When this happened to me it was down to an old tyre which started to move in the rim, e.g. when braking, and it was not until I saw that the plastic rim tape was scrunched up on one side of the valve by the movement of the tube against it that I realised what was happening.

It’s not the tyre moving on the rim, it’s the action of the circumference of the tyre when the tyre gets deformed during rotation.

If so, then there is more than one potential cause of these types of punctures at the valve stem, which is frustrating because it is potentially going to make it harder to diagnose the problem. That said, I am somewhat sceptical: all tyres on all bikes will deform during rotation, and even allowing for variation in tyres, tubes, rims, pressures etc., I would have expected a lot more punctures to be reported and ascribed by people generally down to this if it was a significant cause.

My suggestions would be:

– double and triple check the tyres and tubes (they are the correct sizes for each other and for the rim, and the bead is in good condition?)
– I would instinctively tend to use a highish pressure.
– I prefer inner tubes with threaded valves. This does not cure the underlying problem, but the locknut will stop small movements of the valve stem and keep it at 90 degrees to the rim. Possibly more importantly, I found that the cheap chinese inner tubes where the butyl extended up the valve stem were prone to puncturing as a result of the rubber around the stem being cut or abraded by the edge of the valve hole in the rim in the event of even very slight tube movement.

With regard to using talc to reduce the extent to which the tube moves with the tyre, I suspect that whilst this may help, there is still an underlying cause at work which needs to be identified, and talc (and similarly a threaded valve stem) only masks the underlying cause and/or delays the puncture.

If the pros take the safe stuff and leave the dangerous stuff behind I’m starting to think this is a job for the home owner. Better to risk a day of breathing through a mask doing a proper clean up that breath left over dust every time you go in the garage.

Which is why I asked about the competence level of the OP’s mate who is an asbestos surveyor. The person undertaking the investigations and making the assessment should be the one to determine what needs to be done by the asbestos removal contractor, including what removal and clean up protocols (including in the worst cases erecting a negative pressure tent in which to do the work and bringing a decontamination unit on site for the workers). I would not leave it to the asbestos contractor to decide what procedures were required. Equally, if I were an asbestos removal contractor, I would similarly want to know that the surveyor was competent and had made the necessary investigations, as opposed to turning up on site, starting work, and finding that the job is much more hazardous than advised by the surveyor.

I think we have to assume so becasue paying to remove the roof sheets but leave the dust behind would be bat-poo mental.

This is the guidance on removing corrugated asbesto cement sheets, and it does not include anything more than a clean up with damp rags.

If the damaged sheets are asbestos insulation board and lots of fibres from them are already dispersed, then it may not be so simple.

I assume this will have to happen when the roofers have finished?

Will it? I would look closely at what the contractor’s quote actually says it includes. I suspect most such work does not entail a subsequent full decontamination of the area beneath the roof, because it should not release significant quantities of fibres. The fact that the OP is annoyed by the £260 quote to remove the extra sheets, suggests that the quote to remove the roof is not that large an amount.

The OP said his mate is an asbestos surveyor. How skilled/competent is he? An asbestos surveyor may be someone who has just been on a basic course to learn how to do a Type 1 or 2 survey, and may not be competent to make the necessary investigations and assess whether a full decontamination of already released fibres is necessary.

the sheets in the garage are apparently damaged and creating dust where the corners have cracked off etc.

I think you need to consider whether this means that the garage is already significantly contaminated with loose fibres. If so, that is a much bigger issue than just removing the sheets: proper decontamination of the garage would be expensive.

Check your local council’s website to see what they say about accepting asbestos sheets at their waste and recycling centres. They may have a charging structure which would make the £260 good value (providing you can be confident that the contractor does a good/careful job of removing them without breaking them and leaving behind fibres).

Equally, if there is no charge for a private householder to dispose of that number of sheets, it might be something you could do yourself without any great risk. There is various guidance online (check the HSE website), but the key to it is not to damage or break it up and spread fibres in the air or get them on your clothes (disposable gloves and a coverall which you should similarly double bag and dispose of when done). Wetting the sheets down, e.g. with a water spray, will help reduce the risk further.

You should also consider what the sheets are resting on: if they are just resting on a joist, that may mean you can just lift them at one end as you slide the bag over them, with minimal disturbance. If you would need to move them significantly to bag them, then I would leave it to the pros. Also, if the sheets are resting on, for example, an old bit of carpet, then that will likely have fibres in it where it is in contact with the sheets and need to be disposed of (again the sort complication which would possibly make me want to leave it to the pros).

How large are the sheets?

4 weeks on Sajid Javid actually looks more clueless than ever

still does not know how and why illegal cladding used on so many blocks [/url]

I have not watched the interview, but if Peston’s article is an accurate summary, then that is staggering incompetence on Javid’s part. I think that most people involved in the construction industry in specifying cladding and in the fire safety industry already know what the likely cause of this problem is, which is that there is the scope to misinterpret Approved Document B of the Building Regs as to when combustible cladding may be used, and possibly also to place reliance on small scale surface spread of flame fire tests when they are not a reliable indicator of how products will perform in a major fire.

I have no doubt that the issues have already been explained in layman’s terms in meetings/presentations to Javid, his fellow ministers and the senior civil servants of their respective departments by experts from the BRE. If Javid cannot now articulate in an interview a succinct summary of what he has been told by the experts, even in very vague general terms to avoid prejudicing any future criminal prosecutions, then he simply should not be a minister.

If anything it seems to me that it is the Condor that has unusual measurements. When I first saw the photograph of the bike the head tube struck me as being very long relative to the top tube length, whereas everything looks in very classic proportions on TiRed’s Paddy Wagon above (even the saddle to bars drop is not that large given that the stem is slammed), although TiRed’s frame looks like it is a smaller size and I don’t know if the relative proportions would be the same for a 59cm.

It might be worth doing a bit more research, such as checking for any posts on these frames on LFGSS[/url] or even joining that forum and asking their advice. One possibility that occurs to me is that Condor may have deliberately opted for short top tubes (and possibly longer head tubes) to make the frame more attractive to fixed gear hipsters wanting a more upright position for riding in London trafffic*.

In other words, I would have expected the Kona geometry and sizing to be more conventional, given that it is a global brand and will want the bike and frame to have the widest appeal.

That all said, the right bike for you is the one that fits you, and if that is the Condor, then that is the right bike for you.

* Edited to correct a brain fart.

Gotama, if you go for the 59cm Paddy Wagon from Triton, check that the bike is supplied either with an uncut steerer, or that not too much of it is cut and that there are plenty of spacers under the stem to allow you to get the right position. According to their respective geometry charts the Paddy Wagons have shorter head tubes than the Condor Tempo, and in my experience there is a risk that the mechanics who assemble for the online retailers can chop off too much of the steerer.

What I meant here was that the distance between the flat section of the bar that goes through the stem and the front of the bend where the brake hoods are clamped onto is very short relative to what I am used to.

I would not get hung up about that distance: it’s something which is particular to the bars, which you can change (if necessary in conjunction with a shorter stem to maintain the same relative position of the hoods on handlebars with more forward throw), whereas you cannot adjust the frame and the top tube length is key.

I note also that in the Condor photograph the brake levers appear to be rotated back a bit (and/or the bar themselves are), which may account for that seeming reduced distance between the flats and the hoods. This is not necesarily a bad thing: you might prefer the hoods at that angle, but equally you could rotate the bars and/or levers forward (top of the hoods more horizontal, like modern STI/Ergopower shifters tend to have to be positioned) or switch to a bar with more forward throw.

Whilst there is optionality in parts the spec’d bars only go to 44cm based on their website so looking at it I think it would be a cost extra.

In that case I would say pay the extra to get it right. In fact it might be better that way: if Condor are only offering a limited choice of bars, e.g. just that one shape of bar with what you feel is not enough forward throw or width, then it would be better not to restrict yourself to just that choice. If you know the bars on your current bike work for you, then I would want the bike fit to be undertaken using (or with the option of using) the same or similar shape and size of bars. If Condor’s upgrade charge for the right shape/size (for you) of bar is too expensive, e.g. if they only have it in a carbon version, then still get yourself fitted with that bar, but take the bike home with the stock 42cm bar and buy the right shaped/size bars online and fit them yourself.

I’m a fussy so-and-so, and I generally do not tape the bars on a new build until I’ve ridden it a few times, because I like to get hood positions and the bar rotation just right for me.

@lunge, if you are tempted but the 61cm is too large for you, Triton Cycles have a 59cm 2016 Paddy Wagon for £449 here.

The reach is noticeably short based on the numbers but I’m not sure what influence that has.

It’s good to hear you’ve had the chance to sit on it. I always think – never mind the numbers, does it feel ‘right’? If it feels right and looks right, it probably is right. Incidentally the photograph on Condor’s website shows the bike with an inline seatpost: given the 73 degree seat angle, you might find that you want/prefer/need the saddle further back (again, I would hope that Condor would identify this as part of the bike fit and offer to swap to a layback seatpost if appropriate).

The bars on that bike are only 42cm and I usually ride 46cm and they felt very shallow for the drop section.

42cm certainly sounds narrow relative to your height, and if you normally ride 46cm I would want no less wide a bar on a fixed gear, especially when climbing out of the saddle on a steep hill and ‘pulling’ on the hoods. Personally I would not worry about the shallowness of the drop, but then I am inflexible and stay on the hoods.

The Tempo already has mudguards, and as for other accessories and upgrades like dynamos, a disc front fork etc. etc., I would say hold off spending your money and just ride it as it is for a good few months, or better still through the winter. You will then have a much clearer idea in your own mind about what you really want/need.

That Condor Tempo is a 58cm frame with a 57cm effective top tube. That sounds as though it might be a bit small for you (on your previous thread you said you were 6′ 4″). What size road frame and stem length do you currently use?

On the previous thread I linked to this nearly new 61cm Paddy Wagon, which has a 60.5cm effective top tube according to the Kona website.

I’m not going to waste time telling you that you don’t need a front disc: you will realise it yourself when you’ve descended a few hills using the brakes to control your speed and limit your cadence (as opposed to needing to bring a bike on which you are freewheeling to a dead stop in the rain).

The other thing to think about is what gear ratio. If you’ve not ridden fixed before, I would suggest discussing this with Condor when you get fitted, since they may be willing to change the rear sprocket if necessary.

That said, they probably supply it as standard with something like a 66″-68″ gear, and even if you are very fit and fast, I would suggest sticking with that to begin with, i.e. pedal faster rather than fitting a smaller sprocket or larger chainring.

I would be sorely tempted by the Condor in your shoes. I assume Condor are offering their usual free bike fitting as part of the deal, and will swap the stem and bars if necessary to get the right length/width for you?

You still don’t get it. You can’t compound the retail margin with the service margin. For the pain in the arse of fitting the stuff they made £58 minus overheads. If they made a margin on selling you the component is immaterial – they would have made that without the hassle of doing the work and the come back of an unhappy punter.

I don’t think that is necessarily true. I presume that a very large number of potential Invisiframe customers would not be prepared to fit it themselves, and that the sales via the current network of Invisframe retailers are dependent upon the retailers also offering a fitting service if required. Otherwise it would presumably make more sense for Invisframe just to sell the kits via mail order.

I’ve only fitted Invisiframe once…there’s no way I’d have taken on that job in a shop and only charged £58 for fitting.

I think it’s clear you need to do a sufficient number to develop the speed, skill and quality to make it worthwhile to offer the service. Otherwise it’s probably best for a retailer simply not to offer the service.

I reckon to do it properly including set up time it’s got to be at least 3-4 hours work. What is the hourly rate for bike shop labour?

With something like fitting Invisiframe experience and practice result in both better quality and speed. From what I have read, the owner of Invisiframe is very quick.

I guess that to make fitting Invisiframe worthwhile for a bike shop, they need to do a lot of them on a fairly frequent basis to build up and maintain the skill, eficiency and speed. Doing just the odd occasional one is probably going to result either in mistakes and sloppy workmanship, or in it taking so long that the shop loses money on the fitting.

basket is ideal really, but it’s not practical the rest of the time

Topeak detachable basket.

and looks a bit mental ondrop bars

So what? It’s Greece and he’s cycling to the bakery. I’d take that any day with or without a basket, over commuting in a UK city.

There’s probably little that could be done about one isolated false accusation like that.

On the plus side, if it was malicious, then there is now going to be a record/evidence of that person’s actions. If this is a false accusation and forms part of a pattern of other harassment/stalking behaviour, which together are sufficient for the Police to initiate a criminal investigation, then the Police would presumably be able to request the name of the person who reported your brother from the DVLA.

I’ve 31.8mm bars on my Seven Axiom, Paulos Quiros, both skinny tubed and they look fine.

I am not familiar with Paulos Quiros, but all the Seven Axioms I’ve seen do not have skinny tubes. They have oversized tubes which are in proportion to their 1 1/8″ headsets. The Master has traditional diameter tubes and uses a 1″ headset.

To some extent, the stem diameter is more important than the diameter of the bars, because it is the stem that is closest to the narrow tubes and 1″ headset. It’s all in the eye of the beholder, but to me the stems on these look just that bit too chunky for the svelte frames and forks:

I think the Soma bars are single groove. Depending upon your own personal preference and how you grip the top of the bars, the lack of one or both grooves* either may not matter or it may be something you will not want to put up with. The Nitto M190[/url] has double grooves, although some may not like that it’s an anatomic – rather than curved – bar.

At the end of the day, having a Master X Light frame like jameso which is waiting to be built up, and trying to decide what components to use, is the very definition of a problem which is nice to have.

* Obviously I’m assuming Ergopower levers will be used. Anyone who puts Shimano on a Master should be disemboweled with a Campagnolo corkscrew (with the possible exception of a Mapei team frame with period correct Shimano).

I have a 2000 era Chorus groupset, silver Deda 26mm bars and white rolls saddle, waiting for a Master, and the thing stopping me from buying the white frame above is that I prefer the AD20 colour scheme, and I am hoping they will offer it again:

andylaightscat – Member

Velo Orange or Ritchey Classic for bars, stem, seatpost.

Ritchey Classic bars and stem are 31.8mm, which is out of proportion to the narrow tubes of the Master X Light, which really needs a 26mm or 25.8mm handlebar. Cinelli has reissued the 64 Giro bar, but it has no cable grooves. Some Nitto bars have cable grooves, although I think many/most are single groove. I think the Nitto S83 seatpost is now possibly the best looking silver aluminium seatpost.

I have a master X-lite in a box waiting a full build kit

Jameso, what colour scheme is it, and what kit are planning to put on it?

They look best with silver aluminium components, not black or carbon, but it’s not easy finding them now.

No I think most of us think what the cyclist did was bloody stupid. The responsibility though always lies with the person who poses the biggest danger to others, which in this case is obviously the truck driver.

Which is cobblers. Ultimately, what governs the rights and responsibilities of all road users is the law and the Highway Code, which exists to tell people what they may and may not do, and so make the roads safer by making people’s actions compatible and predictable.

At the end of the day, it is the justice system that is the ultimate arbiter of responsibility under the law, and neither your nor my opinion will count (unless you work for the CPS, or one of us is on a jury). If that accident had resulted in the cyclist being killed, I very much doubt that the driver would have been prosecuted, because it would have been deemed the cyclist’s fault.

The fact that they are stupid and not obeying the rules is largely irrelevant.

That is childish logic. Indeed you seem to want to apply parent and child standards of responsibility for behaviour to road users: children are unpredictable and can run out into the road, and parents are responsible for them and have to prevent that and protect them. Grown ups have autonomy and can make their own decisions, but they also have to take responsibility for those decisions and enjoy or suffer the consequences as applicable.

Whether or not you criticise the HGV driver, I think most or even all of us think that the primary responsibility for the accident lies with the cyclist, and that the cyclists using the filter lane were all in the wrong.

Given that most of us are experienced cyclists, I wonder how we would behave in those circumstances, after a period of time commuting by bike in London:

a. Gradually copy the other cyclists because of the difficulty of going against the flow and herd mentality (but make damn sure to either be fast enough to outsprint the HGV well before the pinch point, or hold back in the junction until it had passed and then slot in behind it)
b. Ignore the other cyclists and always take primary position behind the artic
c. Go over to the cyclists and tell them that they should not use the filter lane to sidle alongside the artic.

I am fairly sure I would do b., because it’s clearly the safest option and I am an extremely cautious rider. I’d like to think I would do c., but I suspect that even if I did that the riders would ignore me and I would give up after one or two attempts.

If so many riders in London and elsewhere are cycling so dangerously, such that they are now no longer just a few bad apples but possibly the majority, how are they to be persuaded to change? The police probably do not have the resources to undertake major exercises on a large enough scale to influence enough of these riders to change. And the riders themselves do not appear to be receptive to being told they are in the wrong (Dunning Kruger effect?).

I think Giant might have something to say about that one

As best I can recall, there had been a few other carbon fibre frames before the C40, but they had not been very successful in races or commercially, and aluminium frames were still the order of the day (and people assumed that the C40 was aluminium when it first appeared being ridden by Tony Rominger).

Giant’s frames of that era were aluminium, and they were the lightest of the bunch.

So it was Colnago that made carbon fibre frames mainstream, certainly in pro racing: the other makers had to follow and develop carbon fibre frames of their own to compete both in the peloton and commercially.

Arguably it was Giant that made them mass market and much more affordable, thanks to their size and ability to bring large economies of scale (and probably low wage costs in the Far East) to bear.

In the real world, 10mph would be fine, would allow all the cyclists past and would make no difference to his journey time.

There are plenty of unfit, infirm and elderly and other cyclists who ride at 10mph.

The driver could have done something different (without coming to a complete stop) which would have improved the safety of the cyclists around him, but he chose not to. All he actually had to do was accelerate slower from the lights

How much more slowly? For all he would know there could potentially be a cyclist who would match that slower speed. He could drive at 5 mph, which would ensure the fast boys and girls would have ridden ahead, but the accident would still have occurred if a 5 mph cyclist was equally stupid and decided to try to squeeze in the gap.

Personally, I think Ernesto lost his way with the move from steel to plastic.

To be fair to him, he was the innovator who made plastic bikes mainstream with the C40. And despite that, he continued the manufacture of the steel Master frames (and I think they are still made in his factory in Italy, not offshored).

Where is the secondary responsibility?

Both the cyclists and the HGV driver have a primary responsibility to obey the Highway Code. Both have a secondary responsibility to be prepared to react to the errors of other road users which might otherwise cause an accident.

The cyclists failed to comply with their primary responsibility.

As this thread shows, the extent to which people believe the HGV driver failed to comply with his secondary responsibility is in the eye of the beholder, e.g. he should assume that that there are cyclists in his blind spot:

a. all the time
b. whenever he sees x number of cyclists pop out in front
c. in London
d. in any built up area
e. during rush hour
f. whenever there is a cyclist in his blind spot (because somehow he should know, even if it’s a blind spot).

This professional driver in a very dangerous bit of machinery has just seen 5 cyclists at differing speeds pop out of his blind spot unexpectedly and he just carried on regardless nearly killing someone.

What if he had seen just one cyclist pop out of his blind spot? What are the different statistical probalities for there being a cyclist hidden from view if five pop out, three pop out, or none?

As long as HGVs with such blind spots are legal to drive on the road, the primary responsibilty is on cyclists to obey the rules which will help to prevent them being injured or killed in circumstances where they are in that blind spot..

slowster » You are effectively suggesting that cyclists be given automatic right of way in traffic regardless of the Highway Code. That’s just not workable.

Not in general no, in some very specific circumstances where it vastly improves safety, yes. Explain to me what is unworkable about that?[/quote]

Because having conflicting rules in a safety critical situation will invariably cause accidents. If you want to give cyclists right of way in such situations you would have to rewrite the Highway Code, and I don’t think it would be possible to do so and restrict it to such specific circumstances. It would only create more uncertainty for all road users and lead to more unpredictable and dangerous behaviour.

There’s actually an incredibly easy option for the driver – back off and let all the cockwombles on bikes go in front.

The roads are probably one of the most complex safety systems in existence. Because of the huge number of variables in the system, and the fact that almost every adult and many children form part of that system, rules are essential (and so is monitoring and enforcing the rules to minimise non-compliance).

You are effectively suggesting that cyclists be given automatic right of way in traffic regardless of the Highway Code. That’s just not workable.

Similarly an observer in the cab is not a cure for the problem. It would make the roads safer, but the underlying problems of bad/dangerous cycling and poor road design still need to be fixed. It will take a lot of time and money to improve road design, so in the meantime cyclist behaviour has to be the priority.

I’ve read that Ernesto Colnago, who started out as a team mechanic, always designed his bikes with a view to them being suitable for Paris Roubaix, i.e. no ultra-lightweight mountain climbing special frames.

One year the Paris Roubaix winner rode the same C40 that he had ridden in the race the previous year. Colnago made a lot of this fact in their marketing, implying that it was unusual.

If it’s a two or three storey house, then I would try to avoid having a duct run the the full height of the chimney. At some point it will need to be cleaned, and you may find that extremely difficult/expensive. Unless they are very short, kitchen extract ducts are supposed to have access hatches in them which allow them to be inspected and cleaned, but I presume your planned install will not include making maybe three or more holes in the chimney masonry to allow such hatches to be installed.

I would also be concerned about the quality and specification of the ducting and the joins: it’s not that unusual to see grease, oil and fat leaking through the joins of commercial kitchen ducting, even though you would expect it to be to a high specification.

In your shoes I would be investigating whether the top end recirculating systems would be acceptable (which I suspect will be very expensive German brands, given that they are the leaders in MHRV buildings, and recirculating systems will probably be used in their most energy efficient homes to reduce heat loss).

Easton Arc Plus 29+ rims in 35mm width are still available from CRC for only £40. They’re also on clearance, so a pair is only £70.

Use the money you save on those rims to pay a good wheelbuilder to build them up.

I don’t know the correct answer according to Building Regs etc. or the cooker manufacturers, but the extraction duct will inevitably require cleaning at some point. How frequently that is needed will depend upon the efficacy of any filters and the extent and type of cooking, e.g. steaming or boiling vs. frying, but even if it did not need it for some years, I would want it designed and installed to make cleaning (and also inspecting the duct to see if it needed cleaning) as easy as possible.

The dangerous cycling by the riders in that video is the result of the same sort of attitudes and behaviours as car drivers using mobile phones while driving. The problem is that once some people start doing it and ‘getting away with it’, others see it and copy them and it becomes normalised.

It’s probably difficult to go against the herd when cycling regularly in somewhere like London and be the odd guy out who sticks to the Highway Code and stays behind that truck when every other cyclist is riding up to the junction in the filter lane.

Again as with mobile phone using, once that sort of dangerous behaviour has acquired sufficient critical mass to become commonplace, it’s a lot harder to reverse things and stop it happening. It would probably take a lot of police resources now to influence this, i.e. police regularly stopping groups of cyclists doing that and getting it through their thick skulls that they must not do it, whether by explanation or by giving them the sort of bollocking that will discourage them from doing it again.

Just how bad things are, is shown by the number of cyclists who think the rider was in the right and that it was the truck driver’s fault: they’ve all become so habituated to their crap roadcraft that many are probably incapable of realising when they have made a mistake and correcting their behaviour.

Put simply, these people do not know how to ride their bikes safely, and they live in their own little bubbles whether commuting in London or riding in a sportive.

Thank you. I did a preliminary recce of the first couple of miles of track east of Downton on my Tripster with 35c tyres a few weeks ago, and it was OK, but I wasn’t sure how representative that would be of the rest of the route.

or old scool XC head NNW from fordingbridge towards the oxdrove (runs from downton to shaftsbury) link it to the other oxdrove (runs from salsisbury to shaftsbury) and come back – epic views on a clear day.

The last time I did that ride XC did not exist and we called it ‘roughstuff’.

It was so long ago that I cannot recall what the tracks were like. What sort of bike did you do the route on, and what sort of bike would you recommend for it?