Cycling UK Forum

531colin wrote:

Ayesha wrote:Spesh SWorks 54 cm frame ,,, 73 deg head angle, 45mm rake, 57 trail.

Spesh Shiv TT XS size ,,, 70.25 deg head, 50mm rake, 69 trail.


This is because the rider's weight is further forward on the Shiv than the SWorks. With a lot more weight on the front wheel, stability is prefered.

I have one of both of these bikes. The SWorks is a lot more 'twitchy' when I am 'on the rivet'...

Weight distribution does matter.

Weight distribution matters ....true.
But I think it works the opposite way round.
Weight on the front wheel improves stability.
A time trial bike has stable steering so that you can exert maximum power when riding on the aero bars without weaving all over the road.
A road bike has bright steering nominally so you can get out of trouble quickly, but with my bike handling skills I would just as likely get into trouble quickly.
Around here "on t'rivet" means wringing the last bit of work out of your legs when you are on the verge of collapse.....there is a lot more going on than a simple weight shift.

I'm with Colin on this, as far as the 'weight on the front wheel improves stability' bit goes. I time trial on a track bike (fitted with a brake-drilled fork) with a head angle of 75 degrees. I worked out the trail figure with the fork before buying it and thought: that seems a bit low; I wonder if it'll be okay? In fact, it's fine. There is so much weight over the front, due to the very low, forward reaching tri bars, that steering does not feel 'light' or 'skittish', even with a miniscule amount of trail. When I've had occasion to ride bikes with lots more trail and an otherwise similar set up, I've found the handling unsatisfactory - the same sort of ponderously wandery feeling you get when you ride a very slack angled mountain bike along the flat or uphill. I used to think time trial bikes would need more trail; I now think they need less.

The other factor, of course, is that within reason you can get used to any sort of steering geometry. So your baseline is what you're used to, as well as what you're wanting the bike to be good at.

In the next issue of Cycle, there will be an article on cargo cycles. I'd like to include a sidebar about big or odd loads that CTC members have carried by cycle. Any cycle - if you pedalled it, it counts. Either post your experiences here or email a couple of sentences to editor@ctc.org.uk no later than 30 April, using the heading 'loads better'. Please accept my apologies in advance that I'll only acknowledge emails, not go into detailed discussion about them.

I'll kick things off. I once carried a five-foot long sideboard strapped to a cycle trailer. When I went to pick it up, the lady who was selling it said: 'Will you be able to get it home? It won't fit in the back of a car.' I told her not to worry, as I hadn't come by car...

lobsterboyuk wrote:Could Dan clarify why it wasn't mentioned in cycle that the petition had been edited for the sake of space? I am concerned that the editing was not highlighted on page 8? Maybe it's standard practice to edit content but why wasn't it mentioned - like the disclaimer on the letters page which makes clear that letters might be edited - I was under the impression the petition was published in full until I saw this thread?

* Edited for readability

It is standard practice to edit anything overlong – unless there's e.g. a constitutional requirement to print it in full, which was the case with the petition. I thought the fact that Jeff's statement had been edited was clear from the context: 'a written statement, in which he said', followed by quotes that include couple of instances of ellipsis.

Here's the complete transcript of the emails between Jeff and me, which you'll need to read from the bottom up. (Jeff supplied more than twice the amount of words than there was space for. I also had lots of stuff from Barry on tape that didn't get used.)


Dan

Thanks very much. I'm sure that you will be entirely even-handed. Every
author is very protective of his copy. Cut a word and you will be accused of
genocide. No way to win.

I do have a copy of the handover photo, which was cropped. Size is 2211 x
1474 (1.6mb) attached. Is that hi-res enough?

Many thanks

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 09 November 2010 15:45
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
Rest assured I will give both sides roughly the same amount of space.
I suspect neither side will be completely happy with my edits, but all
any journalist can do is report the situation as they see it.

Do you have a higher resolution copy of the photo of you handing Peter
Jackson the petition, by the way? I may be able to use it, if there's
space.

Dan

On 9 Nov 2010, at 15:05, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan,

Thanks for the update.

I appreciate that you have to make the best use of precious space
and also
provide a balance for both sides of the argument. I tried to be as
concise
as possible (475 words). On a presentation that is going to decide the
constitutional future of the CTC for the foreseeable future, I would
obviously not want my case to be understated.

I fully appreciate your concern about possible duplication with the
grounds
spelt out in the petition.

My bullet point one was an introductory summary of the position, which
referred to the 5 grounds, without repeating them. This I think should
remain (except for the last 9 words).

Bullets 2 and 3 do duplicate elements in the petition, while still
containing other points.

All other points, I think, are not duplications.

As always, the Editor's decision is final, but given its importance, I
naturally want my case to be presented as fully as possible.

Many thanks for keeping me informed.

Best wishes

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 09 November 2010 11:17
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
There won't be room to reproduce this in full. As such, I'll be
focussing on points you make that don't duplicate what's already in
the petition - since that appears in full already.

All the best
Dan

On 8 Nov 2010, at 14:33, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan

Thank you for your reply and clarification about legal commentary.

I have put together a few bullet points to give some idea of why I
submitted
the petition and some of my reasons for opposing the proposal to
change the
constitutional status of the CTC. Hopefully you will be able to
include
these in full, but you are the Editor!

I had no intention of questioning your editorial principles. My
concern is
only to communicate my feelings as clearly and accurately as
possible. I
really was not confident that I could do this over the telephone,
when
whatever I said would be published in black and white as my reasons
for
submitting the petition and opposing the proposal to convert the
Club into a
full charity. I really did not wish to make an unwitting fool of
myself.

On a subject about which I felt less personal responsibility, I would
happily talk without inhibition on the 'phone.

I greatly appreciate you willingness to allow me this opportunity,
despite
my evident reluctance to 'misspeak' in the course of a telephone
conversation. You may have seen Frank Skinner's opinion article in
The Times
last Friday about the pitfalls of talking off the cuff.

Thank you very much for your forbearance.

Best wishes,

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 08 November 2010 10:35
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
You misunderstand me. Any CTC legal feedback I seek will be on the
petition itself, to put that into context for members, if necessary,
and not on any dialogue I have with you.

If you wish to submit a brief statement, I'll use it - quite possibly
all of it. Alternatively, I am happy to speak to someone else from
the
savethectc camp instead. However, I need to resolve this one way or
the other no later than tomorrow. And today would be better.

Journalists in this country don't use pre-set questions. We're not
living in totalitarian state. I am accommodating you by giving you
the
opportunity to support your petition.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dan


On 7 Nov 2010, at 23:47, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan

I was disappointed to receive your reply.

I made clear my unease about making impromptu statements over the
telephone
on such an important subject. Since you are unwilling to recognise
my
concerns and I am not prepared to make instant responses to
unexpected
questions on such a crucial issue, subject as you say to CTC legal
analysis,
we would not seem to share much common ground. A telephone
conversation on
these terms does not therefore seem likely to be most fruitful.

I speak as an ordinary member, not a politician or one trained in
the arts
of communication. I therefore wish to reflect on my words when they
will be
a counterbalance to those in favour of the proposal.

Given your position, I shall therefore be happy to provide a very
brief
statement to answer why I have submitted this petition and what I
would
expect to achieve, from the position of one opposed to the proposal
to
convert the CTC into a charitable trust.

I very much regret that we do not seem to have been able to
accommodate each
other on what is, to me, a vital issue.

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 05 November 2010 14:47
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
Can I call you on Monday? Time's getting a little tight. The gist of
my questions will be:

- Why have you put in the petition?
- What do you hope to achieve by it, given that the enabling motion
wasn't passed anyway?

But I'd rather just chat for 10 minutes than give you a specific
list.
I will also be asking Barry Flood to comment, and I won't be giving
him a list of questions either. I'm not Jeremy Paxman, don't
worry. I
want to put myself in the position of a typical CTC member and ask
the
kind of questions I think they might ask.

The article will just be a report on the fact that there is to be a
revote (including full details of the petition) plus the opinions of
you and of Barry on this, to help put it into context. I may pick
Shivaji's brains too, if there's anything regarding procedure or
Mems
and Arts type stuff that I think needs clarifying.

Hope that helps.

cheers
Dan

On 5 Nov 2010, at 14:12, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan

Thanks very much for the opportunity to make a few comments from my
ordinary
member's perspective. With the passage of time since delivery of
the
petition, I was getting a bit anxious about how the issue would be
presented.

I would be very happy to have a chat on the 'phone early next week.
However,
I do feel a little uneasy about making impromptu remarks over the
telephone
on a subject as thorny and controversial as this. It might be quite
easy to
give unwitting offence!

It would therefore be greatly appreciated if you would email me the
questions that you would like to ask. That would give me the chance
to
reflect on my replies and make sure, hopefully, that I do not say
anything
inaccurate or incomprehensible! Who else will you be asking to
comment?

What is your deadline?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best wishes,

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 04 November 2010 15:00
Subject: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
When's a good time to call you, ideally within office hours or not
too
late on an evening? In the Dec/Jan issue of Cycle, along with news
about the motion 8 re-vote, and the details of your petition, I'd
like
to include a few comments from people on either side of the debate.
To
do this, I'll just phone you up and ask some questions, and then
I'll
quote you in the news piece.

cheers

Dan Joyce
Editor, Cycle magazine
editor@ctc.org.uk

I bought one new for £420 for my 14yo son. It's a little hefty - around 32.5lb with pedals - but at this price it's a steal. He likes it. I like it. I give it 8/10.

We've got this article on the magazine's forthcoming features list! Currently pencilled in for Oct-Nov 09 under the title 'one bike to rule them all'. Stay tuned.

For anyone wanting to travel to Belfast by train and ferry rather than flying, I'd second the advice at www.ctc.org.uk/agm to check out RailSail. See the website www.sailrail.co.uk for routes. You'll need to phone to make a booking: 08450 755 755. The person I spoke to was very helpful.

I'm travelling from Scarborough to Holyhead, ferry to Dublin, train to Belfast, return. With separate tickets, that would cost £168 - breaking down £86 (UK train), £46 (ferry), and £36. By RailSail, it's £72.40 for the whole trip - less than half price.

Had I been travelling only to Holyhead by train (and back), I'd have still saved £13.60 by getting a RailSail ticket all the way to Belfast and using neither the ferry portion nor the Irish train portion. It's a funny old world.

Pleasingly, it's not more expensive for me than flying - even though Ryanair would have sold me tickets for 1 pence plus airport taxes from Liverpool to Belfast (£20 total, return), once you factor in either a return train/bus/taxi journey to the airports or the petrol plus car parking charges for a car journey.

It still takes a bit longer to make the whole journey, but at least there isn't the sensation of being fleeced compared to flying!

Chris is right. It's my singlespeed hack bike with DiaCompe 287V brake levers and a mudguard zip-tied to the fork crown - less hassle than replacing the fork or attempting to drill it.