Arrh, I'm in. Shame it's the 2 lap format not the long single lap like it used to be, still should be good though.

I have a pair of size 48 defrosters for sale if you are interested ton?

the rear wheel is stuck to the ground

Not good for jumping then!

i definitely noticed it recently. it was the bike radar thingy a few weeks ago, i was sat on a stand in the shade watching the cycling world go by.

Impressively rigorous research there…

There were some MASSIVE balls of wool in the shop down the road the other day that made me go all wierd.

I've got a couple of the Ragley ones, seem perfectly good for the money so far.

2 VERY technical descents

You're not wrong, last time I did it I managed to crash and mangle myself on both the descents!

so for me, "mountain" bike is a bit of a bullshit term.

It's just a name, get over it. All terrain bike would be equally wrong, as you can't ride over all types of terrain. Of course, then you have road bikes that you can also ride off road or up mountains on. Downhill bikes that you can ride uphill. Freeride bikes that you have to pay for. Etc…

What do you find goes wrong with Shimano brakes then?

Beats me, I don't use them, there is the odd thread on here every so often where people have problems though.

which is more than I can say for various mates' squealing Hope set-ups

The squealing is a feature, encourages you to brake less!

Yes, see your reply to TJ. "people still say they are faultless. Fit and forget and never need anythng doing to them." This is clearly not true in general. I realise that you didn't say they were absolutely fit and forget, but I assumed the context would have been sufficient that I didn't need to go to tedious lengths of quoting.

but once you've done that, they're pretty much fit and forget

No brakes are "fit and forget", they all go wrong every so often. You might argue that shimano are better than most, but the difference is certainly not as vast as people tend to claim in brakes threads.

When I say 1ft drop I think of something knee height then a transition after that,

Do you have very short shins?

Mine is knacked after a year, was quite good while it worked. Seems like they are generally pretty reliable though.

Definitely, or you will almost certainly die…

Negligible.

Plus I need to pee sometimes to … refill the camelbag.

Taking recycling one step too far…

almost an order of magnitude difference in average speed

You must know some very slow and very fast people!

People really do pay more for 'designer brands', with no real benefits.

I tried some tesco value noodles the other day, they were inedible.

That was great, many thanks to the organisers!

"That is not dead which can eternal lie"

I think NWMTB in cheadle had a soul frame the last time I was there, not sure what size it was though.

both failed at a metal component, which I found reassuring.

Reassuring?!? Surely the consequences are just as unpleasant whether or not it's a carbon bit that breaks.

Hopefully he was joking? I have old LX, old XT, slx and new XT cranks on different bikes, I certainly can't detect any difference between any of them.

IMO, is stiffer – just look at the way the crankarm sits more snugly in the spider.

As well, that's me convinced. How much stiffer do you reckon it is, just by looking at the increased snugness, 12% ?

It would be nice if one of the magazines did some impartial scientific testing of components now and then.

No thanks, I don't see any of the cycling mags being in a position to produce anything scientific. You'd end up with something like the disc brake test on bikeradar recently, at best irrelevant if not actively wrong, with some graphs and numbers to make it look "scientific".

its definitely as dangerous as you want it to be

It's definitely not!

A dangerous as you want it to be.

Not strictly true, there is always the possibility of events beyond your control leading to a crash, eg mechanical failure, being wiped out by a car/dog/sheep/etc…

rather than sound, peer reviewed, scientific evidence shock.

Is there scientific data available on any mountain bike components?

All you can do (as I understand it) is adjust certain parameters to develop along pre-defined paths at different speeds.

You understand it poorly, it actually works much more like the way you seem to want it to work. It's all been downhill since civ2 though.

Exactly the same geometry-wise as the standard inbred aren't they? People seem happy to run those with 130mm forks.

I'm 6'5" and have a 19.5" scandal, I prefer it to the 21" inbred I had before, they have long top tubes!

Although it's expensive to buy the new internals, your only the 2nd person I've read about that had probelms though.

Yeah it doesn't sound common, oh well! Mine is still useable, just has some play in it, will run it until it dies…

They certainly aren't zero maintenance, mine is knacked after a year! Quite liked it while it was working though.

free[with licence]

So not free at all then!

Not just the saddle that's gopping…

But you could carry 2 tubes, a pump and a waterproof in your pockets, that's what I don't really get, why carry a huge Camelbak?

Pump is a mountain morph, so don't think it would fit in a pocket! I'm not convinced a smaller camelbak + jersey pockets is really much of an improvement over just a bigger bag, but I will experiment…

Agreed, although I for one have never understood the need for anything like a Camelbak MULE/HAWG for anything short of multi-day rides!

I find a mule a bit small for long rides, mine is pretty much full with just a bladder, 2 tubes, pump and a waterproof.

You are usually not far from a road on any ride, I'd still rather carry enough stuff to be self-sufficient though.

baggy short wearing guys with a rucksack

Ahaha! What a bunch of idiots! Wearing baggy shorts, what were they thinking? And carrying a rucksack at a trail centre! Don't they realise that trail centres operate under an entirely different set of physical laws where mechanicals are impossible, weather has no effect and hunger and thirst are but a dream…