What bike (+fork) are they to go on? what are the biggest and smallest tyres you want to run on them?

So nobody actually ridden/seen any of it then?

Or they've copied/pasted the 1.95" DTC-Lite spiel and are selling the 2.1" DTC's?

They're said its been closed when its been a bit snowy/icy though (and not just mega snowdrifts and ice all the way around) though haven't they?

If it is blocked by fallen trees, why haven't they shifted it?

"I think we should be riding up llanberis trail, then back down the snowdon ranger (part way) and then make a turn part way down so we meet the llanberis trail again"

I don't think you can actually do that

I think you mean something like:
I think we should be riding up llanberis trail, then back down the snowdon ranger (part way) and then make a turn part way down so we descend 'telegraph' valley coming into the back of llanberis

I've ridden the other way (the rest of the rangers + the road + b.way sections

The lower section of the ranger path was mostly slate drainange gulleys to bunnyhop and some (not difficulty tight) switchbacks and I think one or two very short interesting bits
There will many more involving switchbacks on the upper sections of the ranger path anyway
The road section wasn't that interesting. The road climb wasn't pleasant. The b.way climbing and travesing was alright, but as with the road just a means to an end. The b.way descent into llanberis was nothing special, just dual track stuff, fast enough, but not techincal before descending mostly on tarmac

The 'telegraph' valley has a load of slate drainage gulleys very similar to those on the bottom of the ranger and as you'll probably be doing them faster, they should be more fun and be less chance of pinchflatting on one of them

So its a 1.5" split, but you can still see canvas? So not gone all the way through. I'd be tempted to get a really big inner tube patch, perhaps one for cars/tractors/etc and use vulcanising solution to stick it together. Perhaps stitch it through with some thick thread as well if you're feeling paranoid.
I've stuck a big patch on (the inside* of) a 2.25" folding advantage, there was still some threads holding it all together, rather than a gaping hole for the tube to burst out of. I've only ridden it on one ride since I did it though. Time will tell how well it holds ..

*your post reads a bit as if you're considering sticking a patch on the outside of the tyre

The information on-one have up there is a bit iffy if you compare it to say, the kenda website

The 550g weight is supposed to be for the 1.95" (as big or bigger than other companies 2.1"s) DTC-Lite versions, not the 2.1" (very nearly as big as a Maxxis 2.35") versions, which are more like 610g

I had thought the DTC-lite was only the 1.95" versions, and the DTC was only on 2.1" and 2.35" versions. It looks as if they could have lifted the blurb from the 1.95" ones, but I don't know

It does say they are dual compound (So not the single hard compound OE wire tyre some bikes come with), which is supposed to be 50a on the sides, 60a down the middle, so more a middley compound than a fast rolling 70a as used by many others in fast rolling tyres, for eg maxxis, specialized

I've a set of 2.1" DTC (50/60a) folding nevegals. I think they're a reasonable all rounder, though a bit on the slow side, due to the 60a compound down the middle and although not massively deep tread and with some ramps, are still a chunky tyre after all. They're no XC semi-slick

If you want lots of uphill pedalling traction you'll have to turn the rear one round, although it will manage okay the normal way round pedalling on the ramps. Its not all ramps, only the centre so isn't as bad as for eg a high roller for spinning out
Not being a hugely deep treaded tyre, they can't dig in as deep into slop as well as other tyres (even a 2.35" High Roller will be better because it has deeper tread), but will usually still get by okay and isn't terrible for blocking up
Otherwise I find them to grip really well pretty much everywhere. I really liked how well they did in the lakes last time I went with them, they seem absolutly fine in the peak and they seem to let you lean them over loads when cornering a little too fast on smoother trail centre type stuff (though don't seem to give the same sort of reassurance a 2.35" high roller 'seems' to give when leant over)

They're are big enough, but not massive, which is my biggest issue with them. I'd like them to a touch bigger, but not quite as big as the 2.35" size

The sidewalls are a little thin, but pumping your tyres up a bit more to stop pinchflats and/or sticking a slightly thicker tube in should help out
I haven't managed to get any sidewall splits yet though, despite lots of lakes and peaks riding, I assume* it could be down to not running them at low pressures rather than not taking them to potentially tyre trashing terrain.

*I'm just waiting for them to split going off what people say, they don't yet appear damaged though

Are any of the scuffed components actually broken/unrideable?
I realise that shouldn't affect whose to blame, but just interested

or 1 minute with an angle grinder ..

Don't put the jacket in the main compartment, put it in the middle mesh seciton instead and make sure the straps are tight enough that it won't fall out?

yes, do it

"why surprised at the 2 year warranty?"
Probably because a lot of other carbon frames are longer, like 5 or lifetime

I don't think its pointless, but the (UK) uptake probably won't be massive
1.25lbs is a fair bit in terms of mostly otherwise identical frames, and if you're speccing it pretty high then at some point the extra cost, eg £600* for 600g isn't the worst weight saving you could make
Plus if its stiffer where SC want it to be, then it should ride better
Plus how many people buying a Nomad won't think they'll be able to 'make do' with the alu. version now, and go for the carbon one, just because its more expensive?

*I don't know how much it costs over the alu. one, just that the Blur LTc is that much more than the Blur LT

2) yes
3) no, it should it make it harder to 'activate' the travel

"3. more psi in +ve is the same as a heavier duty spring, you will need more force to move it and get it bottom out/use full travel"

I don't think it does. I assume the OP meant more psi in the +ve that psi in the -ve, in which case it doesn't act the same as a heavier duty spring. If both the +ve and -ve were increased then yes it would
With the +ve more than the -ve, the ive has less pressure to push against the +ve pressure, taking a bigger bump to get the fork moving (to overcome the stiction) over a bump

Its possible that the cranks or rings may 'overlap' one another where the chainring sits against the crank. My '07 XTs were like this with SLX rings. If so, get a file out and make them fit. The material is only to help centre the original '07 XT rings

Which LX ones are they?
If they're from the old LX (HTII) MTB crank then leave well alone. They're all aluminium and while pretty light, they wear out really quite quickly

" I dont notice these bigger steps between gears"
I don't really when properly offroad, probably as you end up changing your pedalling speed/effort over changable up and down terrain. Just more on more constant (fire)road sections

A Specialized crossmark might suit

Rides really quite well offroad, just lacking in mud/wet or grip under heavy braking, but not bad on the road. Just pump them up a bit

I did the road/railway path C2C + from whitehaven – sunderland on them (2.1" 70as). Okay so probably overkill for that, but its what I thought most suitable of what I had, but seemed plenty quick enough on the road

B.A.Nana, do you mean the path with this bit in? Tis good, but has certain 'signage' type issues .. although it is/was pretty quiet

I think typically they are:

11-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32
11-13-15-17-20-23-26-30-34

Some people find when in (22T) granny ring the 34T sprocket can be just too low*, whereas a 32T is about right as the lowest gear, though it depends on your typical pedal spinning speeds a little
On the really steep stuff a 34T can be the difference between carrying on pedalling and off and walking

*the slower you go, the harder it is not to fall over

My personal preference is a 34T, just in case, though as its sometimes too low and can spit traction as I'll probably be pedalling too fast, end up using the 30T can be a touch too high. All depends on the exact situation as to whether a 11-32 has the 'perfect' gear or 11-34

11-34 will be heavier as 8 of 9 will be bigger than on an 11-32 though

On longer, more constant pedally bits (like the road) the jumps between gears can be more noticable on an 11-34 than an 11-32. Though I think 11-32 can be too overly spread

"07 marzocchi or older"

That should probably be reprased as most 07 marzocchi or older, or perhaps anything with ata
'07 XC700SLs had ata, I think '06 Marathons had ata too
I think '08 was the terrible year for marzocchi, I think they seemed to have sorted ata for '09 and were fixing '08 models with '09 internals in the end
If you want to avoid 55's though, as well as Z1s, I think the 'all mountain' models are supposed to alright as well

One thing that seemed to emerge from that fox failures survey that ended up virtually everyone saying they hadn't had any, was that the stantion problems were almost entirely down to muck off type bike cleaners

I think Vans use open bath damping, or at least the 36 Vans do, so perhaps should get away with not sticking to the 15hour service intervals

re: Walna Scar Road loop
Just near the western edge of the FC woods on Broughton Moor, I'd be tempted to head up the fireroad (north) until just out of the woods, and then head back down the b.way just the other side of the stream back down to Stephenson Ground. It'd make for a good descent for a straightforward climb

You could extend it by heading SW at stephenson ground toward stainton ground, and theres a few more b.way options round there

Once you get to just south of Little Arrow Moor, (just past the 'walled in' rocky 90deg turns)

I prefer* to cut across to the b.way that follows the stream and then a walled track into Torver as theres more rocky offroad than heading into coniston itself on wide smooth tracks and a road

*I've not ridden the b.way down to Spoon Hall though

re: the langdales
On descending toward Elterwater I much prefer the other b.way descent (that heads N) than the NErly one you've got highlighted. Much tighter and techy
Also the b.way above Clappergate going toward Loughtrigg Tarn was good last time I rode it (though I'm not 100% sure they haven't 'improved' it since October), should be much better than the road anyway

Like a brooks? I'm trying to imagine just how ridiculous one would look ..

A charge blender really isn't a 'reasonable all day bike'
I didn't think NS surges were either

Not on a commute btw. Just part of the trans pennine trail as part of a ride

Bought a trek 4100 rigid from a local freeads paper as I wanted an MTB to take the knocks of dodgy kerb mounting and the odd few stairs and not kill the wheels. A short commute meant the weight shouldn't be a real issue and at the time thought it may be usable as a spare MTB if really needed
I've had it offroad a few times and its behaved well enough. I put a 2.5" High Roller up front when I took it round the peaks. Made it quite fun once you'd your head round the arm pain

I realise its a bit shiny, so not really a hack, but the guards and 26" slicks on a 21.5" frame don't really do it any favours in the looks department

How tall are they? (Axle-Crown). (Fox/RS 160mm forks are 545mm, Magura are 540mm for eg)

(I'm of the understanding) the leverage of the length of the fork has more to do with ripping headtubes off than (stated) fork travel?*

I seem to recall Cotic Soul mkI's being limited to forks of upto 130mm travel and specifically upto axle-crown heights of 508mm (RS RVL)

*I'm not sure on any of this though, so don't go quoting me or anything

this website[/url] would suggest 2005 170mm 66's have an axle-crown height of 595mm (2006 being 555mm), so 50mm taller than a typical 160mm fork?

yes, from 80 to 130mm

Theres a loop in the V graphics Wales guide book that goes along the ridge of them (I think its the Preselis?). I've not ridden it, but it mentions saving it until its dry

I thought* 456's had especially long chainstays to help out climbing steep stuff. Longer chainstays will make jumping that bit more difficult as it won't be as easy to pop up the front end
The ragleys for eg have particularly steep seat angles to help climbing, whilst keeping shorter/normal length chainstays

I thought* chameleons had quite short chainstays, making it easy to pop up the front end

Whether that bothers you or not, I have no idea. I guess it depends on your 'needs' for stable climbing or front end 'liftability'

*I've nothing to back this up though, just what I think I can remember reading on here over the years, so I could easily be wrong ..

You've still got the shifter/mech/cables and a lot of bash rings are heavier than outer 44T rings (+ the extra long bolts are heavier), so probably heavier in the end

I can't do this now (I can't seem to remember saying I would be, but I more than likely did), so I may need removing from that list. Unless 'James' is in fact somebody entirely different to me, 'james' ..

"Pushing bikes is just as much against the rules as riding them when it comes to foot paths"

In sheffield council area yes, but isn't ladybower in derbyshire, or is it just in south yorkshire? (High Peak/Derbyshire CC's website doesn't exclude pushing bikes, or it didn't when I checked (relatively) recently)

Not very good, and neither am I at riding it, though I've not had it long or ridden it much on 4X/DJ style stuff. Mostly made up of bits too worn out for normal riding + heavily discounted frame which minus the RRPs of the all the extras that came included, the frame came to about £5 ..

With a 400mm seatpost (carbon 27.2 flexed rather a lot .. ) at full extension it rode reasonably well round sherwood pines
I'd quite like some 140/150mm forks for it, though I've no idea where I'd ride a SS, jacked up front end, too small bike?

"why choose to go riding where EVERY walker is guaranteed to be on a sunny weekend?"
We didn't start until about 1pm so by the time we were finishing (coming down stanage edge) there were very few walkers about

"was he (or they in the other cases) volunteer rangers?"
I've no idea. He had a jumper with peak park ranger (or words to that effect) on it. I can only assume from 'his knowledge' that he is a volunteer .. and clueless (on this issue)

"people like you riding far too fast down that bridleway"
I'm sorry, have I met you?
I was stopped just before the 180deg. corner, dropping into it, so probably the slowest section of the whole bridleway btw
How do you* define 'too fast'?
*you personally and in general?

"Do they flash ID at you by the way these Rangers? (serious question)! "
No, but they had it on their jumper, so I assumed so ..

Aren't renthal chainrings about £40?

If you can live with a (thick deep toothed) aluminium chainring then CRC have some FSA* ones for £15. The name has 'DH' in the title. Cheaper than the now much more expensive Thorn one I have anyhow
For steel (thick deep toothed) the on-one ones for £25 look about right

*they may only do them in 34T and bigger though

CRC have some FSA bashrings for £16 (inc. long bolts). Being a basic plastic (for 1×9 thats all you should need), its supposed to pretty light at 50g too
It may be worth noting that the 32T ones will still cover a 34T chainring, for 1×9 use you're presumably wanting a bashring more to stop the chain from coming off rather than protecting the chain at all costs

The £20 truvatic one is a fiar bit heavier, though the china plate patterned one could look good on the right bike. Quite what that right bike would be I've no idea ..

The Marin trail isnt that bad. Its one of those places that the faster you go the better it gets so manages to suit new and experienced. It doesnt promise to be better than it is

It doesn't need to be fully feature packed to be good. It is only a red route after all?(though it does have some fun jumps, some rocky bits, but mostly it comes alive and actually flows quite well (IMO) when you really try* and go fast (rather than relying on it to make you go fast)
*a half decent pedalling bike always helps

"That map shows it as a f/p but I've been riding it for at least 8 years and it's marked on the ground as a permissive bridleway "
If you zoom in from your 1:50k map to the 1:25k map it shows it as a permissive bridleway

"No mountain bikes or horses"
Theres your solution, take a CX bike!

What about avid juicy 3's? They're about £100/pair on a few places I think (merlin/crc)

Hayes stroker rydes have a very on/off grabby feel to them, juicys are the other way with lots of throw before full power, probably a bit too much, but personally I prefer it for not locking up the rear wheel

All 3 of your suggestions sound like things you could do when they break or wear out.

I really really wouldn't go from Juicy 3's to Juicy 5's though. The only differences a few grams in weight, the 5s get 2 lever clamp bolts instead of one, the lever will click forward of its normal position. Newer juicy 5's (the black reservior cap ones) seem to come supplied badly bled too. I now 3 people with them and all 3 have been bled terribly

Tora SL to Recon SL is a few hundered grams. If you are going to spend £xxx's on forks I reckon you need to get at least RS Reba SLs, that way you'll drop a significant amount of wieght and get a better performing fork

Get an SLX triple chainset if you wish when you need to replace you chainrings and ideally you bottom bracket as well. You can get a 2010 deore for £50 which I assume has hollow arms (like SLX) unlike I assume your forged arm pre 2010 deore cranks. SLX is more like £90

Spend £120 on clothing or something

You settle somewhere in between and have your lowers swapped to QR15 ones? You'd get to keep the plush vans that way

" is that a cross bike with syspension forks"
The frame looks an MTB frame. Its relatively big tubes and a pretty dropped TT anyway