Presumably the real potential danger is not in a rotating disc even at high speed, its a hot rotating disc which has been leant on heavily for braking in the immediate seconds before the accident. A very hot disc (rotating or stationary) would surely cause more damage than just a cold rotating one?

(And for the record, I think this potential is minor and shouldn’t stop the peleton from adopting them).

If he’s as wealthy as he sounds, I would imagine he’d be able to get your possession of the Aventador-matching bike covered on the policies he’s got in place, in which case – no worries! I would, if I were you, ask him about it though. I wouldn’t want to lose a friend who had a Lambo!

@markgraylish – you need to stop thinking about the other party’s insurance company has having any responsibility to you at all. They don’t. All they have to do is discharge their duty to the policy holder. They don’t have to prove anything to you. Its up to you whether you accept an offer that they make.

They may be persuadable that the offer that they’ve made is unreasonable, but they aren’t liable for the time and effort you put into rejecting their offer.

I agree with Simons, you should be wary of expecting to be put back into a position which is superior to that which you were in prior to an accident. Whether in practice this can be achieved in the context of a part-used bike (especially if it is one which is no longer sold or there is a limited second hand market for) is the difficult bit. In terms of legal entitlements, that’s what you are legally entitled to UNLESS you have some form of insurance policy which guarantees you something different even if you’re not at fault.

(e.g. some household policies have accidental damage cover or contents cover included which are explicitly for when you have done nothing wrong yourself and which explicitly have new for old replacement policies in them)

Once you start disputing any offer made to you, assuming you are not being completely bonkers about it, you may find that the insurers are reluctant to see their legal and staff costs rack up and therefore could just end up settling to avoid a protracted dispute. Though OTOH they may just toss it over to your court and say “final offer, see you court”.

@simons_nicolai-uk – see what I wrote earlier. You’re confusing the position of someone who crashes their own car and is reinstated by their own insurers, vs someone who has had their vehicle crashed into. The limitations placed on the replacement value of your car etc are a matter of the insurance contract you have agreed with them. But the owner of an asset which is damaged by their car is not party to those limitations.

Now, those principles are slightly adjusted in the UK because motor insurance has some regulations applied to it, but the fundamentals remain. If you are caused loss by someone through their negligence then you have a right to reinstatement as a matter of law. The fact that the process is commonly handled by insurance processes doesn’t change that right, and this is especially the case where the party injured isn’t another motorist with compulsory vehicle insurance.

So as for a classic car – if my 1924 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost is destroyed by you driving your Astra into it and writing both cars off, I won’t be touching my insurance policy – I’ll be expecting your insurance company to make me an offer equivalent to the amount I reasonably think I would be awarded in court, which would no doubt involve expert witness about the inherent value of my car. OTOH, if I crash my RRSG into your Astra, I will be limited by the value I’ve agreed with my insurers.

Be careful of mixing up the cover YOU have for YOUR accidents and the cover that THEY have for the losses caused by THEIR accidents.

Where you are not at fault you are effectively saying to the other party “You have caused me loss – I am now proposing to sue you for the cost of my loss.” They then say “OK, we have taken out insurance to cover ourselves when someone makes this sort of claim, we’ll then let the insurance company handle it.”

Whatever terms and conditions their insurance is arranged on is irrelevant to you – you have a claim against the person that caused you loss and the extent of their policy cannot reduce your ability to claim.

So YOUR loss is the damage to your bike, and you are entitled under normal civil law proceedings to be put back in the position you were before the incident.

Now one or other of the insurance policies that you have taken out may include Legal Cover type arrangements which effectively allow you to step back and have them deal with the negotiation on the claim, but if you don’t have that (or don’t want it) what you need to do is:-
– tell the car owner of the full extent and cost of the damage to you and your equipment and that you are claiming the full cost of replacement
– tell them of the extent of the physical injuries and that you will be claiming against them a currently unquantified amount for injuries caused

They will then forward that to their insurers and the insurers should get in touch with an offer of settlement, or they may want to try to limit their payout by challenging your levels of loss (after all, that’s how insurance companies make their money – by paying out as little as possible). At the point at which an offer is made to you by the insurers, if you choose to reject it as you don’t believe it is sufficient you will then end up having to take the company to court in the small claims. But don’t let yourself be bullied into a low figure – irrespective of what the insurers do, your entitlement remains the same, unless you’ve accepted a final offer from them.

[Edit – instead of dealing directly with the company, you may want to instruct a solicitor to do this for you, to avoid any mishps – perhaps on a no-win, no-fee basis]

I read in the Liverpool Echo some years ago about a bloke who was prosecuted after taking advantage of a company’s mistakes.

He bought a large TV from Costco which was displayed as being (say) £1,999. At the checkout, it rang through as £199. He didn’t query it, the till operator didn’t query it, he walked away with a nice cheap large TV. And at that point hadn’t done anything particularly wrong.

But when he went back a second time, and a third time, and a fourth time when the mistake still hadn’t been fixed, he was knowingly taking advantage of their mistake to create a situation of obtaining property by deception (aka theft). He was convicted.

The first instance was considered to be the store’s own risk – contract law says that the price on the shelf is only an “invitation to treat” so isn’t binding, the contract is made when the till operator effectively says “I offer to sell this to you for the price I’m ringing it through at” and you accept that offer. If the till operator (or the company) has made a mistake in the price that they offer, that won’t necessarily invalidate the contract (though it can do – the doctrine of mistake comes into play). But from that criminal case it seems that if you induce the mistake from the company with intent to take advantage of it, that can be considered to be a criminal offence.

So I’d agree with thecaptain here – banking the second cheque (30 years ago!) I think would technically be theft; it’s an intentional act of taking advantage of a mistake where at least clarifying the position was not difficult to do.

But I digress…

@fourbanger – I’m interested in that then. Usually a contract is drafted by the company selling an item / service, so to write in something which penalises yourself is unusual. I presume the other party insisted on it for some reason. Its definitely unusual though to do it that way around as the ultimate penalty is being paid by the vendor anyway – they are not getting paid!

LOL @ chakaping – agreed!

@fourbanger – penalty clauses are usually for late payment rather than late invoicing. But agree that if you delay your bill you are very likely to be on the wrong end of a customer at least trying to avoid paying or taking their business elsewhere because you’ve acted like a numpty!

Yes, that’s what the OP said. But I think everyone here is leaping to a conclusion that that is Canyon trying to factor in exchange rates.

The OP didn’t say “And they’re adding a Euros surcharge” or anything to that effect. It seems to me the most likely thing is he bought a bike that was priced say £3299 in 2016 and the same bike now sells for £3499 and they are trying to charge him the higher amount.

Again, most likely just a cockup with their system being unable to generate a payment request for an amount lower than the current sales value.

They have no right at all to demand more money than the original contract was for, that bit I agree with.

If he had arranged to pay in Euros, I would have sympathy with an argument that his exchange rate penalty for the delayed payment should be a negotiating point with Canyon, but as that situation doesn’t seem to have arisen, its irrelevant.

THE INVOICE WAS PROBABLY IN POUNDS BACK THEN AND NOW – STOP TALKING ABOUT EUROS!!!!!!!

[Sorry for shouting, I feel my point has been missed!]

If they are taking payment in GBP at the price originally set and agreed, they are taking a hit on the exchange rate in any event.

Not that I feel sorry for them, that’s their fault for failing to take the money at the right time.

Forex rates are a complete distraction in this thread. The original invoice was most likely in GBP, it needs settling in GBP at the amount originally invoiced (or less, if Canyon will accept less).

[Seems to be a misapprehension here that you pay in Euros for a Canyon bike. I certainly paid in sterling on my credit card. I wanted to pay in Euros as the price for my bike was cheaper, but they didn’t facilitate that]

Canyon sell their bikes in local currency, so the contract will have been for £XXX not XXXEuros. Any price change to the sales price of the bike (whether in Euros or not, whether down to Brexit or not) is irrelevant – the original contract was agreed at a price (which the OP will have a copy of the email confirmation).

When I posted bits of my contract earlier, specifically retention of title, I was asked if this was a finance contract. No, this was a straightforward credit card single payment contract, those were the terms of the documentation that came with it.

As far as retention of title is concerned, that doesn’t entitle the OP to use the bike, reduce its value in the meanwhile and then simply return it when he finds he hasn’t paid. It means that until they had payment, it remains theirs. And therefore anyone using it and damaging it in any way would be liable to Canyon for the cost of that damage.

That’s all legal stuff. The important bits though are in the customer service angles which the OP needs to be getting Canyon onto – they should be showing their customer service by understanding that this is their cockup (not his) and at the very least (despite their contractual rights) agreeing to phased payments, and hopefully a small discount for the inconvenience.

Where it may get complicated is if the OP did in fact properly cancel his order and they sent it anyway. In court, a judge would find it hard to believe that the OP genuinely thought this was some gift from Canyon for being a nice guy, and therefore any absence in making the unexpected delivery known to Canyon would make him look like he was trying to pull a fast one.

Bottom line – he ordered a bike from Canyon. It came. He gave them payment details. They made a mistake in not processing it which they are now trying to rectify. He’s entitled to get upset, but beyond that he has to rely on good customer service from Canyon. They are entitled to their money, but only to the value originally contracted and would struggle to make a small claims action stick if they don’t at least give him some time to make the payments beyond “10 days from now”.

I’ve had both.

Had a TomTom Runner for about 6 months. Great watch, really accurate plotting (I mainly run on roads so its easy to see if it is wrong). Interfaced with the phone well to get runs uploaded quickly and easily to Strava etc. Battery life was impressive too.

But on Black Friday last year I saw a Garmin Vivoactive for £99 and snapped it up as it was nearly Christmas. Bought it because of the smart notifications stuff, customisation (different watch faces, workout readouts, “apps”, etc etc) and I knew I could ebay the TomTom for close to what I paid for it.

Equally good at tracking and doing the basic GPS watch stuff. The rest of the stuff it is clearly better than the TomTom at, but it is a higher tier product.

Wife has just got a garmin vivosmart plus – nice, accurate, does the fitbit thing (stairs, steps, sleep etc etc) but no cycling features.

So don’t be afraid of buying a TomTom. Garmin is the market leader, but TomTom knows GPS well too. It’s all about the features in the end, and your budget!

Main plus for me of trail centres is that you know what you’re getting – access to a MTB sized area with little risk of idiots putting razor wire across trails, little risk of running into groups of walkers or dogs, no stiles or fences, decent navigation without having to plot out a route before hand, and enough others around you to add perhaps a little safety factor so you know you’re unlikely to end up on a mountain overnight with a broken leg as no-one knows you’re there.

There’s definitely a place for them!

On retention of title, my contract with Canyon says:
“6. Retention of Title and Resale

(1) We retain legal title to any product supplied by us until the purchase price (including VAT and shipping costs) for such product has been fully paid.”

i.e. as suggested by Pierre. You can’t just hide behind “you forgot to take the money”.

Almost certainly the legal obligation to pay for the goods is still in place. A mistake on behalf of one party (particularly an administrative one) does not cause the original contract to be amended.

However, when I bought a Canyon in 2015 their Ts & Cs did say
“(2) Unless expressly otherwise agreed by us, all shipments by us shall require advance payment (to be made in the manner specified in our order form) upon receipt of an invoice (which may be sent by e-mail and included in our notice of acceptance).”

So at the very least there would be a strong argument from a customer service point of view to give the OP the starting argument that “I thought you took the money on dispatch and I didn’t check”. Some people’s buying habits are chaotic enough not to notice.

I would say that the payment terms of the contract though are not so fundamental to contract that a mistake with them cannot be legitimately rectified by either party. So the OP is going to have to rely on Canyon’s customer service skills (and an absence of their willingness to start legal proceedings) to negotiate a phased or delayed payment plan.

However, I would say that the price agreed in the order is fundamental to the contract, and they cannot change that retrospectively no matter how long a period it has been.

True, it is a busy one. Nothing exceptional though.

I wouldn’t over-egg the drag back into Les Gets, its nothing more than a gentle slope for a couple of miles.

I know you didn’t buy directly from Bianchi, but is there 5 year warranty referred to online not relevant?

http://www.bianchi.com/Media/Documents/Bikes/BianchiWarranty_Global.pdf

Warranty vs consumer rights? 6 years max under current legislation I believe if you can prove that it is a defect which ought reasonably have been expected not to occur under normal use within the timescale already passed. Hard to prove I suppose though.

For the hassle, if a few ££ will sort out a strong repair, that might be the most cost effective solution.

Are the powder extinguishers well rated as pressure vessels compared to the CO2 ones? My only complaint with the version I’ll be building is that a 2kg CO2 extinguisher is of a decent size and a 1kg size would have been preferable (though seemingly unavailable). But I do know that it will readily take very high pressures.

Having priority simply means the oncoming vehicle has to stop to give way and would be breaching the highway code if it didn’t (particularly relevant if causing an accident at the time).

Just as with all other “having priority” issues – simply ramming into the other object because you have “priority” doesn’t make it right!

I’m just in the process of doing one with a freebie redundant CO2 extinguisher. Not got beyond ordering a bit of hose, a three way tee and a topeak chuck but hoping to get it up and running this weekend. Coke bottle lives in the garage where the kids roam, and I’m fearful one day they’ll have trodden on it, weakened it and it’ll go bang in my face! I botched together the coke bottle solution with nil expenditure at all (valves cut from old inner tubes, no chuck on the end of the hose, hose was a very short length of expanding foam filler hose which came off an out of date tin).

The only thing I’d criticise in Nobby’s otherwise fine project is that the bit he drills through to fit the presta valve is actually the pressure release valve. Whilst I doubt I’d get the cannister anywhere near up to dangerous pressures, I’m happy to leave the PRV in place as something of a safety feature.

Units of measurement need to be consistenty displayed (e.g. 450mm compared to 425) – either always append the units, or always suppress them.

Graphical overlay would be ideal too.

16yo (soon 17) still insists on Daddy and Mummy, merrily in front of all of his mates and girlfriend. When asked whether he is self conscious about it he says “that’s just what you’re called, it’s no big deal to anyone.” Given he is 6ft1 and I’m a meagre 5ft8 and he’s physically superior to me in just about every way, I’m not arguing :-)

Helps that he has 8, 11 and 14 year old brothers too who are still in the daddy mindset (though I can see at least one of them wanting to change up to dad so they fit in with their friends – as I did aged about 14. I can still remember asking parent’s permission to move away from the “childish” mummy and daddy that I used up to that point).

Surely the one with the boyfriend already has some thoughts on the matter (is she assuming it’ll be a freebie?) – might complicate things.

Agree with the rent split idea – whether its 50% for bedrooms, 50% for living space or 25% bedroom, 75% living space depends on the way they use the house. And split all bills 6 ways.

Penalties for excessive noctural noises ;-)

Two or three rear lights (helmet, bike, somewhere else).

Good enough front lights to see potholes (or badgers crossing, based on one near miss I had).

Reflectives also essential.

Other than that, it’s fantastic night riding on country lanes solo. I would be using the Garmin LiveTrack feature via my Vivoactive watch so that SWMBO could see where I am / was if I wasn’t back in good time, just as belt and braces. In fact, I tend to do that most times when I ride alone anyway.

Too a Toys-R-Us £99 special around Llandegla. Got halfway, chain snapped and had to run / coast it back. Even over-took people on the uphills as discovered running with a bike is quicker than riding it!

Echoing what snorkelsucker says.

Even on busy days I’ve never found Llandegla be too busy, and the terrain is varied across the length of the red and black.

I’ve ridden Marin a couple of years ago and whilst it was “different” compared to Llandegla, I wouldn’t go back, whereas Llandegla is always on our list. Cafe is excellent, trails are fun and there are enough options for a full day out there riding the different routes and spending time on the pump track, skills area and freeride track.

@pocpoc – I needed two bikes, because, er, well, mumble.

There wasn’t much suspension travel left.

Towbar. Wouldn’t have felt secure like this without one.

I can second those decathlon ones. Cheap enough to buy several pairs at a time and be disposable if / when you lose them. I’m really sensitive to distortion too, and find those to be spot on.

Is it a solo air Recon? I don’t know if this is the same, but on my son’s solo air Rebas, the negative air chamber was sucking the fork down. Solution was to undo the allen key bolt in the foot of the non-rebound adjusting size, and underneath that bolt is a schrader valve. A quick press with an appropriate implement to release the pressure (after first removing the wheel, as a little oil comes out, and I think also removing all pressure from the top of the fork) and the “suck” was gone. Having read elsewhere, something about the amount of grease in the fork as assembled possibly covering the air bypass port that allows for the airflow to balance positive and negative chambers in the solo air fork?

See http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13067420 for another post on the same subject and http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/rs-solo-air-fork-issues

Somewhere between spending £1000 on a brand new, current geometry hardtail and spending £1 on a beautifully maintained, faultless 8 year old hardtail there’s a point at which the older bike would still be considered better VFM.

Wonder where that point is though?

Strava usually ignores it on the website unless you’ve categorised the ride as something different (I think “race” and “workout” are the two options of sub categories other than just “ride”).

I know when running, if you leave it as “Run” then it ignores stationary time, but if you classify it as “Race” then it includes stationary periods.

Don’t know if it does the same for rides though, if you haven’t used the autopause options on the phone app.

Here’s the 1:50000 key that relates to the map linked to:-
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/legends/50k-raster-legend.pdf

Should be fairly clear from that which is bridleway (therefore bike friendly) and which is footpath (therefore not, strictly).

@almightydutch – no, I don’t think it is “damp” as the items that have exhibited it were kept in the old (damp) garage for many years without trouble. However, it equally may well be just my imagination!!

(I wondered if the slab drying out at first created something of an alkali athmosphere or something of that sort, perhaps. I assume I am just wrong!!!)

Wish I’d thought about the cable ducting before we had ours put in, just to have the option for some electrics in there would be good.

Agree with the comment about being difficult to attach to, though some of the manufacturers sell brackets which use the existing bolts to support wall hangings etc.

Ours is very dry and effective, but like all outbuildings they are only as secure as the doors / windows / roofs, though (touch wood) we’ve not had any issues.

This might be my imagination, but I’m sure the concrete atmosphere does “something” to some soft metals (e.g. zips on things like tennis racket covers etc etc) to corrode them. Is that just me?