don't even deny it could be quite devastating, but I am not convinced anyone really has an accurate prediction. It's all theories and they keep changing.

Besides, if somewhere like Yellowstone (big super volcanoe) blew up, we can forget about our influence as this would dwarf it :D

Oh, and cows are the biggest polluter anyway :wink:

Always thought BMX were kids bikes anyway, even the ones adults use :D

Tapes were up today so they must have been deliberately going through them :(

Interesting, but I'm concerned this is a step towards sanitising the trails. The end section is the best bit of BKB. It's tricky and requires skills, and can scare you. It's important to get scared sometimes :D. I can understand the concern of riders dropping onto the road though. Is this more of a concern from residents though than real danger?

Got a photo of what I thought might have been The Seagull.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadkenny/3673760898/

Only found tank traps the other week. Certainly think you have to ride that towards the tank traps though on that bit. The rest you can do either way.

The other part with the wooden bridge over the tree, is that Stickler then?

There's another section which has some concrete tank trap blocks which is quite fun. Again only found that recently. It's out west / north west -ish I think from Lower Star Post. Look for an entrance on the left down one of the fire roads. I think it's called Seagull? Recently been renovated.

Mostly cleared up now. There's just the bit to CJs(?) at the top of Surrey Hill that was roped off yesterday evening, which goes down to the green screen stuff they built. Not sure if the green screen is still there as didn't go that way this time.

The only real mess I think is where they set up two cranes and the line between the trees where I guess they did some stunts.

Anyway, hopefully we'll get some new stuff out of the money the estate has got out of it. Maybe they'll stick some directional signs up too on the singletrack ;)

Somewhat smaller and not an estate, but my Honda Civic's rear seats fold flat. The seats themselves can also be folded and locked upwards allowing for a bike in the back seat compartment area standing upright.

Don't know about room for a 6'er kipping though.

Probably not the Type R though, which is only a 3 door.