Cycling UK Forum

I know that the drag brake dose, I think you miss understand my post.

I am claiming (though second hand knowledge fro ma motor engineer) that disk brake can provide better head dissipation than hub brakes, and that is one of the reason they are used on HP vehicles. It is mealy the fact that bicycle disks are not designed for tandem use down long hills like a drag brake is. However is perfectly possible to have them beable to cope with being used a drag brake if redesigned properly. Then you could have the advantages of a disk brake and the drag brake without the disadvantages of the hub drag brake system. It seems to be a size of market issue rather than a technical one. Aria is a big lump of metal and I bet if a similar amount of metal was put in to a disk brake you could get better performance.

Thread dredge I know but this came up in a google search.

I friend was telling me recently that one of the reason disk brakes are common on the rear of sports cars is because they actually offer better heat dissipation than hub brakes. So there dose seem to be to possibility of using a rear disk as a drag brake give a suitably designed calliper and disk. May be a thicker disk would work better and more fins on the disc caliper.

Sounds like you would like a biking equivalent of http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/ most equipment is interchangeable between the two. MTB bikepacking with frame bags for short bivi trips is taking off and I believe there is a gap in this affluent market. If you could get some bikepacking style bags manufactured at reasonable cost that would give you your edge. The only problem is that most frame bags are custom made due to the variance in frame shape. The other bags could be mass produce.

[XAP]Bob wrote:In that case we should just make one big city and move everyone into it. The above is a self fulfilling "London is everything -> expensive -> everything..."
If companies were more spread out then the workforce could follow suit, this would mean that land prices would become more standard and make moving around less difficult (yes there is always the stress of moiving, esp with kids).
Of course if we also reopened local railways (even as automated DLR style lines) then you could reasonably commute a decent distance (40-50 miles covers alot of the country)

Please don't twist what I said.That was not what I said. I said that industries settled in London will be likely to stay in London and that other areas of the economy need developed and for the to be based in other cities.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Many (?most) jobs in London don't need to be there.

True many don't need to be there in terms of resources like like water and coal but they do for personal resources and similarly people live there for job resources.

The advantage that London in particular but any big city to some extent offers to many employers is lots of people with the required skills, not so important if you are a big company that can tempt people to move, e.g Micorsoft's uk HQ is in Reading I think, but for small and medium sized business they have a choice of more people, rather than having to encourage people to move which is a big step, doubly so if you have a family

For employees it offer the choice of jobs, by living in or near London it give people the opportunity to have many jobs available. Loosing a job or changing job does not mean they have to move themselves and their family. Similar in a relationship there may be a job for one half working at Microsoft in Reading but the other may not be able to get a job there hence the advantage of a big city.

The UK need a more diverse economy with other cities becoming specialist in different areas but industries that are prevalent in London will most likely stay in or close to London.

Regarding car use I tend to find medium sized towns the worst. Places like B'mouth where I am currently living near have poor public transport and so many people driving incredibly short distance. I think dense development to the point where car use becomes exceptionally painful is the only thing that currently stops people over using cars.

read bad reviews about that topeak tent. It's not particularity light considering it used the bike as poles plus you can't use the tent for backpacking or go off for a ride without packing the tent up. No advantages over a backpacking tent and some disadvantages over a backpacking tent.

AS one of the comments says

let©h

1 city - 12 cyclists - 2 collisions. Statistical significance fail.

Not to say that I don't believe the general result to be true however, it should not be a study that is quoted to much a proof of motorist being more likely in the wrong but as a case for a bigger better study.

Candle power forums have some circuits for charging usb and aa batteries off of a hub dynamo. worth a look. Cuts down a chunk on the cost of the setup as it's only the front wheel + a few electrical components.

Candle power forums have some circuits for charging usb and aa batteries off of a hub dynamo. worth a look. Cuts down a chink on the cost of the setup as it's only the front wheel + a few electrical components.

If you consider London bike commuters I don't thinking it's fair to assume they would be going be car as an alternative. It would be better to spread tem about proportional ,i.e IF the split is currently 70% public transport 30 % car then the cyclists need to be put 70% onto public and 30% onto cars so not only the number of extra cars need to be calculated but also the number of extra buses / trains, e.t.c

Those long thin canisters are butane where as the translational canisters tend to be propane butane mix.

What's the model in Norway? I've only been there once but there seemed to be far fewer 4x4s and other large cars also people did seem to obey the road law in town more, although this could have just been because I was looking through tourist eyes.

Jonty wrote:A 30 mph limit of course doesn't mean of course than one has to drive at 30 mph all the time in urban areas. Sometimes it is appropriate to drive more slowly. It means that the maximum speed allowed is 30 mph.

so way not 40 mph standard speed limt as there might be odd opportunities to go at 40 mph why any speed limit?

I can't see the sense in reducing the limit to 20 mph when most drivers don't even respect the 30 mph limit. I doubt if such a limit would be accepted by drivers and I doubt if it could be enforced.

It is hard to enforce but as you are no doubt aware many people who speed only speed by a little so reducing the speed limit still reduced the overall average speed even if the % obeying the law is the same.

I don't think there's anything wrong with my driving technique. I've been driving for almost 50 years and never had an accident. At 20 mph many drivers would have to be in third or even second gear in order to keep control of their car. This would result in extra noise, more pollution and lower fuel consumption.

Everyone can improve, just because you have made 50 years without an accident does not make you a good driver, many other factors can also come into play. Miles per year, environment in which you drive, times at which you drive and lastly the big one, chance! You may well be overall a good driver but still need to improve on some techniques, there are things I am good at but still areas in which I need to improve. Also it seems strange to imply that you have difficulty in driving at 20 mph without reeving and producing more noise and pollution but then claim you don't need to improve your driving technique. If you feel I am being unfair perhaps you could explain why you need to rev to maintain 20 mph but not at 30 mph.

A blanket 20 mph limit in urban areas is a bad idea in my view; it would not be respected, nor enforced and there would be all sorts of unintended consequences.
jonty

There seems to be some sort of confusion here. We currently have a blanket 30 mph urban speed limit with some roads having exceptions the proposed 20 mph limit follows the same model but with a lower presumed speed limit. Also would you like to hypothesis on what the proposed unintended consequences may be? Many urban area currently have average speeds of < 20mph during peak time and the smoother during caused by 20 mph frequently cause better traffic flow. Outside of these times journey time is not significantly affected due to the fact that you only travel at a speed > 20mph for quite a limited amount of time, however safety, noise and pollution is improved by having a lower speed limit.

MikewsMITH2 wrote:The problem with blanket limits is that they are in force all of the time. There is an area of dual carriageway through Bournemouth, which has recently been reduced to 40 MPH "to reduce accidents" enforced by speed cameras of course. There are no pedestrians allowed anyway and you rarely see a cyclist because there are better local roads for cycling. Driving along it at 40mph last week at half past midnight with no other vehicles to be seen was plain silly.

B'mouth is hardly a big place, being able to go at 50 mph instead of 40 mph really makes minimal difference to your journey time as the distance travelled at that restricted speed is so short also as you quite rightly state, no one is about at 12:30 so the inconvenience felt by you and others travelling during similar traffic levels is pretty insignificant but the advantages of lower speed limits are felt by many many more.

duplicate post.