Cycling UK Forum

nmnm wrote:A relevant question may be, why did you stop using spds 15 years ago?

Because I only rode mountain bikes then and spent hardly any time actually clipped in. For mountain biking some good flats win hands down for me, I guess it's a confidence thing as when you're hurtling around hard pointy things I want my feet free so I stick one out at a moments notice.

But now I'm doing more and more road biking hence I'm coming at the question from a very different angle.

horizon wrote:Now you know that, you will change your question to "Most versatile but effective pedal".

Good point

Those who walk in SPDs... I take it you use tourer/mountain biking shoes rather than roadie shoes?... which I believe usually means the cleats are attached with 2 screws and are recessed into the soul... hence the more comfortable walking? And if so, does having a recessed cleat make it harder to clip in and out than the more roadie style?

Oh no... the clipless question again
Well sort of. I'm relatively new to road cycling but have been mountain biking for years. The pedals on my roadie are just cheap things with toe straps so I thought I'd get something nice and shiny for Spring.

So I'm going round and round in circles as to get clips or clipless.
My thoughts are...

Clips - I'm talking traditional pedals (eg MKS Sylvan) with toes clips (no straps). The major advantage being I can ride with standard shoes.

Clipless - I'm talking Shimano A530 or similar... single sided so I can still ride with standard shoes if I want to (e.g. popping to the shops) butI can clip in if I'm off on a decent ride. And a nice pair of mountainbikey type shoes so I can walk around a little easier than full on roadie shoes.

My riding varies from shopping to day rides so I need something that will suit various uses and on paper I guess the single sided Clipless fulfill my needs. Yes I probably am a little hesitant of clipping in although I understand flicking your foot to the side can be more instinctive than pulling it backwards anyway.
And I HAVE used clipless before, it was, gosh, 15 years ago! I had some on my mountain bike for a while but went back to flats... but that's mountain biking, a whole different kettle of falling off.

Does this post sound like I'm convincing myself?
Well I thought I'd gauge some opinion as I jump from one side to the other every 5 minutes.
To toeclip or SPD, that is the question.
Cheers.

gagagiste wrote:Having watched the CTC loosing its way and going downhill, except for one or two local groups (one time DAs) who have stuck together as a club, for the past 25+ years my membership is solely for the 3rd party insurance and legal aid benefits. I will be happy to ditch the CTC and join any club offering these services for a reasonable subscription.

You may therefore find this quite interesting...
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/institute-of-advanced-motorists-targets-cyclists-29010

mattheus wrote:I respect your intellectual curiosity, but I guess I'm surprised that you require to see the proof. Why would the CTC lie about this? Sounds like you doubt it purely because it goes against your instincts.

I'm not suggest they are lying... I am indeed curious as it does go against my instincts. But aside from seeing the evidence, and back to my original point, even it it's only a small increase in safety (as the statement says), then it should be supported regardless any negative OR positive interpretations of the message the act may give out.

mattheus wrote:WHy don't you guys show us your evidence that Hi-Viz does make a significant contribution to safety?

Because I'm not the CTC. If the CTC make public statements dismissing hi-viz I hardly think it unreasonable if a member asks to see that information that has formed that opinion.

I have a personal opinion as do you, but it's not up to either of us to conduct independent studies is it?

I've just been reading today's Cycle Clips and the opening article really caught my eye.
The police are handing out free hi-viz accessories and I though the CTCs official response was pretty poor IMHO...

"Whilst we would obviously not recommend wearing dark colours at night on an unlit road, the limited evidence on the effect of fluorescent clothing is that it makes at best only a marginal difference to cyclists' safety. The police should spend their time tackling the root causes of the hazards cyclists face, notably bad driving."

Now OBVIOUSLY I agree with tackling bad driving etc, clearly the biggest hazard of all... but I was shocked to read a rather blasé attitude to hi-viz clothing. Can anyone point me in the direction of this evidence as I personally find hi-viz wearers stand out far far more than cyclist wearing any shade of non-reflecting colours, especially at dawn and dusk. Plus alot of hi-viz has a great deal of reflective strips etc which again can only be a good thing. Whilst driving I find I see a hi-viz cyclist much earlier. And even if there isn't much real evidence, surely any marginal improvement is a plus and I really think the CTC should be supporting hi-viz clothing. You can still give a statement suggesting there are bigger issues to deal with but encourage hi-viz usage at the same time can't you?

I fear this may be along similar lines as the never ending helmet debate, but in my mind it's a much simpler decision... you're seen by other road users earlier so in general that's a good thing.

Oh well, nice try

In that case, it has to be a bug with the website that needs to be diagnosed by Wiggle's techies. All we can do is try an find a pattern that causes the problem but to be honest that pattern seems to be "bought stuff and tried to pay"... they need to pull there finger out and find the problem themselves... but that will depend how valuable they consider the association with CTC I guess.

Likewise my CTC discount disappeared when I went to pay and was not asked for my CTC number.

My theory is it's something to do with whether or not you already have a Wiggle account.
i.e. If you already have a non-CTC Wiggle account which you log into once you're ready to pay, even though you've gone via the CTCshop link it "forgets" where you came from and defaults back to the standard Wiggle site. So if you create a new account at this point instead you'd get the CTC discount and be asked to enter your membership number.

It's a theory... can anyone back that up or disprove it?

Mike.

Big T wrote:British Cycling has had at least 2 recent upgrades to its website, but each upgrade makes it more clunky and worse than the previous incarnation.

IMHO that is an ugly clunky website. Lets just hope the CTC site is a lot sleeker.

Absolutely... "technology" wasn't the right word, I should have perhaps used the word "fashions" or "trends". As you say it's the visual element that makes a site look up to date, the technology that drives it remains the mostly the same and yes hopefully most of the existing content both in the forum and on the website should be able to be simply "re-displayed". The current website is database driven so the content should be able to reused without too much grief.

Having said that, more and more people don't use a traditional browser... smart phones, tablets etc are getting more and more common... and love it or loath it social networking is king at the moment... I would expect the new site to incorporate these things. So in some ways technology is driving style even if it's not the technology behind the actual website.

"CTC App" won't be long

I've never had a copy without phoning up and getting a "replacement"... I'm always told I am on the mailing list but I've NEVER had a copy without asking OR had a duplicate once I've phoned up for a "replacement".

What time of the month do people generally get the magazine?
Have most people had the new issue by now?

Cheers.

I also agree it's in need of an overhaul.
It's ok but quite out of date, there a lot of nested pages it's quite difficult to locate.
Technology moves so quick you have to stay on the ball. If a potential new member sees an up to date slick and shiny website they associate the CTC as slick and shiny organisation. Presentation is key.

But the proof with be in the pudding... the right choice of design agency is sooooooooo key to these things. Having said that, in general I think the playing field has levelled a little over the last few years as most sites are built on industry standard content management systems these days and there are far more established rules and standard practices. We shall see, and fingers crossed it will receive nothing but praise from current memebers.

grahamharpin wrote:Have a look at the Rixen Kaul Contour Magnum bag

Cheers Graham... I'll check those out as the system will work with my wee seat post length better than Carradice although the bag may be a little deep again.
I'll have a good look but I think I'll end up giving the Ortlieb a go.

Thanks again all.