Rohan Dennis Hour attempt on Sunday at 1pm – Watch it live here

My goodness, you really are determined to defend your muddleheaded comment, aren't you? Firstly you tried lofty patronisation, telling me that I must be "misremembering or mischaracterising" the research I was quoting, then when I give you chapter and verse you tried to claim that I was selectively quoting (I wasn't, I was just quoting the portion relevant to our discussion, if I was going to selectively quote why would I give you a link to the original source?) and then tried to rubbish the source on the bizarre grounds that it is quoting a book that is "not freely available". You then tried to dismiss the research on the basis that "other information I find online" (no quotation, no source) disagrees with it. I mean really, hats (or helmets) off for trying, if nothing else. However, let's assume that your assertion that it takes a force of 1000 N to cause a simple fracture in a human skull is correct (it isn't, but let's assume). In walking trip falls where the subject's head contacts a solid surface, say a doorframe or a kerbstone, it's common for the skull to experience a momentary force of between 70-120 G. As I'm sure you know, 1G equates to approximately 9.8 N, so a person tripping when walking and smashing their head on a solid object can experience a force of well in excess of 1000 N. This makes your assertion that you don't need a helmet because the good old skull is pretty tough look fairly silly, given that it can fracture in a simple fall from a height of less than 2 m with no other force exerted upon it. By all means argue that helmets aren't an effective protection against skull fractures, but claiming that there's no need to worry about skull damage because it's pretty tough is almost as risible as your claim that your hair will protect you from abrasions, something about which I'm still chuckling days later.

+1 I much prefer them and would choose them over hydraulics if manufacturers made it possible. I find the difference in modulation is minimal and far outweighed by the ability to adjust the pad gap on the fly (not having to do 80 miles of a century, as I once did, with brake rub because of a warped rotor) and the ease of a simple cable replacement when necessary rather than the massive hassle of draining and refilling a hydraulic system. I am happy with the bikes I've got at the moment but when the new (secondhand) bike itch resurfaces I might well go back a few years in order to get one with mechanical, rather than hydraulic, discs.

it would stop all these oems using the rim brake brifters with mechanical disc brakes to save a few pennies on their builds I feel obliged to put in a word for mechanical disc brakes and the associated drop bar shifters - they're pretty good!

Theoretically, but the angle of the derailleur sweep would be wrong for 11-36. The current derailleurs are designed around a sweep the expects a 45T (or for the 1x RD, 50T) in the large cog position, not 36T. So it will presumably be further away than optimal. The spec sheet for the CUES 11-45T RDs say that's the only thing they will work with, but nothing else existed at the time either. I'm sure it would work, maybe just not optimally.

Tiagra 4700 is compatible with all the 11sp road stuff. Just not the 10sp. You could use 11sp road shifters with a 4700 RD, and have 11sp, or could use a 105 R7000 RD with 4700 shifters, and have 10sp.

So if I understand you correctly, I can swap a 11-45 Cues 11 speed cassette with a new R4000 11-36 cassette because the have the same spacing in-between spacing?

Escape Collective reported it is compatible with CUES 11sp and NOT compatible with the old road 11sp. I guess it makes sense, given road 11sp has been discontinued while CUES 11sp is a current product.

To update, Escape Collective reports it is compatible with CUES U6030 11sp but NOT older road 11sp. I guess that does sort of make sense as well though, if all the other 11sp (105, Ultegra, DA) has been already supplanted with 12sp, and CUES is the other *current* 11sp, makes sense to make it compatible with the 11sp that is otherwise around now and will be going forward.

I'm on a 10speed 50/34 12-28, I don't miss the 11t cog at all, if I get to the 12t its becuase I'm going a down a hill or really pushing it. I don't know why they feel a need to fit it on cassettes. You're average rider is hardly going to ever need it.

@kingleo "stop building useless cycle lanes – build proper ones." Actually - can we have "largely separate networks of routes *in practice* for cycling, by filtering to make areas no- through-routes for motor traffic, building separated cycle infra where necessary - oh and providing separate space for pedestrians so they're not scrapping with cyclists either..." ?