• Mark Cavendish says aero bikes and helmets have reduced his edge over rivals12 hours 36 min agomooleur wrote:glynr36

    mooleur wrote:
    glynr36 wrote:
    gareth2510 wrote:
    surely being a pro cyclist of some merit, Cav knows better than us??
    Just saying

    Don't be silly, the resident internet experts know more than Cav...
    After all sitting behind a keyboard qualifies for knowing what wins a Grand Tour stage.

    Exactly!

    Didn't Brailsford just quit to make way for some dude in an armchair?!

    I think the main criteria was how many posts on online forums had candidates made...

  • Bike building12 hours 50 min agoZinn's book on road bikes is

    Zinn's book on road bikes is a decent technical manual. Prepare to buy yourself lots of tools.

  • Bike building12 hours 50 min agoThank you

    Thank you

  • Bike building12 hours 57 min agoYou can pretty much find all

    You can pretty much find all the information you need to build a bike on youtube. Bike manuals, if they exist at all, will become obsolete and outdated very quickly.

    I recently built a bike, and thoroughly enjoyed it and its highly rewarding. I had very little experience with bike maintenance before but found it fairly straight forward. Just make sure you buy the right components to fit your frame. Tube sizes vary.

    As for bike components, i bought most of my stuff very cheaply from Ribble cycles. But shop around with the likes of Merlin Cycles and planet X for the best deals.

  • Tour de France Grand Depart hosts slammed for "outrageous" team presentation ticket prices13 hours 5 min agoJoeinpoole wrote:Quince

    Joeinpoole wrote:
    Quince wrote:
    Do people want 'live entertainment' to accompany the beginning of the bicycle race? Or do they just want to see the beginning of a bicycle race?

    It seems out of character to make the opening ceremony a private show in a box, when the race itself is such an celebration and showcase of the beauty of the countries it covers; of it's towns and countryside and character, spaces that belong to all of us.

    It's one of the few sports that doesn't need a special venue. It uses entire countries as its venue, and any member of those countries can come and see it. It's the most open, expansive sport I can think of.

    Which is why it's disappointing to see that it's not sharing its beginnings out in the open. Instead it's hiding away in a box, charging people to come and see it. If nothing else, it's killed a little of the romance... And there's no more romanticised race than Le Tour.

    Fucks sake. What's the big deal? They're only charging for some nonsense 'opening ceremony' bollocks. You can still watch the actual 'event', when chaps with big thighs are riding expensive bicycles, completely for free by positioning yourself on any of the roads on which it passes. Isn't that good enough value for you?

    I'm disappointed; not outraged. There's a big difference. For starters, 'disappointed' doesn't usually require the words 'fuck's sake' to make itself understood.

  • Mark Cavendish says aero bikes and helmets have reduced his edge over rivals13 hours 5 min agoglynr36 wrote:gareth2510

    glynr36 wrote:
    gareth2510 wrote:
    surely being a pro cyclist of some merit, Cav knows better than us??
    Just saying

    Don't be silly, the resident internet experts know more than Cav...
    After all sitting behind a keyboard qualifies for knowing what wins a Grand Tour stage.

    Exactly!

    Didn't Brailsford just quit to make way for some dude in an armchair?!

  • Scottish Road Share campaign steers presumed liability law towards Parliament13 hours 5 min agoSome points about

    Some points about strict/presumed liability:

    - They are not the same thing. "Strict" means we always consider the person with the larger vehicle liable. "Presumed" means we presume they are liable unless they can show otherwise (which seems fairer to me). This may seem pedantic, but often the terms are used interchangeably which is wrong.

    - We already have a good example of presumed liability in the UK. We all know that if one driver rear-ends another the driver behind is presumed liable unless they can prove otherwise. This generally works well, except in a small number of "crash for cash" scams. Pedestrians and cyclists are rather less likely to commit this kind of fraud because it would require them to be injured, which hurts.

    - Despite presumed liability being a sensible rule which all civilised nations have already implemented - obviously the person with the biggest most dangerous vehicle should be the most careful (rather than "might is right") - we should not delude ourselves that it will result in much safer roads or mass-cycling. No driver expects to have a collision. Knowing the driver will be blamed is small consolation in an accident, or in a near miss situation. It will NOT encourage people to cycle or to let their kids loose on the road. Only safer infrastructure is proven to make that kind of change. But it might send a signal that cycling and walking are considered worthy of being prioritised.

  • Mark Cavendish says aero bikes and helmets have reduced his edge over rivals13 hours 10 min agogareth2510 wrote:surely being

    gareth2510 wrote:
    surely being a pro cyclist of some merit, Cav knows better than us??
    Just saying

    Don't be silly, the resident internet experts know more than Cav...
    After all sitting behind a keyboard qualifies for knowing what wins a Grand Tour stage.

  • Bike building13 hours 10 min agosorry I should have said its

    sorry I should have said its a road bike. I have more than a few bikes I have bought off the floor and had one purpose made for me. The +1 I was looking for was a self build road bike. I can see how it is difficult but maybe someone who has already done it could offer some pointers?

  • Thick as Thieves - Man who stole £2.5k e-bike phones owner for help in recharging it13 hours 13 min agoHahaha, marvellous work!

    Hahaha, marvellous work!

  • Thick as Thieves - Man who stole £2.5k e-bike phones owner for help in recharging it13 hours 13 min agoNot really dispelling the tag

    Not really dispelling the tag of thieves being stupid this one is he? Let's hope he does get his comeuppance one day.

  • Thick as Thieves - Man who stole £2.5k e-bike phones owner for help in recharging it13 hours 14 min agoGreat publicity.

    Great publicity.

  • 3T Tornova Team Carbon handlebar13 hours 15 min agoI am gonna get a triban 3 and

    I am gonna get a triban 3 and use the whole bike as my handlebars seeing they are the same price.

  • Thick as Thieves - Man who stole £2.5k e-bike phones owner for help in recharging it13 hours 16 min agoMy favourite part is

    My favourite part is barrelling round in the army truck Big Grin

  • cannondale or canyon13 hours 17 min agoMiles 253 your right mate

    Miles 253 your right mate about the smile on your face, and I have ordered the cannondale.

  • Thick as Thieves - Man who stole £2.5k e-bike phones owner for help in recharging it13 hours 19 min agoAbsolutely class

    Absolutely class

  • Giro-del Trentino Stage 313 hours 20 min agoAru continues to be pretty

    Aru continues to be pretty good against some talented riders. Still wondering why this is the only race we ever see him succeed in.

  • Bike building13 hours 29 min agoThis is a daft question (no

    This is a daft question (no insult intended).

    What bike do you want to build? Road/MTB/CX/SS/...?

    The aim of building your own bike is to select the components that YOU like - not some arbitrary people on the internet. Do some research, pull the components together and then ask people their opinion of those components. Then be prepared to listen to as many opinions as there are people.

    Or just go to Evans and buy one off the floor...

  • Which among the following Trek road bikes!!13 hours 33 min agoThe 2014 version of the

    The 2014 version of the Madone 4.5 is a bit different, with the aero frame design. That said, I have the 2013 version, bought for £1600, and it is a great bike.

    For your purposes though, any of these would be great. If you're after comfortable rides, the Domane may be the best bet. The Madone is a race bike.

  • 3T Tornova Team Carbon handlebar13 hours 36 min agoGreat that there's now a good

    Great that there's now a good review of these bars, I've been considering them for a while - in Pro version, rather than the vastly more expensive Team/Ltd versions.

  • Giro D'Italia13 hours 37 min agoNoughties, not nineties.

    Noughties, not nineties. 2000s

    He won races when everyone was doped up to the gills. And he was linked to Michele.

    Anyway, aside from that I'm still pretty sure that there is plenty of stuff still going on in the peloton, just to a lesser degree. The passport and today's testing procedures still allow much room for abuse.

  • Tour de France Grand Depart hosts slammed for "outrageous" team presentation ticket prices13 hours 42 min agoWas going to book, no sign of

    Was going to book, no sign of the £45 tickets but the £55 soon turned into £64 after booking fees and postage was added. Not for me thanks, I will let the southern Mamils pay it.

  • Tour de France Grand Depart hosts slammed for "outrageous" team presentation ticket prices13 hours 43 min agoJust what is it that gives me

    Just what is it that gives me a bad feeling about the whole event.
    I am sure much of it will be great but I have horrible worries about the handling of it all.
    I predict a complete underestimation of the crowds involved and consequently much bad feeling from those who wish to spectate and find that un publicised and/or unpredictable restrictions will inhibit such a thing.
    Bet you a quid that a car gets onto the route after the roads are closed.
    I do hope that everything goes well but something deep down just doesn't give me a feeling of confidence.
    I intend to go up to watch but I currently have no faith in the info pushed out by the organisers. As yet I cannot find every last road closure time, restriction on parking and access and anything else that may help or hinder me. I Shall be honest and say that it bloody well should be stitched up by now. f anyone would care to help me and provide me with links to such information I shall be very grateful.
    Here's hoping!

  • Mark Cavendish says aero bikes and helmets have reduced his edge over rivals13 hours 44 min agoCan see the benefits of aero

    Can see the benefits of aero kit in TT scenario but really, in the madness of a bunch sprint won't the surrounding air be rather turbulent anyway? Be that as it may, last year felt like a real changing of the guard, obviously Froome was Sky's priority but even on the Champs it looked like time was starting to catch up with Cav. With a better lead-out train at OPQS he will still win his fair share of stages but Kittel is clearly the coming man.

  • I may have found a good reason for a bike helmet!13 hours 46 min agoPaul J wrote:fukawitribe:

    Paul J wrote:
    fukawitribe: It's not fallacious. I'm taking the precise logic that commentators have used ("your life was just saved by a helmet, and you're still saying they're a daft idea?", "it's better than nothing", "without a helmet you'd almost certainly have [medical details]. … I'd be shopping for a replacement lid.", etc., etc.) and am simply applying it in another context, where the only difference is "pedestrian" instead of "cyclist". If it is fallacious to draw the same conclusion, then *bingo* - you've got the point!

    ..but I don't agree with the over extension of their claims either, I never said I did. That the helmet may have made a difference here, I think is not unreasonable here assuming the damage on the helmet was all caused by the strike, i.e. energy was adsorbed by the helmet. It was that over-extension that I objected to, the presumption that the one anecdote would prove the rule, that fallacy - perhaps I should have equally gone after those over-eager to promote the miracles of helmets.. but that jobs seemed to have been done already in this case.

    Paul J wrote:
    The question then is *why* is it fallacious? The only possibilities are that there is some significant difference between "pedestrian" and "cyclist" that makes it an error to swap one for the other, or otherwise that the logic is simply inherently flawed. If the logic is flawed, then it must be flawed for *both* cyclist and pedestrian!

    Firstly, the fallacy i'm alluding to is the extrapolation from one incident, even given the injury rates of each group - a cyclist is hit with a wing mirror, a pedestrian is hit with a wing mirror therefore the risk of being hit by a wing mirror is the same or similar in both groups (and hence, the group supporting helmet wearing should argue for both). If the risk were not similar, you could not reasonably expect the group to make a similar risk assessment and e.g. argue for helmets in both cases.

    I'm was also maintaining there is a significant difference the cyclist and the pedestrian. My logic was along the lines of - consider the environment in which they are normally to be found, viz the road vs the pavement, consider the average speed of both, the nearness of other vehicles travelling at speed close to them, even the average height of the head above the ground. What I am *guessing* is that the chance of head injury, in particular caused by a wing mirror, is higher, and of a more profound effect, in one environment than the other. That may not actually be as realistic as I thought in general, more on that later...

    Paul J wrote:
    You say the error is that the cyclist, in the specific case of wing mirror strikes, is more exposed to this risk than a pedestrian. Though, I don't know how we could evaluate this as I doubt statistics are kept on the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists hit by wing mirrors.

    True, but unfortunately incredibly relevant as that is the only thing I was really objecting to. My supposition was based in part on the relative number of wing mirrors that might be found on the pavement and on the road, and an estimate of their average velocity relative to cyclist and pedestrian and an estimate of the proportion of pedestrians within a wing mirrors distance from the edge of the road.... i'm sure you can see where I was going with that (even though completely unproven, statistically)

    Paul J wrote:
    Statistics are available for head injuries admissions though and, AFAIK, though there are some small differences, there isn't a large difference in risk of head injury overall between the two groups[1].

    That's very interesting, as are the conclusions, thank you for the link. What I can't find there, however, is the incident rate (e.g. head injury per group per mile or journey) which is directly related to my point about proportional risk (what risk per mile / journey of the injury) - that's what i'm looking at now. The conclusion was also a tad over-reaching for my liking, at least without further qualification, but pertinent to the wider debate perhaps..

    Assuming that the difference between cyclists and pedestrians (3.6%) is attributable to helmet wearing, and with helmet wearing having increased by 5.8%, we estimate that helmets prevent 60% (3.6/5.8) of serious head injuries. An estimated efficacy of 60% is very consistent with that of 63%–88% obtained from case-control studies of cycle helmet efficacy. As evidence continues to mount, and consistency emerges between different study designs, the position of the sceptics becomes increasingly untenable.

    That said, I had no idea that the rate of pedestrian head injury was so high, so learnt something there, tah.

    Paul J wrote:
    Increased use of helmets may have lead to a small decrease in rates in cyclists though, however the decreases in head injury tend to be accompanied by increases in other injuries[2]. It is not clear that helmets actually make cycling safer, indeed there is evidence the reverse may be true - KSI rates have not decreased amongst cyclists in the UK appreciably, and KSI rates in AU and NZ increased after helmet laws. All these high-helmet-use countries have significantly worse safety than low-helmet-use/high-cycling-rate countries like NL.

    Agreed.

    Paul J wrote:
    So here's the fallacy: If you argue that helmets make a difference to head injuries, and "every little helps", then, presuming you accept the evidence that pedestrians face quite similar risks, you *must* also argue that pedestrians should wear them.

    As above, I don't agree the risks are similar, so I would maintain it is not a fallacy. I'm open to persuasion though, which is why i'm looking more closely at the figures following your comments.

    Paul J wrote:
    I just don't understand people who try claim that "every little helps" and hence cyclists - and *ONLY CYCLISTS* - should wear helmets when on the road. I'd love to hear them explain their logic, or show *evidence* as to how the general cyclist faces different risks to pedestrians to justify the different safety approach (and merely speculating that cyclists might face some risk that pedestrians doesn't cut it, given we have actual statistics).

    Fair point, although personally i've not - and never had - argued for helmets for cyclists. I am guilty of not checking the statistics closely enough however.

    Paul J wrote:
    Otherwise, it just seems hypocritical and perhaps part of the UK's "single out the cyclist" culture (usually for hate) that's so ingrained, even the cyclists themselves propagate it! Even if that is unintentional on the part of the commentator here, and they are well-meaning. Perhaps it's some kind of Stockholm Syndrome?

    Smile