Their Watts are different, the difference is efficiency. Hushovd won a stage last year in a break, the Garmin data from that was something like 200W average over the 5 hours. Not beyond the ability of a lot of mortals. The difference is that if I could pull 200W for 5 hours it wouldn’t get me over 4 huge cols at 26mph average speed!

I’m not particularly convinced that cyclists can have or need to have a good name with drivers. It’s not a case that some cyclists behave badly, it’s that some people are idiots, whether they’re on a bike or in a car. It just so happens that more people drive cars so there are more idiots in cars. They dislike you for selfish reasons, not because they once saw someone else jump a red light.

If drivers understood the RLJ thing from a cyclists point of view they wouldn’t get annoyed and cyclists wouldn’t ‘have a bad name’.

It’s ridiculous that some cyclists can’t form their own opinion on these issues, but take their opinion from a minority of drivers that are simply wrong.

Mudguards make perfect sense in a chaingang in winter. What’s your point exactly?

How does it perpetuate anything if the only person that knows about it is me? I suppose some drivers might read this thread and form an opinion, but honestly, I think my swift progress ranks higher than that given the probabilities of that happening.

The public perception argument is complete rubbish. Car drivers dislike cyclists for selfish reasons, they use the RLJ thing to express their dislike because they don’t have a rational reason. If they understood that every cyclist is one less car sat in front of them in their queue there wouldn’t be the same antagonism.

I must admit that I have gone through some red lights in the car, when it has been perfectly safe to do so. It’s fine if you want to label me as some sort of menace on the roads, because I know that isn’t the case and I’m not really bothered what you nutters think.

The only reason I don’t do it more often is that if I do it on my bike and a Policeman sees me he flashes his lights and shakes his head at me, end of story. (Has happened once turning left at a junction where there *should* be a left turn filter light for that phase of the lights as nothing can cross the junction to go that way at that time) If I do the same in the car it’s inevitable that I’ll be pulled and have the book thrown at me. Those are the practicalities of the situation.

I’m not sure why my motives are under question, I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to make good progress and to make the minimum number of stops during a training ride, so long as you don’t endanger anyone whilst doing so. Why is it selfish when my actions have no impact on anyone else?

I’m sure you can find worse comments than that! Don isn’t saying that Hymer is to blame at all, just that it is likely that if he’d looked the accident wouldn’t happen. I can’t imagine anyone would support the idea that you should cross the road without looking, regardless of what the lights say.

Exactly. These blinkered chaps on here have clearly little experience of the real world and have just seen a few London cycle-courier videos on here. That isn’t the real world and it isn’t a reflection on how the majority of people RLJ. At all.

And it’s complete rubbish to say that most people that RLJ are going to end up under a truck. Do you honestly think that if that were true the sorts of people that are on here putting together coherent arguments that RLJing isn’t the end of the world would be doing it? Or even still here to put the argument forward.

Ah yes, the primary position. See BenHouldsworth’s post about drivers not paying attention etc for reasons why it can be safer to ride where the cars aren’t. Doesn’t offer anything that just getting out of everyone’s way doesn’t, yet introduces the possibility of being mown down by Mrs Threescreamingkidsandonthephone. No thanks.

I despair at a lot of the narrow-minded someone else knows best nonsense on here. I don’t mind you doing whatever you want, but don’t expect anyone with a brain of their own to take any notice of your rubbish.

Yeah, I do and no kittens have died. There’s a huge difference between ignoring red lights and making an informed decision. No doubt you’ll have this image of me hurtling through every red light going, but that’s nowhere near the truth. Some red lights I’ll run all the time, most I’ll never run, some I’ll run occasionally, depends on the junction and the traffic.

Examples of poor cyclecraft?

I suppose you could say that if your definition of good cyclecraft was to constantly defer to ever risk and assume everyone was going to drive like a knob. A valid point perhaps, but I tihnk you’re taking it to an extreme where you’d never go out on a bike on the road.

Perhaps you could explain how you would apply cyclecraft to my example to avoid cars diving for a late over-take at a pinch point? Would you wait at the red light until all the cars had cleared you just in case?

Prezet, the ironic thing is that your moronic adherence to a blanket determinism decided by a computer marks you out as someone that is less likely to be suitable for riding a bike in public than anyone that is prepared to use their own judgement in assessing risk. But you won’t see that will you.

There are plenty of circumstances where ignoring the red light is the safest thing to do. I used to cross a pedestrian crossing fairly regularly, it was little used so inevitably someone would arrive, press the button, then cross before the lights changed. It was a quiet area, with good visibility and nowhere for people to hide. If there was no one at the crossing it is perfectly safe to ignore the red light.

However, if you stop at the red light with a car behind, there’s a pinch point ahead where there is an island in the middle of the road. It’s at the right distance that if you set off from the lights at the same time as a car from stationary there’s a good chance their overtaking coincides with the pinch point and you are suddenly subjected to a much more dangerous situation than simply ignoring the red light and getting to the pinch first.

After being nearly knocked off twice I quickly realised that if I was to survive that the red was going to have to be optional. I suppose the sanctimonious on here would just hope they survived the inevitable?

There’s some absolute nonsense on here, in a majority of situations a cyclist is perfectly capable of judging the safety implications of crossing a red light far better than whichever suit somewhere at the Council decided to apply a blanket on/off rule to all situations.

There are obvious issues with idiots forcing their way through traffic or pedestrians, but that it isn’t safe to RLJ all the time at every junction or crossing does in no way mean that it is never safe to RLJ at any junction at any time.

Be interesting to know how the sanctimonious idiots on here approach crossing a major city at 3am when the lights only change when they detect a car? Do they sit and wait for the next car to arrive hours later, or is it more likely that they simply haven’t had a broad enough riding experience to appreciate that all situations are different and should be judged appropriately on their merits?

Cav might need to be capable, but he isn’t going to actually put it into practice on this stage I wouldn’t think?

I was going to say the same, Strava tells me I ride 4th cat climbs all the time, they’re nowt worth writing home about if you’re a Tour standard hard bastard.

I’ve run RQ 2.4s out there, no problems at all. Non Black chilli, tubeless and fairly low pressures. Loads of grip.

I can’t tell the difference in terms of grip between the expensive and the cheap RQs, though you can feel the weight difference if that bothers you.

I’ve run high rollers too, they were marginally better, but if you want to use the tyres back in the UK, the RQs are a better option. Neither were particularly useful when it was pissing down and the trails turned to clay, so not much point in buying tyres for that!

“he she must return to the course at the same point…..”

That is completely unambiguous, yet completely at odds with the interpretation of the rule. It is very poorly written.

You’re right that the second sentence describes what will happen when the first action occurs, but it’s irrelevant because you can’t gain an advantage by going off the course and rejoining at the same point and you “must return to the course at the same point.”

I don’t have any issues with the interpretation as applied, but there doesn’t need to be as much interpretation if the rules are written properly in the first place.

The rule makes no sense at all. How can you exit the course, re-enter at the same point AND gain an advantage? The second sentence is redundant.

The first sentence is the rule, but it appears that what they meant was actually you can rejoin the track anywhere you like, so long as you don’t gain an advantage. That needs to be qualified with the reference point for the judgement of advantage, is it an advantage compared with not crashing, or compared with not having to rejoin where you left.

It would still be a very subjective rule, so perhaps the best approach is to just delete the second sentence and enforce it as is?

If you’re carrying a normal pump too, I can highly recommend the Canyon combined pump/CO2 jobby.

EBay

That Scottish thing doesn’t sound right at all. The right to roam stuff cannot possibly include the right to run your business on someone else’s land.

Last time I was there I realised I had forgotten my seat entirely! They were ok with me putting the bike in the Gondola, though eventually some chap who’d snapped a frame in half lent me a 27.2 which I spacered with a coke can. Rode Glen Coe the following day and Hamsterly the day after without a seat too.

I thought you were looking for (another!) new frame? You should buy one of those cheap Nukeproof Megas and bin off that dated Yeti you keep riding. 🙂

Dropper post, crash-cam, new pyjamas, stuff like that? If you order enough things then it’s like an extra Christmas when it all arrives!

They’re £15 on eBay for the wire bead non-black chillis. Having used the top of the line ones and these, I’m not sure why you would pay the extra cash for the BCs. I couldn’t tell the difference at all.

Thing is, there’s nothing wrong with drink driving if no one gets hurt…..

But no body did get hurt in that video right?

TJ, firstly, I’m not agreeing with riding down the Ben on a Bank Holiday and I don’t necessarily agree that all of that riding was responsible, but it’s worth bearing in mind that the guidance falls down as soon as a walker gives way to a cyclist.

In my experience of similar trails in the Lakes a majority of walkers will see you coming some way off and move off the trails before you would normally give way. In those circumstances it makes sense to carry on and effectively not give way. Though your guidance says you should stop and wait for the walkers to start walking again and pass you.

Incidentally, this seems to happen because most walkers aren’t bothered by the few bikes they see, they recognise that it’s easier all-round for them to move than for the cyclist to be interrupted and often they just want to watch someone doing something that they wouldn’t have considered doing themselves. I have had one incidence (top of Great Gable) where I was heckled by a walker for dabbing. Generally people are genuinely interested in what I’m doing and in no way offended, even if they have moved out of my way. If they don’t move, I’ll either keep away from them, or stop, as the trail dictates.

A lot of the passes in that video seemed to be common-sense walker moves out of the way affairs, though others were a lot more debatable.

Just looks awful doesn’t it? All that effort and the descent gets ruined by all the walkers. I’m not entirely sure that too many walkers would have been upset, offended or whatever, and the riders seemed to ride fairly responsibly in the main. But it just looked crap didn’t it and it looks like it would be a decent descent if you got a good run at it too.

Not sure it’s worth getting overly emotional about, but that’s up to you.

Is the clue not in the name, “Guidance”?

What length are those? I’ve got 440s on a Transition TransAM, the longest 26″ forks I could find, and they’re too short for a frame designed for suspension forks – BB too low, headangle too steep.

Need 460 or 470mm forks, are these similar?

I knew both Christian and Niggy and I know the road very well. I’m not sure I can believe that the driver lost his vision only a few seconds before the accident and without opportunity to stop, but I don’t think there’s a lot to gain from going over it all here. I can’t imagine how those that knew them better than me and their families are feeling right now.

As well as the sportive that’s run the last couple of years, some friends are doing this at the weekend, also to raise money for Road Peace:

http://www.london2newcastle.com/

It’s a proper challenge and well worthy of support. If you want to make a donation, click here:

http://www.justgiving.com/london2newcastle24

That’s a good sign though isn’t it? Much more encouraging than if they just knocked £100 off the price and kept punting them out from a different eBay account or whatever.

I’ve just left Chorlton. if you get on the old railway line at St Werburghs road tram stop, that takes you to Reddish Vale, takes half an hour. From there Woodbank Park, Goyt Valley, Werneth Low and Marple are all easily accessible. let me know if you want some GPS files sending over?

How much were they before they got pulled? I hope to be in the market prior to the winter season and like the look of these.

What I want to know is who cares who is the fastest down a hill on the road? I can sort of understand the off-road descent segments, but the road descents are pretty pointless. The clue is in the title, “KOM” and that the automatic segments only go up the hills……

George, your Lyrics are PM6. If you put the brake straight on to the fork it will fit a 160mm rotor perfectly, you need adaptors for every other size. It’s the 8″ one you want, for an 8″ rotor.

Maguras are always sold assuming that you have the standard 6″ Post Mount standard and you would need to order a QM7 adaptor separately if you had Magura Thors with the PM7 standard.

Incidentally, this kind of pricing really irritates:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=52240

1. They look AWFUL.
2. They effectively slacken your seat-tube. Not good for climbing.

They’re an awful compromise, don’t do it!

I was saying there would be less maintenance, which is a massive plus for me. Sorry, I was talking at cross-purposes as I didn’t realise you’d moved on to a retrofit kit rather than the Pinion one.

Anyway, on your idea, obviously without seeing it it’s hard to comment, but I’d imagine I’m the sort of person that would be most amenable to the right idea.

The thing is I can’t see a pressing need for it so I’d be in no rush to upgrade despite how much I like the idea. I can’t see I’d bother upgrading an existing frame when I can wait until the next time I buy a new frame and have it all properly integrated.

Your a,b,c,d list is missing the most important factor; e) Fit and forget.

That would be the most important thing for me. I’d happily trade a little inefficiency for knowing my bike is going to work exactly the same for a long time without having to worry about indexing gears, stretching cables, rings wearing, chains wearing etc etc.

Without riding one, I expect that you’ll find that it’s 5% less efficient than a chain setup (for example) but that 5% is only 20% of the drivetrain losses, the other 80% being the interface between tyre and ground.

The box design looks fairly easy for anyone to design a bike around, it just bolts to the bottom of the bike. I wonder if there’s any mileage in Pinion making custom cases that are structural for disipating shock loads for designs like the Trek Fuel. That could allow slightly lighter tubes.

Looks very interesting and I’d love one of those Nicolai’s!

Great frames, can’t recommend highly enough. I’ve ridden mine off the top of Old man of Coniston and managed to ride it all very well, so it’s definitely perfectly fine for the more extreme tracks in the Lakes.

I actually found on that ride it was keeping up with similar riders on FS bikes no problems, the lack of rear travel is less important on steep, technical, slow tracks than fast and big rocks.

I did find running tubeless Rubber Queen 2.4″ tyres at 20psi made a big difference though. I got rid of mine as I rarely ride it and wanted to fund a new DH frame, but now I really want another one.