Cycling UK Forum

In fact I use these dynamos on my road bikes as a first choice. They are undoubtedly the most efficient commonly found dynamos you can use, in every way, except they use a minute fraction more energy to drive, which when you think about it is the thing nearly everyone does with them the least!
They have an adjustment for their pressure onto the tyre. Apart from finding it neccessary to stop before turning them on in wet weather I have had no trouble with them slipping when wet, just using their normal drive cap. One needs to be very carefull to arrange their axis perpendicular to the axle centre, which can be fiddly. Once this is accomplished I have found them to offer years of trouble free life.
The normal range of dynamo lights can be coupled to them and if as others have suggested you purchase them from European suppliers they are far cheaper and are listed on Rose Bikes pages as "components" not accesories. Also you will find unless they expressly say otherwise all the bicycle lights they have will comply with all the European bicycle lighting specifications (and thus here).

horizon wrote:

LollyKat wrote:Huh? 50 miles in the Alps in one day carrying just a little water and a packed lunch?

Four days.

Well, I did say it was a different approach. It works because you are only carrying a good lunch and largely relying on the landscape for water. If you walk fairly purposfully you would be surprised how far you can walk in a day quite easily. I can tell you it is really not that difficult.

I also find backpacking more difficult to accomplish comfortably in our type of climate, due to weight constraints.

I can't help thinking that in this instance with a certain amount of practice carrying backpacking kit and using it, - learning how to pick her route and walk smoothly over rough terrain while carrying it, then provided she has no particular fitness problems, their is a completely different approach to this.

On the day I would leave all my kit except a substantial, power packed lunch behind and set forth carrying only an additional pint of water - relying on refils from springs encountered on the way. I would expect to keep normal office hours with one or two hours overtime - probably best done in the morning - because that is how long it would take to accomplish the journey in a not particularly hard day. She could easily surprise herself.

Willem points out very well why I have always (so far) decided that front panniers are not worth the advantage to me. While acknowledging what Horizon says about whether or not you "need" them is a bit of a circular argument.
I think I would definitely use them on an expedition beyond three or four weeks. If nothing else because I would want to carry a few more clothes to cater for a wider range of circumstances and, not least, climate. Also when faced with packing down repeatedly over a lengthy period, the ability to be able to more or less just chuck stuff into my bags (with attention to rattles) rather than having to pay much attention to packing them, would to me, become an increasing advantage. This would additionally need to be weighed against the advantage of being able to remove and handle two panniers fairly easily when using multi modal transport.

Very interesting the views and preferences that the OP's question have led to in this thread, I find it good reading, their are some very good points within it.

Personally I find that a pair of rear panniers and a good old Carradice amply sufficient for the things I wish to carry. These include a tent and cooking equipment.
I have many times considered carrying the same amount of equipment but spread into front panniers as well, in order to better balance the bike. Although this thought occurs to me every time I'am struggling up some mountain trail - I have never actually decided it is enough of an advantage when faced with making the neccessary adjustments in the workshop. Personally I really don't like the feel of front panniers on my steering.
I have not had any trouble with panniers coming unhooked or flapping about with the advent of modern fastenings. both of these are easily cured with a webbing strap anyway.

The point Haribo makes about aerodynamics; I can't off hand point you to the references (I'm sure google will avail) but according to tests that I have looked at, front panniers are in fact more aerodynamic than rears. The aim being to have as near a "teardrop" shape as possible with the blunt end forwards. I would think that with frame bags as with aero wheels, as soon as the headwind is any more than a very few degrees off, you completely loose any fractional advantage. Let's get a grip here though, we are talking about loaded touring. Smiles not miles and all that, so really whatever you find most convenient and are comfortable with.

Martin Bruce makes a point about Carbon fibre frames and the relative supposed repairability of steel.
Now although I personally strongly prefer steel frames. I like the resilience and overall suitability of the material, I also gain satisfaction from the knowledge that they take eight times less energy to manufacture than an equivalent alumium frame and do not take loads of high tech oil industry chemicals to manufacture. - "Carbon" frames are in fact at least eighty percent plastic. Steel frames also have an inordinately long service life - barring accidents. What an amazing use of human effort and endeavour, not to mention energy this represents, and I still have bikes that are up their with the best.
However although I'am capable of welding/brazing/soldering them to original standard - that is only if I have gas welding kit to hand. If as Martin hypothesises a frame broke in the middle of Tanzania then with the fibreglass repairkit in my saddle bag I could be pretty sure of repairing it to original strength, if not appearance, with no further tools or help - if it were carbon fibre. Granting that you could temporarily repair a steel frame the same way.

Anyway, there are some of my thoughts on your thoughts, I'm off out for miles of smiles.

PS. Panniers were/are used on horses and pack animals.

Heltor Chasca wrote:

Giles Pargiter wrote:

Mick F wrote:Brian Fox.


".... Nepotism?

"

Mick F wrote:Brian Fox.

I haven't a clue who you are, and no doubt you don't know who I am.
However, I have (at the present count) over 34,500 posts on here. I am a well respected and highly regarded forum member. Many of us have been on here for years and years and I am not unusual ... other than my post count. I first joined the forum and the CTC in 2004 (despite what the stats might say)

The CTC forum has been resurrected and resurrected again and again. This is maybe the fourth generation?

Read this forum before you come on here and pontificate.

toungue firmly in cheek . . . well I was a CTC member when I was a baby, my parents are life members and my grandparents pretty much started the CTC and I've only made - er 19 posts . . . so where does that leave us then?

The positive thing about this rebrand is that we can now definitely see that it is more or less univesally disliked and our great leaders have hijcked the club.

That is exactly what I think.

In my view CyclingUK is a short lived, exclusive name.

"Short lived" for the political reasons mentioned. "Exclusive" because although as a UK based organisation we are neccessarily mostly occupied with UK cycling issues it fails to set us in the international context within which we live. You notice their are quite a number of international contributers to this forum? Why should any international person feel in the slightest way that we are so self preoccupied that we don't fully extend any knowledge or support to them also? Why shouldn't any international individual or club not be able to be affiliated with us if they so wish? So that we can benefit from their richness of experience and knowledge as they us. After all we are supposed to be about "inclusive" cycling.

When one considers the way that people divide themselves in order to compete, "British cycling" is no doubt a good name for the organisation that it represents - mostly occupied with sport and competition. Any such name is not good for us with our broader "inclusive" mandate.

So for these reasons I think it is a short sighted, zenophobic, narrow minded "brand"

I also think that as we already had a name that avoided all these issues and is redolent of a history which is second to none, with an original mandate that is every bit as relevant now as it was at first inception and our leaders and betters(?) failed to make proper use of that, when in reality it is a brand that even the likes of Coca cola ought to envy. What use is the new name anyway?

Far as I know any journey at all undertaken purely for the purpose of the excursion is a "tour", whether it is a diversion up some side street while shopping or taking the children through a park on the way home from school or indeed some "epic" world circumnambulation. I think that we should have extolled great pedanticism about this in order to bring about the realisation that just about anyone using a bicycle does in fact go on tour.

Must say though (hand in hand with this subject) that I think it is high time CTC governance structure is overhauled. It has been more like a bunch of school kids squabbling about who has which coloured sweets!- Lord of the flies springs to mind. . . We shall see as we shall. I would prefer to see us as a not for profit company such as Greenpeace UK or Amnesty UK, who have been able to withstand many destruction attempts and still become acknowledged as world leading "brands". It would allow us to considerably broaden the way that we undertake our activities.
If "cyclingUK" does become a strong brand I think it will have just about nothing to do with the name and everything to do with more focussed and decisive leadership.

I must say I don't usually find washing a great problem. I use a fairly good quality carrier bag inside a lightweight nylon draw string bag as a water bucket. The draw string can be closed round a cut of soft drinks bottle to enable carrying a gallon or two of water a mile or two before stopping. The water sourced from a stream or some such - perfectly fine for washing. Indeed in upland areas (always go uphill to find a spring) I sometimes use this for cooking or even drinking once boiled. Liver fluke being the main hazard and easily cured by bringing the water to boiling point.

You can roll the top of the bag over and settle it in a hollow or between stones or sticks to make a basin, heat some of it on my primus to warm it if I wish. I can then easily shave and wash. Even have a shower by using a cup to tip it over me. Essential to use only soap, shampoo or washing up liquid that is completely biodegradable - so absolutely no perfumed soap or deoderants etc. Always away from water courses. Can be more awkward if the weather is hostile, but as others have said you can easily survive for a day or two.

Not sure why people are quite so coy about naming the shops where they have such difficulty locking their bikes safely and securely.

I also have similar difficulties here in Bangor. At Tesco's the bike racks are situated next to the ATM's out of sight of the doors, and according to their security staff not on CTV in an ideal place to be tampered with. Accordingly I lock the bike to the rails of the trolley park right outside the window. I prevent it being bashed by trolleys by locking a trolley to it as well if neccessary. The Curry's computer shop has a massive car park outside and even a sports gym next door with absolutely nothing to lock a bike to. Here I wheel the bike right in and lock it to a convenient computer display right round their own computer security wire if I can. The staff so far don't know what to do about this (they don't seem to have thought of having a cycle stand outside) . Morrisons has a similar problem to Tesco, so I lock the bike to the railings outside the door where the security can see it. At the Morrisons in Rhyl, I wheel the bike in and lock it to their flower stand opposite the tobacco counter - the staff could'nt care less, which seems to say it all really.

However Asda have a number of good cycle racks right outside the door.

You mean now you are a sitting target?

Interesting what people carry/don't carry.

Personally on day rides or overnight, I often carry nothing. If accompanied or on longer expeditions, I frequently carry; tweezers, scissors, a roll of fabric plaster, a non adhesive dressing, roll of zinc oxide medical tape (which can also be used for numerous non-medical purposes), eye bath, wych hazel solution (burns and eye wash), a small vial of salt. small roll of bandage, A few sterile swabs, anteseptic cream such as Savlon. In cold weather my flask contains boiled water only, with other ingredients carried separately - get more to drink plus broadens it's usefullness and the flask stays clean.
Has to be said that the attention and comfort value is often greater than the actual treatment, but not always.

When travelling in more out of the way places this is extended considerably. Although this is not so much cycling related as I tend to use the ultimate 4x4 then - shankses pony .
Penicilin impregnated dressings, suture cord and needles, a number of hyperdermic needles, couple of syringes, iodine (not now approved, but loads better than nothing in a tight corner), procaine, diamorphine (often vitally important to be able to continue operating until more extensive aid can be found), extra bandages, water sterilising tablets.
I aquire these before leaving the last large metropolitan area, from a pharmacy or doctor. A lot of their value is in knowing that you are being treated with sterile kit that is what it says on the box. When leaving such remote areas I give them away to whoever seems most likely and best able to use them.

Personally I agree with Brucey. Also by the look of the reflectives on the tyres, they may well be Schwalbes or some such in quite good condition and possibly running on 700's. The brake blocks can be changed for a "V" brake type and would then work a lot better. Certainly well worth a look at that price. If it is in reasonable condition I would check the frame number (under the BB) with the Police.

[quote="MartinC"]We have a perfectly good cycle network. I's just that it's been taken over by cars and made too dangerous for anyone else to use. The biggest improvement to cycling (and walking, public transport, et al) would come from socialising car use. . . "

I entirely agree with this. We are looking at the problem back to front. It is not us that need to be segregated from them, it is motorists who need to be segregated from us. Over and again it is shown that those who have the privilege to use the road in motor vehicles keep killing, and injuring those of us who have a right to be on the road. Also that the bigger the motor vehicle the more people it kills and injures.

Although it is IMO a very good idea to promote cycling skill and safety courses and a very strong argument can be made to include it as a mandatory part of school curricullums, on the basis that it is a vital life skill for all road users; in fact probably a far more vital life skill than anything else a school has even the possibility of teaching. I do not think that this should in any way be made a requirement for using the roads, as this brings in very serious freedom of movement issues.

Accordingly I think that certainly in our urban streets and also wherever main roads are the only reasonably practicable route, we should keep all motor vehicles isolated from an entire lane of the road, so that we as humans can reclame our streets from the slaughter and carnage the motor vehicles cause. We will then be able to move in safety without constant tension and worry from this dangerous machinery. Our children will be able to run and play and who knows even learn to ride bikes in safety - on the road which they own.

After all as we all now well know, motor vehicles do not move any faster in urban environments than cyclists and as a transport solution motors defeat their own objective of quick at will transport by the numbers attempting to do it - ie. in towns they are dead dinosaurs.

I think we need to look very seriously at using alternative methods for goods to move into and out of urban environments and that nothing like the potential of established systems are being used. For example, by using "load pods" such as air freight containers and road freight containers and the kinds of technology used by our docks and vehicles such as the now ubiquitous (to some) JCB Fasttrac, it should not be difficult to devise systems whereby frieght can be loaded and unloaded from metro trains or trams in the ordinary time that these vehicles stop for passengers. I would suggest that a place that offers good opportunities to begin doing this would be freight coming in directly from airports, which is already loaded into airfreight containers and is already security checked and sealed, and is already on the end of the rail system.
An examination of the "moving road" systems already used in airports for the movement of both people and freight would very likely be fruitful in some circumstances. Other systems such as vaccum pipes, as used in many supermarkets to move money, could be examined for moving smaller lighter items quickly - such as envelopes.

Unlike the formerely "scotchegg" poster I do not think we need more new ideas. This issue has remained the same (unfortunately) during my entire life and the figures concerning accidents and injuries has not really changed at all much and neither has the cause of them. The figures over all that time a remarkably consistent and clear. Even now the action being taken is in many ways the "same old, same old" None of the ideas that I have proposed are at all new and neither is the tinkering and fiddling at the edges that we are now watching. I even remember a time when the CTC had huge arguments with the Dft. about taking bollards away from corners at junctions and replacing them with railings - because as the figures at the time said - and still do, cyclists get crushed against them by lorries. I do not want to detract from the efforts and endeavours of those who are working on trying to make our roads safer and you do have to start somewhere.

I think we need to address the problem as if we mean to solve it - rather than passify minority groups as little as can be got away with, and then letting it all slide again. We absolutely have got to change, and that is the one thing that people most consistently do not like and resist the most.