kerley – Member

Just stay off the roads if you want a stress free time as there are a lot of impatient drivers who will always overtake you on blind corners, narrow gaps, brows of hills etc,.

I think it’s often a matter of route choice (as with as all road cycling). Because there are relatively few roads through the Forest, some B roads that elsewhere would be little used by vehicles are a lot busier in the Forest.

For example, the B road between Beaulieu and Lymington seems to attract a lot of traffic, so I almost invariably ride the back country lanes instead via East Boldre, Sowley Pond and South Baddesley, which have very little traffic.

Because there are relatively few roads in the Forest, and because some of them are not very suitable for (leisure) cycling, the choice of cycling routes is more limited compared with outside the Forest. However, the quality of those routes goes a long way to make up for their limited number and lack of alternative options.

scaredypants – Member

On road, well, the roads are narrow and they are busy with livestock and there are quite a lot of cyclists so locals probably do struggle to “make progress”.

Occasionally a few ponies will stand in the road, forcing cars to slow down and sometimes stop and wait. Forest residents are used to it and for the tourists it’s a novelty which is part of the experience of visting the Forest. The levels of traffic are generally so low that it’s unusual to see more than a few cars being held up for longer than a few minutes. The main exception I can think of is around Beaulieu (especially the busier section of road between Bealieau and Hatchet Pond) because the land adjacent to the roads is private and not FC land, and so is fenced off or has hedges. Consequently the ponies and cattle have to use the roads to move around that area, but again in my experience most drivers are accustomed to this.

My wife hadn’t seen her 24 year old daughter for a while

Could it be that it’s not that your wife’s daughter is tight, but rather that there is some ‘relationship dynamic’ at work here? Does the daughter think your wife let her down in some way as a mother, and her anger about this is manifesting itself in a petty decision to make your wife (or you) pay (in cash) for past parenting failures?

Apologies if this cod psychology is completely wide of the mark, but it might be that there’s more to this than her just being tight.

They should join up the fragmented bits of permissive gravel so that it’s possible for kids and traffic-phobic adults to actually go more than a mile from a car park.

Agree and I said similar in my submission. Some people will only ever drive their cars to the Forest and ride a very short distance, but a better network linking more of the towns is what will encourage some of those people to ride a bit further each time. Similarly they need to improve the non car access to visit the Forest (cycling and train). They have boasted about the Ashurst-Lyndhurst cyclepath on the website, but I consider that a failure and mismanagement of public money: it took them two goes to build it (the first version only had a gravel surface), and even now it’s too narrow in places for two oncoming cyclists to pass safely. Consequently I think most road riders stay on the A35.

I’ve recently been trying to concoct a route from Applemore to the Lymington ferry with an 8yo and a 3yo, it’s a joke. Multiple lunchtimes of poring over maps and a day of recce riding and I’ve figured out the best of a bad bunch but it’s still not great. Some stretches of cheeky riding would fix most of it easily but I don’t really want the kids standing by while daddy gets into a bit of a discussion with a ranger if we get collared (which isn’t wholly unlikely during the school holidays).

I’m surprised you’ve found any decent paths between Applemore and Lymington. Your main problem is the fact that most of the land around Beaulieu is privately owned with no rights of way, not FC land. I would have thought that it would be best to go by road from Beaulieu to Lymington via East Boldre, Sowley Pond and South Baddesley.

That said if you are considering a route via Roundhill Campsite, I may be able to give a suggestion.

with many obstacles in the form of walkers and ponies (though the ponies are pleasant).

The suggestion that walkers and ponies are ‘obstacles’ on the gravel tracks is absurd. If anything, there is far far less antagonism between cyclists and walkers in the New Forest, compared with bridleways in other tourist areas, not least because the tracks are so wide there is no need or temptation to squeeze past walkers or for either party to have to stop or make way for the other. In addition to which my experience is that I might encounter only at most a few other cyclists or walkers per mile of track. It might be busier at weekends, but even so the usual rule of thumb applies that only a minority of people visiting the New Forest ever stray more than 50 yards from their car.

Also it’s best to give the ponies a wide berth: they are not all pleasant, they can suddenly start/spook without warning even though they have seen you coming on a bike well in advance, and it’s not that unusual for people to end up in hospital after being kicked by a pony that they got too close to because they assumed it was good natured.

NF is a big NIMBY area and many would rather bikes weren’t there. Storming around in their Range Rovers is however perfectly fine. See also stories about roadies constantly being sabotaged with tacks.

(generalisation going on here, but there’s some truth in it. Didn’t feel welcome riding there myself).

I don’t think this bears any relation to the reality for solo riders, small groups or club rides. From what I have read, the main focus of the objections are the commercial mass participation rides organised by the likes of UK Cycling Events, which is probably similar to the objections voiced by residents affected by the sportives using Box Hill in Surrey. I cannot recall such objections to the events in the Forest organised by the local clubs, such as the New Forest Gridiron, and I think that that may reflect a) the actions of commercial organisations like UK Cycling Events who will want to attract as many riders as possible (profit motive), rather than cap the event at a much lower and less intrusive/disruptive number of riders, and b) the behaviour of some sportive riders compared with those who ride the cycling club organised events (there’s obviously an overlap, but anyone who behaves like a jerk on club events is more likely to be told to change their behaviour by the other riders).

Didn’t feel welcome riding there myself).

I’m sorry to hear that, but I think it’s mainly in your head. I saw plenty of cyclists on the road in the New Forest today, ranging from ordinary people, solo and couple road riders, a club ride/chain gang and some doing a time trial. They all seemed to be having a good time, and the roads were probably more pleasant, safer and less trafficked than many other Hampshire country roads.

Bespoke and tailored

So it’s not chinese catalogue mail then? Do he live in within a 500 mile radius of Hebden?

It is pretty hard to beat 531c. That of course was a very expensive frame once.

The currently fashionable 4130 hipster fixies won’t come close. A Fuji Track will though.

I think that the difference between the alloys is less of a factor than the use of larger diameter tubes (and I suspect in the case of the Pompino and others like it, thicker gauge tubes).

Bez commented above about how older steel frames were too flexy in his size, and the other side of that coin is that the skinny tubes (not just 531) probably gave an optimal balance of flex, compliance and stiffness in the most common frame sizes for the majority of riders. For cyclecampers and for top racers, the frames that could be built with such tubes were probably often not stiff enough for their liking, but the frames were ideal for the rest of us.

Since the 1990s when road racers started to switch to oversized, very stiff and very light aluminium frames, and subsequently carbon, the tubing manufacturers have been focusing on developing steel tubes which could compete with aluminium and carbon in terms of weight and stiffness, leading to tubesets like oversized 953.

At the same time the use of tubing like oversized 4130, possibly in conjunction with EN testing, has resulted in heavier, less ‘nice’ to ride general mass produced frames compared with the skinny tubes of old, although it has resulted in better frames for the heavy load carrying cyclecampers and for taller people like Bez.

I’ve just taken a look at the Kinesis website (prompted by the other thread asking for advice about the sizing of the Kinesis Crosslight Pro 6), and I see that Kinesis has revised its suggested frame sizes for the Tripster ATR. For the record in case any future prospective Tripster purchasers read this thread and wonder what the changes were, the old and new sizing suggestions are as follows:

48cm – was 150-160, now 154-164

51cm – was 158-168, now 164-172

54cm – was 166-176, now 172-178

55.5cm – was 170-180, now 178-182

57cm – was 174-184, now 182-186

60cm – was 182-192, now 186-192

63cm – not listed on the older size charts that I can find , now 192-202

There is no longer any overlap between the suggested heights for consecutive frame sizes. However these are only suggestions, and there is no substitute for getting a test ride if at all possible and/or comparing the geometry with your existing bike and determining what size frame would best give a similar fit to your current bike (e.g. saddle to bar drop and reach), assuming of course that you are happy with the set up of your existing bike.

I have an Os map of area but doesn’t show the hidden singletrack

I can’t help you there I’m afraid. Maybe others more knowledgeable can point you in the direction of some hidden singletrack in the New Forest, but I doubt that there’s much. If your normal riding area includes a lot of good singletrack, then whatever the New Forest has is probably going to seem poor and not worthwhile in comparison.

Well when I say ‘screwdriver’ it was only a broken fingernail, but it was a screwdriver to ME.

I remember using a biro pen lid to place the individual ball bearings into hubs!

Anyone else used to do that?

A Biro? You were lucky to have a Biro. I had to make do with the blade of a slotted screwdriver with a bit of grease on it to hold the ball bearing.

Cartridge bearings? The youth of today don’t know how lucky they are.

Tredz have a ‘nearly new’ 61cm Paddy Wagon for £431 here.

at 6ft 4 ish

In that case I guess Bez’s comment about ‘big people’ may be relevant, although it’s not just a matter of height but also weight (and power output). Bez did not define fully what he meant by ‘big’, but if a rider is carrying a lot of surplus ‘upholstery’, then I can imagine that a Surly which is intended to cope with heavy loads might be a good choice. Being overweight never feels good climbing hills on a bike, and in my experience riding fixed makes it feel even worse. Fortunately the problem is also the cure: ride a lot and you should lose weight.

FWIW I’m 5′ 10″ and <70kg, and ride a Pompino fixed, and it’s simply nowhere near as nice a ride as my other steel frames (531, 853 and 953), and I have plans for a custom fixed steel frame eventually.

Another advantage of two bikes, is being able to choose which bike to ride on any given day depending how you feel and the weather conditions. Some days, I just want to be able to freewheel down a fast swoopy hill, other times I prefer the fixed.

The fact that you are struggling to find something that fits your criteria, probably tells you that you are making a mistake in trying to fulfil them with one bike/frame. Bikes are usually a compromise, where we prioritise some types of riding and equipment choice over others, but sometimes you compromise too much and the result is a bike that is not that good for either purpose, and not good value for money because of the limited niche choice and consequent pricing by manufacturers.

If you’ve got the space it will be far simpler to get a second hand older steel frame with horizontal dropouts as nerd suggests (or a Pompino frame or similar), and build it up as a dedicated fixed gear with bargain bin parts. You might even get lucky and pick such a frame built up as a fixed (or singlespeed) on ebay from one of the many people who try fixed and cannot get on with it.

The advantages of this are:
– if you don’t get on with it, you can probably sell the frame/bike without making much – if any – loss
– you don’t have to mess about converting a bike from fixed to geared and back (remove/fit/re-index derailleurs, remove/fit cranks, pedals and bottom bracket, remove/fit chains, remove/fit gear cables)
– a good quality older steel frame will give a nicer ride than something like a Surly or a Pompino. You don’t want a fixed bike to be any heavier than it needs to be
– by the same token, you absolutely do not need or want discs on a fixed gear bike, and a 531 fork will probably give a nicer ride than a fork designed to cope with the forces of a disc brake
– you will have a much wider choice (and better value for money) of geared bikes with disc brakes if you do not restrict your choice to a bike with a frame which can also be run as a fixed gear.

Two bikes may also have another advantage: you haven’t said anything about luggage or taking a change of clothes, but I would prefer not to ride fixed with panniers, a backpack or even a large saddlebag. Having a geared bike as well with a rack and paniers would presumably allow you to use that to transport clothes etc. which you could leave at work for the days you decide to ride fixed.

In that case I would refer you again to the previous thread I linked to, whether you are referring to road or off-road, since

a. There aren’t many roads in the New Forest, and once you exclude the A31 and A35 your options are limited and fairly self evident when you look at the map. On the plus side they are very nice roads with a good mix of nice scenary, and the 40mph limit and good visibility (e.g. mostly no hedges) makes riding them very relaxed and safer than a lot of country roads.

b. (Permitted) off road is wide gravel tracks, which with limited exceptions (see the previous thread again) do not link well for extended rides.

1. For a start you could have a look for previous threads on this site, e.g. this one.

2. You could give people some idea about what sort of routes, distance etc.

To confuse matters enlighten you further:

‘To effect an entry’

‘He has a rather affected manner’

What sort of guff are you talking about?

I’m talking about the OP’s requirements:

I have decided I need a folding knife essentially for picnics (as cutting cheese and pork pies with a plastic knife is a game for fools). Don’t want to spend a fortune.

Although many of us have used a Swiss Army knife or an Opinel for an impromptu picnic, they are not the best tool for the job, and for food hygiene reasons I do not like the idea of a folding blade knife.

Since it’s for picnic use, something cheap and functional that won’t be expensive to replace if it’s lost, is a far better choice.

The OP referred to pork pies and cheese, but if you want to cut bread or tomatoes (which both often feature in many people’s picnics), then a serrated blade is the best tool for the job.

I keep a knife like the one I linked to in a bag on my bike, so that if the fancy takes me I can buy a baguette etc. while I’m out and have an impromptu picnic. It will do a far better job than an Opinel, a Swiss Army knife or a titanium framelock (whatever that is), and if it gets damaged or lost it’s cheap to replace.

OP, if you have young children, then possibly a better alternative to having a blade with a sharp point would be something like the Victorinox tomato knife. It doesn’t come with a solid plastic sheath, but you could probably make a very simple sheath for it, even if that just meant stapling a couple of long pieces of card together. If you also need a bottle opener and a corkscrew, then the Victorinox Waiter is the most compact of the standard size Swiss Army knives.

Well you won’t be until the second or third or fourth time you want to open it when you have something in your hand.

The OP wants a knife for picnics, not to pretend he’s Sylvester Stallone dangling from a rope halfway up a mountain in Cliffhanger. He can always put the pork pie down and use both hands if he gets a folding blade.

or locking.

It’s definitely worth considering if you don’t like slicing your fingers open. [/quote]

Which is why a nice simple cheap picnic knife with a plastic handle and a plastic sheath, which can both be washed properly and easily, is the best tool for the job.

If you want to cut things like bread and tomatoes, then a serrated blade is going to be more useful.

I have one like this.

It was the tyre moving on the rim under braking then.

If this has only recently started to happen with relatively old tyres, then based on personal experience I would tend to suspect that the above is the likely cause. In my case the condition of the rim tape on one side of the valve confirmed it: the tape on that side had been concertina’d by movement of the tube, i.e. the tube moved with the tyre and dragged the tape up against the valve.

New tyres cured the problem.

That said, I also make a point of using Schwalbe inner tubes which have threaded stems and a locknut, rather than the cheap inner tubes which have rubber extending up the valve stem.

The grinder is the most important bit of kit, more important than the coffee machine itself. A bottomless portafilter is a useful diagnostic tool which helps you to see if you are getting the tamp right, but it cannot compensate for a poor quality grinder.

If you cannot afford a decent grinder just yet, then use pre-ground and don’t spend money on anything else until you have saved up and bought the grinder.

The only thing more important than the grinder, is the beans. As with all foodstuffs, there is no substitute for good quality ingedients. Be prepared to pay for good quality beans.

What utter garbage. The average Del Boy market trader has more integrity than the ‘scientists’ who undertook that study.

The use of EPO in professional cycling was/is inextricably linked with the italian scientists and doctors, in particular Conconi and Ferrari, who developed protocols to maximise the benefit of EPO. Conconi actually got the italian olypmic committee to fund his research under the pretext of developing a test to detect EPO use.

It looks like the video is no longer on Youtube, but if you want to see the difference that EPO can make, you only need to watch the 1994 Fleche Wallone where three Gewiss riders drop the rest of the peloton on a climb where it looked as if they were just out on a recovery ride. Ferrari was the Gewiss team doctor.

or is a rolloff or nothing?

It might just be nothing: Rohloff do not guarantee that it is suitable for all 142 bolt thru frames. The bolt thru version of the Rohloff requires the frame to meet some precise tolerances, which means that the frame would need to be measured first to see if it is compatible.

It may be simpler to consider getting a new frame which would be more suitable for a geared hub, e.g. a Surly with horizontal dropouts or something like a Singular Swift which has an eccentric bottom bracket.

So I would need a way of aggregating these probability distributions. It seems like it should be a standard problem

That sounds a bit like Monte Carlo Analysis.

Oh, and if you want an excuse for a short pootle, you could visit the Famous Hedgehog Bakery in Long Crichel and buy a loaf, tart or cake.

South of Witchampton the Castleman Trailway runs south west and east – see tomthumb’s posts on this thread.

North of you there is an East-West bridleway called the Ox Drove along the southern ridge of the Ebble Valley (as well as one along the northern ridge). So far I have only explored the very beginning of the eastern end of that bridleway. Even with my poor bike handling skills, that short section was doable on my Tripster, but a bit deeply rutted in places and I would not want to do it unless the ground was dry. It looks like you could get to it via the Roman road that leads northwards from Witchampton. If you give it a go, please report back and let me know what the path is like.

Specsavers is a franchise type business model, so the stores are often individually owned. They sell only their own various brands of frames, but their range of contact lenses is probably no worse – and possibly better – than an independent’s since they offer a wide variety of main brand contact lenses repackaged under their own brands.

So I guess they would not be your first choice if you want a particular brand of frame, such as Oakley prescription glasses. Otherwise, I suspect Specsavers’ group requirements for the franchises and desire to protect their brand should mean that the stores are required to meet various service and quality standards, whereas independents may vary more, and it may not be easy to identify which independents are not good, and which are better than the chains.

If you are going to carry toilet paper just in case, you can get biodegradable toilet paper.

Do yo9u need to be warm ‘ hot in goretex to drive the moisture out? ie if you are cold can it soak thru?

As I understand it, the moisture needs to be in vapour form to pass through the tiny holes in the membrane, and the temperature between your body and the goretex shell is going to have some impact on that: the cooler it is, the more moisture is likely to have condensed before it reaches the membrane.

Whether the temperature/condensation relationship is so significant in your case that it would account for your experience is not something I can say. I did have experience with a first or second generation goretex jacket on one occasion of cycling in dry below zero conditions, and I slowed down for the last few miles home due to tiredness. When I got home and took off the jacket, it was coated inside with a layer of ice (frozen sweat) and there was ice on the outer face of the fibre pile jacket I wore. I presumed that my slowing down meant I was generating less body heat, and that resulted in the condensation point moving to the inside of the jacket (as can happen in sleeping bags).

However, another factor is the humidity. Again as I understand it, Goretex works best in low humidity: the more the air outside the jacket has a lower humidity than inside the jacket, the better it performs. I guess this may be osmosis and the establishment of an equilibrium: if the humidity outside is as high as inside the jacket, then I suspect the amount of moisture that passes through the membrane will be the same in both directions. The UK, and especially Scotland, probably experiences higher levels of humidity than much of the rest of Europe, so people’s experiences of goretex shells may vary significantly dependent on the climate and conditions they use them in.

So 60 out of 60 failed so far but only the 4 evacuated because extenuating circumstances of other risks in the building dictated it necessary and they are all within a mile or so of each other and run by the same people. Granted these 4 were architectural ‘sisters’ but still not convinced that quite rings true as a reflection of proportionality though no idea which way is correct.

I suspect that the evacuated buildings have both the same ACM polyethylene cored cladding and PIR insulation boards behind that were used on Grenfell Tower, which appear to have a significant synergistic effect in a fire. Other buildings may have different types or combinations of cladding and insulation, and I suspect non-combustible mineral wool insulation behind the cladding may be common.

What is puzzling and alarming is the extent of test failures. It’s not clear what the products/samples are which are being tested, e.g. just Reynobond polyethylene cladding as used on Grenfell Tower, or are they testing other manufacturer’s ACM cladding with polyethylene core, or are they testing the various other types of cladding that have been installed on tower blocks, e.g. ACM with fire retardent cores, composite panels with PIR cores etc.

If it is a standard BS476 small scale surface spread of flame test that is being failed, that raises major questions about the tests that the manufacturers have done in order to put their product on the market.

I am not familiar with the detailed protocols of the tests, but one posibility that occurs to me is that application of a flame to the flat aluminium outer sheet of an ACM panel with polyethylene core may not cause ignition of the polyethylene behind within the time limit, whereas a flame applied to the edge of the panel, i.e. impinging directly on the exposed polyethylene around the edge, would probably produce very different results.

It is certainly the case that for composite panels containing expanded PIR foam, the ability of the panels to pass large scale fire tests is dependent upon the panels being correctly installed, with the plastic foam at the edge not being exposed, and sometimes with the panels also needing to be stitched together. Those large scale tests (which are what property insurers seek) are much more rigorous than the small scale tests such as for surface spread of flame (as typically required by Building Regs for life safety).

The development of the large scale tests is insurance industry driven/funded, and there is only one testing body in the UK (the Loss Certification Prevention Board). The tests are expensive and will take time to arrange, so manufacturers will usually be confident of their product passing before they submit it for testing.

In contrast, small scale tests are much simpler/cheaper to undertake, and manufacturers can set up their own apparatus for small scale testing, and I’m not aware if they need any accreditation from a third party or if any independent tests of samples are required as well.

The NUT consider the arson attacks to be a major risk to the lives of children – so what you would like to do – is blame the victims for the actions of a tiny minority and punish them for it? Sounds a bit Toryish/Hillsboroughish.

What illogical emotive drivel. As I explained, the drive to install sprinklers in schools over the last 20 years has been to protect the buildings and their contents, not life safety. Any decision to install or not install sprinklers in a school is partly purely financial (low probability of any one school suffering a fire vs. the high cost if a school is destroyed) and partly about ensuring community resilience (loss of school in a fire may be hugely disruptive and damaging to the education of the pupils, although depending upon the alternative options and resources available this might vary between different local authorities and academies).

The NUT consider the arson attacks to be a major risk to the lives of children

Where have they ever said this? What the NUT have said is:

Sprinklers virtually eliminate fire deaths and injuries of both inhabitants of the buildings and the emergency services. In fact, there have been no reported deaths from fires in buildings with maintained sprinkler systems.

However this is overly simplistic. In reality extremely few buildings in the UK have life safety sprinkler systems, the main exception being shopping centres with malls (and they have sprinklers for the specific reason that it is largely technically impossible/very difficult to design a shopping centre that is safe without sprinklers, because the evacuation travel distances are too great: any fire in a retail unit needs to be controlled by sprinklers otherwise the mall may become smoke logged before it is evacuated). The overwhelming majority of sprinkler systems in the UK are property protection systems, and whilst many of them will help to reduce the risk to life as well, this is an incidental benefit, and the life safety is primarily provided by other means (building design and fire resistance, fire alarms etc.), and it is the correct provision of such other means that has saved lives (and incorrect provision of those means that is usually responsible for fire deaths).

Only a small percentage of buildings in the UK have sprinklers, and given that fire deaths are relatively rare anyway it is dangerous to extrapolate from no deaths in sprinklered buildings to infer that sprinklers are the best – or the right means – to protect life in a given class of buildings like schools. As I have said previously on this thread, a significant number of the property protection sprinkler systems installed in the UK (and globally) are flawed and will be likely to fail in the event of a fire. These include some systems that are far more expensive than it would take to install in a tower block or in a school and which are subject to more scrutiny and better maintenance than a system installed in flats or a school would receive.

It’s important that whatever decisions are taken about fire safety in schools, tower blocks or any other class of building, they are taken based on good information and sound research and analysis, not on badly informed knee jerk responses.

I struggle to recall many tower fires in the UK that have killed almost 100 people. Keep up the vitally important Tory work that is blaming the victims though.

This is a stupid unpleasant remark, but as it happens many private schools are much higher risk by virtue of being boarding schools (buildings providing sleeping accommodation are the highest hazard priority for life safety and the Fire Brigades), and typically of combustible construction in semi-rural areas with poor Fire Brigade response times and inadequate water supplies available for fire fighting.

KMC 10 speed links are £2.99 at Halfords.

Another conservative u-turn – this time theyve decided not to risk burning your children to death on an alter to deregulation and saving some money.

The main problem with fires in schools is arson, and this is usually caused by teenagers and youths starting a fire outside school hours. Protecting the building from these sorts of fires, not life safety, has been why insurers and others have been pushing for sprinklers in new schools.

School fires/arson are far less common outside the UK, and this is a social problem. So we are having to spend more money on new schools to include sprinklers because of the people who start those fires, money which would otherwise be better spent on teacher salaries (I know it’s not either/or, but at the end of the day resources are limited: money spent to rebuild schools that are destroyed by arson and on sprinklers to protect against arson takes away from the total available pot).

I would have thought that the comment and opinion on a website like this is helpful to a business launching new products. Especially negative feedback, even if you and the business owners think the opinions are ill informed. Those ill informed people are still likely to be the sort of people whom the owners might expect or hope to be potential customers. Your berating them is not going to make them suddenly see the light and decide they want to buy one.

Far better to know in advance that at least some people are going to question the finish and pricing and that they may need to review these now, rather than proceed blindly without any feedback or comment on social media and then be surprised when they don’t get the sales they were hoping for, for the reasons that are being mentioned on this thread.

I have Shimano XM7 shoes in size 44 and Northwave Arctic Celsius in 45. I think the Arctic is the version with a fleecy lining, which may take up a little bit of space in the boot compared with yours.

The XM7s are a perfect fit, but I think from what I’ve read that they are wider than other/previous Shimano shoes/boots which people with wide feet did find required them to size up.

I tried the Northwave Arctic Celsius in both 44 and 45, and the 44 was too narrow for my feet, and I had to go with the 45s. They are possibly a bit big, but what struck me more was that they feel a bit like wearing a solid inflexible Tupperware box on my feet. I guess this is because they are fabricated from fairly rigid plastic, possibly using injection moulding to create the sole and upper together. However, when I am clipped in and riding they feel fine and I don’t notice this, but their rigidity is such that I would certainly not want to have walk miles in them if I had a major mechanical; in the same way I would not want to walk in carbon soled race shoes for a long distance. I am only wearing them in winter with De Feet Woolie Boolie socks.

For further comparison I take 44 in Sidi for which the standard fit is a bit too narrow, and the Mega wide fit is OK if a little bit wider than I would like.

Wife owns car B which I’m the policy holder on. I own car A. Insurer has made no reference to car B at all, but I’m sure there’ll be a nasty sting come renewal time. She however, is paying the protected NCB charge, but I’m convinced that is a racket anyway.

If the accident was in car B, then that is the car which will lose NCB, regardless of whether you or your partner own it or is the policyholder, so it does not make sense that the insurer “has made no reference to car B at all, but I’m sure there’ll be a nasty sting come renewal time”

I am the policyholder for car B, but not the owner. My wife is insured 3rd party as a named driver. I am fully comp on car B.

I am surprised that your policy provides different levels of cover for a vehicle for you vs your wife, since that will create problems. It would only make sense to me if your wife was a young driver or had a poor accident record etc. and the insurer only agreed to cover her to drive the vehicle (especially if it was a high powered vehicle) with restricted (third party) cover. Varying cover like that will likely lead to problems determining whether the vehicle has comprehensive cover if it is stationary and was either last parked by your wife or if she is sitting in the driver’s seat.

I thought if someone borrowed my car and had an accident, the external party would claim off the driver at the time’s insurance? E.g, like when someone who’s not a named driver on your policy, but has 3rd party insurance through their policy drives your car and has an incident in it, if that makes sense.

The driving other cars extension is only minimum legal third party cover. If the borrower of your car is the person responsible for the accident and they have such an extension under their own policy and they are not insured as a driver under your policy for the car, then the extension would mean that their insurer would pay for the damage/injury they have caused to others, not for the damage to your vehicle.

This is why I’ve always avoided multicar policies

Ime insurance co’s struggle to get the details right on one car . No way I’d stick all my eggs in one basket.

Start with basics. Your paper work says who is the main driver of the car that’s had the accident ?

The OP’s multicar policy is working in exactly the same way as if the two cars were insured under different policies with different insurers.

I suspect that the OP is thinking that precisely because it is a multicar policy, it should be his partner’s car that suffers the loss of NCB, but it does not work that way. If it did, it would be abused by families insuring their children as the main driver of a cheap small car while allowing them to drive the parent’s Porsche, in the knowledge that the loss of NCB on the child’s car if it had an accident in the Porsche would cost much less than the loss of NCB on the Porsche.

They tell me that the insurance follows the car.

This is why and it has always been that way. Otherwise it is unworkable:

– someone has an accident in your car and your insurers pay – do think then taking them off the policy as a named driver means that you should get your NCB back?

– you have maximum NCB for your car. If you buy an additional car, or several additional cars, should they also all get the same level of NCB?

When I asked if my NCB would be restored if I got rid of the car, they tell me it won’t.

What car would it be restored for? Are you expecting that you would then later be able to get another car to replace it which would then get the benefit of the restored NCB. It follows the car, and if you change the car it transfers over to the new car.

i think the issues with building regs is that tose panels do not meet them

Essentially we need more red tape to ensure this does not happen

For products that don’t meet Building Regs, you do not need any more red tape. You need to be able to rely on the people, systems and procedures which should already be in place to prevent it happening in the first place, and to identify it when it does happen so that it can be fixed very early on with minimal disruption. Are the councils’ own architects/specifiers, Building Control inspectors, and Fire Safety Officers being given enough time (and training) to properly review contractors’ proposals and drawings and to undertake adequate site inspections during and after construction work?