Go back to the doctor and ask him for some real painkillers. I was on a cocktail of paracetamol/codeine/ibuprofen and it just didn’t do the trick. Then the doc gave me Tramadol and it was like a wave of relief washing over me. Don’t want to stay on it long term though – can be addictive.

Space exploration pays for itself

Having read the source for your statement (and the source of the source) I think that is a spurious argument.

Their logic is that the billions of dollars the US Government pours into NASA has beneficial knock-on effects for society as a whole, because every dollar invested creates ten dollars of ‘goods and services’ circulating in the wider economy – therefore it “pays for itself”.

The flaw in this particular argument is that the same would happen if the government poured the same amount of money into just about anything else – such as infrastructure, education, healthcare etc. It’s called the ‘multiplier effect’ and is the basic economic principle behind all Government spending, used to good effect by a number of countries recently to ‘stimulate’ their way out of recession.

And if you add into the equation that the Government coffers aren’t bottomless and so they have to pick and choose what they invest in, then the argument becomes which investment gives the better overall return for society.

My personal view is that space programmes have more to do with ego, posturing, and general willy waving by governments than economic stimulus, and that the economic multiplier effects and eventual trickle down of some of the technology into the general economy is used as a justification, but isn’t as much as would happen by investing the same money directly into things such as biotech, IT, or renewable energy.

Of course that totally ignores the more existential arguments about the search for knowledge and the future of mankind, but that’s not what the article was saying, it was trying to justify the spend on space programmes by economic benefit alone.

No, no its not a good point: the effect of space travel on humans has high relevance to not only future space exploration, but also relevance here on earth (materials, propulsion systems, computer technology, communications etc etc).

Yeah yeah, that old one! Think of all the beneficial side products of space exploration – like Teflon!

Trouble is the gaping (black) hole in that argument is that the beneficial things that come out of the space programme are just that – coincidental side products. If instead we took the space budget (and all the industrial might and brainy people it absorbed) and directed in solely on developing new products for the benefit of humanity, we’d have come up with a lot more than a non-stick coating for frying pans! We could have advanced renewable energy by decades, developed new antibiotics that bacteria aren’t resistant to, and maybe even solved third world hunger through advances in agriculture.

I say it again – let’s put the effort and money into solving the problems we have created here on our own planet, before we have the audacity and arrogance to reach out and start populating other worlds!

Life is too short to hate what you spend most of your time doing

I used to think that, so now I hate what I’m doing and get paid less for doing it :(

So my advice to the OP is suck it up, and just be thankful that it pays for you to enjoy the rest of your life.

Am I the only one who doesn’t think it’s necessarily a good idea for the human race to spread to other planets? To do what exactly – mess them up like we have this one, then spread to the next, and the next? And the reasons people have given in this thread so far like “because we can”, “because we can afford it”, and “because it’s in our nature to expand” sends a shiver down my spine honestly.

I’m reminded of this quote from the Matrix,

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I try to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively creates a natural equilibrium with it’s surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

If there was some higher being looking down on us at the moment I think it’d do well to keep us quarantined on this planet, at least until we’ve learned to be a good universal citizen by clearing up the mess we’ve made of the earth, social inequity, greed, wars and all our other unpleasant traits.

I’m 53 and my regular riding buddy is 70! I only started MTB five years ago at your age, so you’re definitely not too old to get into it, but take it gently as old bodies just can’t take as much punishment as young ones, or recover as quickly.

In my case I probably peaked at age 50, and have had to slow down a bit recently due to recurrent injuries. These days I stick to more ‘flowy’ trails than technical ones, have given up on the multi day events, and either go out on my own or with someone my own age/ability so I don’t get egged on into doing something silly by people younger and fitter than me!

Definitely ride a full suspension bike rather than a hardtail – your back will thank me for it!

As I understand it, it’s not a componentry thing- the damper hardware itself is fine, it’s the base tune.

Whether you like the ‘tune’ of the O/C damper or not is another matter, but the fact is that the original 2013 damper had a basic fault. Under certain circumstances the plastic bottom would blow off the damper cartridge – like if you had it in ‘climb’ and landed heavily. The interim fix applied to late 2013/early 2014 O/C cartridges was to have four holes drilled in the cartridge wall to relieve the pressure – and dump all your damper oil in the lowers! The proper fix applied from late 2014 onwards was re-design of the plastic bits to make them stronger and addition of a blow-off valve.

Hence my advice to the OP to avoid the 2013 O/C dampers.

I’m sorry, I’ve not heard of this. Is this an eco additive.

What’s the consequences of not running it?

AdBlue is the reagent added to the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems in diesel exhausts to turn the harmful NOX into harmless Nitrogen. It is composed of urea – yes pee!

If you run the vehicle without it, the catalytic converter cannot do its job and higher emissions will result. It won’t do any harm to the engine, but it will kill all fluffy bunnies and baby robins within a ten mile radius – guaranteed. Hence car manufactures, being the concerned environmental saviours that they are, have warning lights and even forced limp mode to make you keep it topped up.

The ones to avoid are the earlier versions of the O/C (Open Cartridge) damper on the Evolution models, particularly the 2013 which was the launch year and had a design/manufacturing fault which meant they turned into a pogo stick! Although they stopped short of a recall (presumably to avoid admitting fault and therefore opening themselves to litigation in the US) Fox will still replace a 2013 O/C cartridge no questions asked.

The predecessor to the O/C cartridge called Open Bath (O/B), and the high end FIT cartridge are all fine.

The XTR equivalent is the SM-BB94-41A

Haven’t read the link, but I damaged my sciatic nerve a couple of years ago and have been getting random cramps in the foot and calf that nerve serves ever since, so I would tend to believe that cramps have more to do with nerves than anything else.

Sorry TroutWrestler – just re-reading your post I realise you don’t have a drawbar mounted rack, just a longer drawbar so you can use a car mounted rack – same as I currently do.

Another couple of thoughts for the OP – extras you should consider are a jockey wheel if it doesn’t come with one (makes it much easier to manoeuvre around off the car), spare wheel (especially if going for a second hand trailer, as trailer tyres get to sit out in all weather, nearly flat, slowly rotting away for most of their life, then once a year get thrashed down a motorway at 80mph under full load!!), and a hitch lock or wheel clamp.

We had the same situation OP – outgrew our car and so we got a small trailer to use for family camping trips, but still have the benefits of a small economical car for the rest of the year.

Echo everything said above about the Erde trailer, although ours is a medium sized 153 model. When towing it fully loaded with our Corolla we hardly notice it’s there, and less drag/wind noise than a rooftop box. Ours lives in the garden shed most of the time with all the camping gear stored in it, but it’s small and light enough to store up on end at the back of a garage if you wanted. We went the soft top route and still put the bikes on the back of the car as you can see from the above photo, but I’ve often thought about getting a hard top or putting a rack on the drawbar like TroutWrestler – got any pics of that by the way?

Overall, I’d say if you’ve got space to store the trailer for the time you’re not using it, then it’s a good way to go.

+1 about taking all the emotion and bitterness out of your resignation letter, no matter how justified it is. You never know when you might meet that person again, or need their help, no matter how much you doubt it now.
For example, a couple of years ago I applied for residency in Australia and needed references going right back to my first job thirty years ago, and it helped enormously that I left all my previous jobs on good terms.
Interesting footnote to it all was that after catching up with a couple of the people I thought were complete bellends at the time, some (but not all!!) turned out to be not bad people afterall, but just trying to do the best they could under difficult circumstances.

A Sigma 17-70 would be a good replacement/improvement compared to the kit lens

That’s a good option Cranberry – smaller range than the 15-85, but faster, and a bit over half the price! I’ll have to look into that more closely (excuse the pun!)

Can I ask how it compares to your Canon 15-85 in terms of size, weight, and quality (zoom smoothness, focusing speed etc.) Thanks.

Hmmm, you might have persuaded me. If it doesn’t auto install this week, it might just become my Xmas holiday project! I’m gonna make damn sure I back all my files up on a spare HD first though, as I don’t trust myself not to muck it up :lol:

Nice find mrsfry – just watched his vids on both the 18-55 kit lens and the 15-85 upgrade. Buying the 15-85 now and upgrading the body later when my 400D body dies is looking like the favourite option at the mo.

And cp, yes I think I really do want a zoom. My days of carrying a backpack full of lenses with me are long gone…

Ok, tried it but that’s basically the same tool I ran three months ago which checks your PC is eligible and then puts you in the queue for the upgrade. So when I run the tool again absolutely nothing happens because I’m already in the queue.

Would be really interested to hear if any other Windows 7 users have been waiting 3 months or whether its just me? As a comparison, my Windows 8.1 laptop upgraded within about six weeks of me registering.

Great – I’ll give it a go! As soon as I’ve finished surfing STW that is :wink:

Have you thought about Sigma or any other brand

Had a quick look at Tokina & Tamron but it seems like they only offer stuff at the high end these days, and don’t even bother competing with the camera manufacturers at the cheaper end – but happy to be proved wrong!

Ok good suggestions so far thanks. To address some of them…

Good point about not jumping to the conclusion it’s the lens at fault. I’ll take it to a shop and try it with another lens in case it’s the body after all.

As I’m not a ‘serious’ photographer these days (used to have my own darkroom back in the days) I’m not sure I’d benefit much from a new body, especially as the entry level ones look like a downgrade in terms of look & feel compared to my ‘solid’ feeling 400D. Yes I’d like to be able to take occasional video, but I can’t see anything else that a new body will give me that’s a radical improvement on my 400D. I guess things haven’t really changed that much in ten years with DSLRs afterall!

I like the suggestion that upgrading the lens is where I’ll notice the bigger improvement. However, looking at the Canon range it seems there’s the 18-55mm ‘kit’ lens, or the 15-85mm for five times the price, and nothing in between! That’s a big jump and I’m not sure it’d be worth it?

Ooops just noticed a typo in my original post – it’s the 18-55mm lens I’ve got at the moment, and wouldn’t really want to go for a lesser zoom range. Liking the look of the Canon 17-85mm USM until I saw the price!

Also, I’ve had a few of the Ebay batteries but they seem to die after a few months unlike the Canon originals which last a few years, but I can’t get hold of anymore.

Meanwhile checked a few local stores for repair prices and seems it starts at around 150 quid to even touch a lens, so looks like it’s new lens time! Question now is which lens, and do I also buy a new body?

Hi cp, appreciate the advice, but as you lost me straight away with the mention of “ISO installation disc image” then I’m probably not the right person to be going that route! I think it’s probably best I go the simple, idiot proof, Windows way if possible, but just don’t know whether I should still be waiting for my turn, or if something’s gone wrong with my particular installation. I’m suspicious because the Windows upgrade icon didn’t come up automatically for me like it should have – I had to visit the Microsoft website and download a few fixes before it even recognised my machine as being eligible for the upgrade. And now it’s just been sitting there for three months – waiting!

LEVs can be sensitive to clamping force as well – if its too tight they won’t extend fully. The installation manual even warns against it:

Do not over torque your frame’s seat collar as this may inhibit proper function of your seat post

They specify a clamp bolt torque of 6-7 Nm which isn’t really much at all – the same as stem bolts. I’m pretty sure I used to do my QR ones up way more than that, but of course the problem is you can’t measure the torque on a QR so you don’t actually know how tight it is.

I guess the answer is – if the dropper sticks then loosen the QR off a bit until it doesn’t :-)

(incidentally, Perth this weekend, anywhere to MTB?)

Absolutely – get yourself up to the Kalamunda Circuit, about 45mins drive due east of the city, park at the Camel Farm (yes they really do have camels you can ride) rent a bike there and grab a trail map, and enjoy about 50k of great singletrack.

Would offer to show you round but I’m off the bike at the mo with an injury.

Enjoy!

You’re on a mountain biking forum, so forget the usual tourist treadmill (yes, including the titty bars in Wanchai) and GO MOUNTAIN BIKING!

Read this then ignore everything it says and get in touch with Steve at Cross Country HK who will sort you out with a ride. Best time of year to be doing it too!

It’s a weird one-off freak of nature, product of a time when Giant were trying to make everything a 29er. Now they’ve come to their senses and the Trance 27.5 is everything the Trance X29 should have been and more. Just my opinion of course… :wink:

There was an “insider” on German TV who claimed the decision not to go with a urea based system and cheat on VW’s smaller engines was down to cost. They could do it properly but it would have made the cars more expensive which would have reduced both margins and market share.

I think that’s the crux of it. The technology to reduce NOx is well understood and widely available, but it has cost and performance ramifications. VW couldn’t meet the stringent US NOx standards and still sell a small diesel engine that had good performance and fuel economy, while keeping the cost down for a US market which won’t pay a premium for a diesel. So they cheated. And they got caught.

Others either took the hit to their margins and installed expensive NOx reduction technology, or stayed away from the US diesel car market. VW’s arrogance was it’s downfall.

I’m a bit clueless to it all I’m afraid. Some research tells me I have a PF92 BB on the new bike. It has a SRAM BB in it, however the SRAM page only has BB30, PF30 or GXP. I have no idea which one is in there, which hope or shamino model I would need to run some M785 cranks or even if I can run those cranks in there.

I’m not a SRAM man, so someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that if you currently have a PF92 frame with a SRAM BB in it, then it’ll be a GXP press-fit BB that fits into a PF92 BB shell. However, you won’t be able to put Shimano Hollotech II cranks in a GXP BB, so to fit your M785 cranks you’ll have to replace the GXP BB with a Shimano PF92 BB, such as the BB71 or BB94. Either will fit your cranks – they’re interchangeable, it’s just the BB94 is XTR level and supposedly a bit lighter and better sealed.

They probably won’t get hit during this particular scandal though since it’s regarding diesel particulates not mpg.

This particular scandal was actually about NOx – not PM, fuel economy, or even CO2. Although it now seems to have mushroomed to include all of the above, and sparked a debate about real world emissions versus test scenarios. A good debate to have IMHO, but we can’t blame all the problems with the system on VW alone, its been broken for a long time, and Governments have been implicated in it as well as they haven’t wanted to upset the applecart.

Perth, will that press insert bearings as well as cups? How do you remove the bearings only?
Also, do you have the part numbers for the Park face plates and is that M12 threaded bar?

I assume by ‘bearings’ you mean PF30 where the bearings are pressed straight into the BB shell, instead of PF92 where the bearings are housed in plastic cups, which are then pressed into the BB shell. As Hob Nob says, you can’t separate the bearings from the cup in BB92, at least not the Shimano ones I use anyway.

The Park tools come as a set comprised of a removal tool and a pair of bushings to press the bearing/cup in, so I’m afraid I can’t give you just the bushings part number, but the BB30 set is BBT 30.3, and the BB92 set is BBT 90.3.

The BB30 and BB92 tools aren’t interchangeable – at least the Park ones aren’t. The BB92 bushings have the raised lip I mentioned above, and are wider diameter because the plastic cup overlaps the BB shell edge. The BB30 bushings are flat and smaller diameter because they need to fit inside the BB shell. Likewise the removal tools are quite different – see the photos below…

Park BB30 tool set (BBT 30.3):-

Park BB92 tool set (BBT 90.3)

The internal diameter of the Park BB92 bushings is 16mm. The rod I use is 5/8″ and is just right – a little bit of play but not too much. In metric you could try M16 but it may be too tight a fit in which case you’d have to go down to M14, but M12 would definitely be a bit on the loose side. Don’t know what the internal diameter of the Park BB30 bushings is, sorry.

Hope that answers your questions…

Just one word of caution about using the washers directly on the Shimano cups. The inner bearing race has a raised plastic bit making it the highest part of the cup. If you use flat washers all the inserting force will be going on the inner bearing race instead of the surrounding cup.

The proper installation bushings which come with the Park set have a raised edge so they push against the cup rather than the bearing race. You can see that here…

And here’s the complete setup – Park extractor and inserting bushings, together with a home made cup press made from threaded rod & nuts from the hardware store…

As a back pain sufferer for a couple of years now I’d just like to echo a couple of the comments above.

See a Physio sooner rather than later – I left it too long and was doing the wrong things for my back and making it worse.

Don’t use Ibuprofen for a long time (weeks) as it can mess up your stomach and leave you with a sensitivity to NSAIDs so you can’t ever use them again. My doctor never mentioned this (apparently common) side effect to me until I rocked up at the emergency department one night throwing up tar-like half digested blood!

Usual caveat’s apply – I’m not a doctor, and only talking from personal experience.

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the things people say they’d rather be doing don’t actually require a lot of money?

Could it be that sometimes we use money as an excuse for why we don’t do these things, whereas all it really needs is the guts to make the break and do something different?

Still not saying that makes it easy, but just that we need to be honest with ourselves what’s stopping us, and then maybe it wouldn’t – if you see what I mean.

Similar thing happens in Australia (where I live), but maybe for completely different reasons depending on whether UK immigration laws work in a similar way or not.

There is a category of visa for entry into Australia specifically for small business entrepreneurs. On this, you basically just have to operate a business in Australia for two years, then you get permanent residency. Nothing says it has to be successful, or even make a cent. Results in a lot of empty Asian restaurants/takeaways which never seem to have any customers, and which change hands to the next incoming family exactly every two years.

While the restaurant/takeaway is fronted by the kids the adults are usually working night & day in other jobs (in the grey economy) to make enough real money to actually survive.

Although I’m not sure that’s how the visa category was intended to work, it’s certainly attracting true ‘entrepreneurs’ :lol:

Repeating my comment from the other PSA thread for these: Excellent cranks, will run fine with both 9sp and 10sp, but just be aware that the fitting for the outer ring was modified slightly for the non-standard size bash these cranks come with. You can still fit standard rings or an aftermarket bash in the outer position, but there will be a gap of a couple of mm between it and the spider.

Also I seem to remember there is a slight difference in chainline, the 2x being slightly less good for a 1x set up

No, the M665 was Shimano’s first foray into doubles, and predates the different chainline for doubles. It has exactly the same chainline as the M660 triple version.

Great chainset – I used them with 2×9 and 2×10 no problem. With 22/36 it has slightly lower gearing than the 24/38 now standard, which is perfect for unfit old geezers like me!

It’s just an slx triple crank with two rings and a bash in the outer position

As Bigjim said the cranks have steel pedal thread inserts. Another difference is the spider where the bash/outer ring mounts is modified on the M665 compared to the M660. They made it this way so there was room for thicker plastic between the mounting bolt and the spider ‘shoulder’ so the bash ring was less likely to crack there under a big hit. A standard outer ring will fit but there will be a couple of mm gap between it and the spider arms. Not a strength issue as its the chainring bolts that hold it in position, but looks a bit naff as if the chainring is too large for the spider.

Does it look a bit like this?

I bent that one back into shape gently with an adjustable spanner and thumb pressure, and that was 18 months ago and it’s been fine since – no problems sealing tubeless.

Stick to the FS – you’ll thank me for it in twenty years time :wink:

So speaks someone who did all the wrong things for his back during his twenties and thirties and is now suffering the consequences :(