Cycling UK Forum

Carlton green wrote: ↑13 Apr 2025, 4:28pm

gbnz wrote: ↑11 Apr 2025, 8:27pm …. bear in mind that medical people will want you to sit around, doing nothing, being sensible, in reality, it makes their life much easier.........

That reminds me of a conversation - long ago and elsewhere - that an old guy in the local cycling club had with his Doctor. The gist of it was that at your age you should be sitting quietly in a chair and not off on your bike doing 80 mile day rides (which he seemed to complete remarkably well). Many in the medical profession are very knowledgeable and helpful, but there are others …

I've seen people on here saying that their doctor won't believe they can do what they say they actually are doing. I had a doctor who thought that if I can cycle 30 miles there can't be anything wrong. She could no more cycle 30 miles than fly to the moon herself, therefore cycling that far was an unreasonable expectation.

drossall wrote: ↑13 Apr 2025, 11:47pmAs ever, the advice of your GP and specialist are the key.

I've been repeatedly told both to exercise and not to exercise, so I'm in the wrong whatever I do. When I complained about contradictory advice I was told that engineers are neurotics who can't cope with conflicting information.

Mr QR wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:58pm It turns out I was born with a bicuspid valve which degrades as you get older. No wonder I could never hit those fast times I was chasing!

I have regurgitation on one of my valves, now you mention it, perhaps that's why my performance has always been poor compared to others.

I've picked up at least three tubes I've found that others have tossed away after roadside replacement, taken them home and repaired the puncture - normally just a thorn hole, then put them into my spares stock. Perfectly good.
A thing I don't do is blow on the cement to dry it out (after reading a Brucey post I suspect).
I think the reasoning was that it introduced moisture into the chemical bonding reaction, that made sense to me.
I wonder is the OP a 'blower' if he's having problems ?

gbnz wrote: ↑11 Apr 2025, 8:27pm …. bear in mind that medical people will want you to sit around, doing nothing, being sensible, in reality, it makes their life much easier.........

That reminds me of a conversation - long ago and elsewhere - that an old guy in the local cycling club had with his Doctor. The gist of it was that at your age you should be sitting quietly in a chair and not off on your bike doing 80 mile day rides (which he seemed to complete remarkably well). Many in the medical profession are very knowledgeable and helpful, but there are others …

First up, there is no formal definition of "n person tent". We have a 3 person tent that really will take 3 people and their stuff, I've seen others where "3 person" appears to be in the context of emergency only and/or they come from Lilliput.
So do check out potential tents by crawling around if you can rather than just going by diagrams or marketing claims.
Also note that "n person" means a different thing for 3 days in nice weather and plenty of daylight than it does for a week in the rain in winter.

Beyond that I would put social dynamic above absolute weight/bulk. First wild camp with our daughter (when she was six) we used one tent. Last joint trip I did with her (she's 21 now) I gave her efficiency and personal space options, she opted for personal space!

Pete.

Pair of MKS Sylvan Lite pedals I have no use for. The bearings are buttery smooth and in all others ways they are fully functional. Left pedal is in reasonable aesthetic condition. Right pedal unfortunately has a bit of a chunk missing from the top / shoe side as you can see in the photos - doesn't effect them in use (had them like this since I bought secondhand).

Would ask for postage to be covered which I imagine is something like £4 or less (and if you fancy chucking a couple of quid on top for a beer then great but not necessary).

I'm away from Thursday for two weeks (but can put in the post before then if you let me know).

Tom

tatanab wrote: ↑31 Mar 2025, 10:53am

Carlton green wrote: ↑31 Mar 2025, 9:45am [At the utility end of the market I can’t help but think that one UK based manufacturer has missed an opportunity to increase their sales by incorporating a transmission improvement that could (usefully) transform the performance of their several trikes - via mass manufacture the change shouldn’t be expensive to implement. Less of a toy, disability aid or curiosity and more of a workhorse …

They would also have to go on a diet. A utility trike weighs typically 50 to 60 pounds. How do they make them so heavy when in the 1970s a trike frame builder made a small wheeled utility trike at a little over 30 pounds? I have certainly known of some being sold on simply because they were too cumbersome to move around at home.

Yes, weight is an issue and an issue for any cycle - obviously a trike has an extra wheel and a larger frame to mount it. Given the high price of the Trikes I’m thinking that a bit of investment in excess weight reduction wouldn’t be out of order and if a company wants to make a profit then sales is the usual route. Up the quality of your product to overcome its weaknesses and additional customers will then be gained. There are reasons why few Trikes are in use today, but better engineered products could change that usage and give a company opportunity to make better profits via greater numbers of sales.

Brucey wrote: ↑11 Apr 2025, 4:07pm I can see how it could be done without great difficulty; it is quite a lot of work though.

Conversion might be an interesting intellectual exercise for others to follow at some point, so please do share your ideas.

531colin wrote: ↑10 Apr 2025, 9:45pm

AndyB1 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2025, 7:08pm The steel forks in the second photo look like they might flex a little and absorb bumps - will a rack or carrier stiffen them up?

see here https://www.tubus.com/en/products/...select "front carrier"
Maybe the massive "grand expedition" could stiffen the fork a bit? i don't think any of the others would stiffen the fork a meaningful amount

I am always surprised how much the steel 531 forks on my V braked Sherpa flex when rocking the bike back and forwards with the front brake on. I think most of the flex happens below the front rack bosses, but if there is any flexing higher up the fork and the rack has high and low mounting points then the flexing will load the rack. Maybe the flexing is too small to worry about, but that Grand Expedition rack bolts at the bottom of the fork as well as halfway up and at the top so really will stiffen the fork. Probably less of an issue on forks with disc brakes which are less flexible.

Taking along a particularly bad tempered Rottweiler maybe effective!
Joking aside, much the same advice as a normal upwrong, something secure to chain it to, the better the quality of lock, as per se.
Depending on which particular trike you have, some are easier to ride than others, which also works in the favour, most unlikely to get a casual thief riding off with it, certainly so with a conventional upright ,it will have them in the hedge in short order.
Recumbent trikes are easier to ride, but the unusual configuration will put thieves of,

pete75 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2025, 10:41pm Thanks to Trump's shenanigans my investments have fallen by some £62,000. Fortunately I don't rely on them for my pension, but I bet what's going on is having an unsettling effect on folk with defined contribution type pension funds.

Your loss is a problem that many people wish they had - and congratulations, that’s quite a personal fortune.

Inflation erodes the buying power of some (fixed payment) pensions and if someone’s on drawdown then losses are compounded.

International trade is, I’m told, wonderful but the current crisis seems rather nasty to me and it has its roots in international trade - as well as greed, general stupidity and a cavalier attitude to the fate of others.

I read that India is not too fussed by all of this, they’re self contained - make what they use and use what they make.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrg2lq0gweo

As countries scramble to recalibrate in response to shifting US trade policies - like Donald Trump's latest 90-day tariff pause after weeks of sabre-rattling - India's relative detachment may have helped it weather shocks that have jolted more trade-dependent economies.
"India's lower exposure to global goods trade could work in our favour. If export-driven economies slow down under tariff pressure, and we continue growing at 6%, we'll start looking stronger by comparison - especially with our large domestic market to fall back on," says Rajeswari Sengupta, an associate professor of economics at Mumbai-based Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.

AndyB1 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2025, 7:08pm The steel forks in the second photo look like they might flex a little and absorb bumps - will a rack or carrier stiffen them up?

see here https://www.tubus.com/en/products/...select "front carrier"
Maybe the massive "grand expedition" could stiffen the fork a bit? i don't think any of the others would stiffen the fork a meaningful amount

All this “fix at the roadside” and “don’t even take the tube out” business makes me think that others must have different punctures, in different weather from me.

A typical puncture so far as Im concerned occurs in horrible weather, either a really sharp wind, or raining, or both, usually in the dark. The puncture itself deflates the tube within seconds when in the tyre, but under test at home it releases one tiny bubble a fortnight when under a pressure of 50000psi, and the thing causing the puncture cannot be found by any amount of close examination, yet under the weight of use it causes another puncture, in similar circumstances, after I’ve been through all the hassle of finding the first leak, very carefully patching it, and putting everything back together.

I wonder how long it will be before the Chinese - and maybe others - wise-up? Tariffs imposed by the USA make their government richer, rather than go for an import tariff war that enriches someone else set an export tariff instead and take the pain in a more constructive way - have the income for yourself, help the USA by choking trade to them in a lesser damaging way to China. Tell the world that the USA doesn’t want to trade with you and you’re just helping them … and pocket a tidy sum in the process and offer to reduce the export tariffs when they’re ready to trade. The Chinese will just export elsewhere (at lesser or no tariffs) and their goods will leak into the USA by various routes - much the same amount of product will be exported. As for Chinese import tariffs on USA goods lift them and use more subtle ways to just not buy from the USA.

How much lighter? A couple of kg is usual between a touring and road bike, maybe 3 or 4 if the tourer is heavy duty. That's a very small percentage of overall weight and the laws of physics don't change because you've spent £££'s.
However, the bike should feel more agile, you should feel the spring to it, when you put the effort in the response should feel more instant, it should corner sharper, they're likely to find it far more engaging to ride. In short it will have an X factor that puts a smile on Mr Perfection's face, regardless of speed, if it doesn't, they've bought the wrong bike. There's nothing wrong with Mr Perfection if they prefer their original bike, there is something wrong with them if they then go around criticising other's fun.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

pjclinch wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 3:47pm

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm
I understand what Primary is. After all, I've been doing this a long time, which is part of why my Cyclecraft is the first TSO edition, which you used against me earlier!

I suspected a difference in the advice you were reading because what you said wasn't much like the current advice. It turned out to be the same advice, but you'd apparently misread it.

No, it just seems that we understand different things by "middle of the track" and you don't think "just to the left of centre" is effectively the same on any standard-or-better cycleway.

Our difference there is I think that's a description of a position to hold for exceptional reasons while you're taking it as where to ride by default

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm However, you seem not to have understood that Primary is the only riding position that Cyclecraft gives for cycleways, or how most people use Cyclecraft as a guide or manual, rather than reading it cover-to-cover like a novel.

Again you're distorting the text. It says that positioning is important and tells you where Primary is. Since it tells you to move well left of that with oncoming traffic it is clearly not "the only riding position" it gives.

I'm reading the text as written. I'm not interpreting an instruction to "move well left" as anything other than a temporary alteration. It's certainly not given as a riding position.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm There is no Secondary position defined for cycleways anywhere in the chapter and I suspect not in the entire book. It's left to people to guess that they should apply the definition from 100 pages earlier, imagine bikes instead of the cars in the diagram (which, at least in the first edition, shows the cyclist in secondary position being close-passed by a motorist with about 60cm gap!). Guess what? Plenty don't guess that and ride around in the middle "just to the left of centre", on every flipping cycleway.

It's not defined because it's not really relevant. The point of secondary on roads is to allow reasonably easy passage of generically faster traffic that isn't present on a cycleway.

That's bovine dung and I think you know really that Fast Freddy on his road bike heading for a training session is indeed "generically faster traffic" than me on a Dutch bike loaded with shopping and I am "generically faster" than a cargo bucket bike or someone pulling a kiddie trailer, all of which are present anywhere with reasonably busy cycleways, along with many more.

Fast Freddy is on a bike which in the vast majority of circumstances will be slower than motor traffic in the same place.
On a cycle path with relatively high densities of traffic things tend to move at at similar speeds, on a road cars still tend to go faster than bikes, hence "generically faster"

And as you well know, if Fast Freddy is in a hurry he'll probably take the road.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm Also, primary position is never defined as "just to the left of centre" on any other road, is it?

It isn't, but since the environment is completely different what with the lack of faster, wider, more dangerous motor vehicles why do you think it would be?

I don't, and why would I? I don't think it should be defined as such on cycleways either. The question is more why should it? It's an obvious error in Cyclecraft.

Obvious to you, but you're looking for rules where none are needed. Cycles on a cycleway are not mixing with a bigger, faster, deadlier form of traffic that might easily kill them so there is not a need for elaborate positioning rules designed to let different types to co-exist.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm Yeah, oncoming is not usually a problem. Most people with any empathy will move over when they see someone coming, and I find they keep left if you do clearly. Problems occur more often when they can't see someone oncoming, when the other rider is coming up behind or is around a corner.

And if that's a left hand bend for the rider in question they'll be able to see around it better, and be seen better, if they're out towards the middle. That's what Primary is for here.

So why isn't it done on roads when motorists are present

It is, e.g. moving to Primary when passing side roads.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm Cyclecraft chapter 4 only advises "moving to the primary riding position [the usual one] will not only discourage dangerous overtaking, but can also improve both your forward visibility and your chances of being seen by drivers from both behind and ahead (Figure 4.5)" when moving to just to the left of centre would given even more forward visibility and chance of being seen by drivers from ahead, while drivers from behind would probably wonder what you were playing at and thereby also notice you more.

Because ost of the time roads are wider and it would encourage undertaking by the significantly faster motor vehicles found on roads.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

It remains the case that you have re-framed a description of a Primary left of centre followed immediately by advice to keep well left with oncoming traffic as nothing more than advice to ride in the middle of the track. That's quite simply a distortion of the facts.

And it remains the case that you're taking a minor modification of Primary as creating a whole secondary position not mentioned anywhere in the chapter. That is also a distortion of what it actually says.

You're the only one in inventing new Secondary positions for the sake of it here.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

We're actually on the same side here. There's no point in bashing Cyclecraft for its advice on cycle track positioning because your reading of what it says isn't what it actually says. That the author has some opinions that contrast with mine and I imagine yours about the merits of building segregated cycle facilities amounts to Whataboutery here.

With respect, "Whataboutery" would be mentioning Franklin's views on other subjects. His misguided opinions on segregated cycle facilities bias his expert testimony to courts, including those in the case mentioned by cycle tramp which involved a junction of cycleways not open to motorists. It's pretty directly related to that ruling.

But it has no real bearing in the fact that his book doesn't tell riders to ride in the middle of the cycleway.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 6:02pm

That discipline is poor on cycle tracks almost certainly isn't down to Cyclecraft but down to lack of established culture of use, and just in this thread there's plenty of evidence of that.

The inclusion of a bundle of bad advice and political views in the Cyclecraft chapter was a missed opportunity to re-establish good road culture nationally, wider than the few local efforts which persisted such as "the Redway Code" that I remember from my youth. My point was Cyclecraft made matters worse, giving cyclists who had seen it bad advice that I'm sure some spread to others and parrotted in various forums, and so judgments about cycleways informed by Franklin are on dodgy ground.

I remain far, far less convinced than you about how influential Cyclecraft is and how widely it is known.
That it's the basis of Bikeability isn't actually that relevant here, because Bikeability is almost entirely about interactions on roads.

I agree it's far from perfect, but I'm not going to slate it for "bad advice" that has been inferred rather sketchily from things it doesn't say.

Pete

pjclinch wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 3:47pm

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm

pjclinch wrote: ↑8 Apr 2025, 7:39pm In which case you either haven't understood what Primary Position is or are wilfully misreading the text. One goes to Primary to better see and be seen where that's advantageous. It doesn't say that one takes Primary all the time, it is implied that, like the rest of the positioning advice in the book, it is taken when it is useful.

I understand what Primary is. After all, I've been doing this a long time, which is part of why my Cyclecraft is the first TSO edition, which you used against me earlier!

I suspected a difference in the advice you were reading because what you said wasn't much like the current advice. It turned out to be the same advice, but you'd apparently misread it.

No, it just seems that we understand different things by "middle of the track" and you don't think "just to the left of centre" is effectively the same on any standard-or-better cycleway.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm However, you seem not to have understood that Primary is the only riding position that Cyclecraft gives for cycleways, or how most people use Cyclecraft as a guide or manual, rather than reading it cover-to-cover like a novel.

Again you're distorting the text. It says that positioning is important and tells you where Primary is. Since it tells you to move well left of that with oncoming traffic it is clearly not "the only riding position" it gives.

I'm reading the text as written. I'm not interpreting an instruction to "move well left" as anything other than a temporary alteration. It's certainly not given as a riding position.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm There is no Secondary position defined for cycleways anywhere in the chapter and I suspect not in the entire book. It's left to people to guess that they should apply the definition from 100 pages earlier, imagine bikes instead of the cars in the diagram (which, at least in the first edition, shows the cyclist in secondary position being close-passed by a motorist with about 60cm gap!). Guess what? Plenty don't guess that and ride around in the middle "just to the left of centre", on every flipping cycleway.

It's not defined because it's not really relevant. The point of secondary on roads is to allow reasonably easy passage of generically faster traffic that isn't present on a cycleway.

That's bovine dung and I think you know really that Fast Freddy on his road bike heading for a training session is indeed "generically faster traffic" than me on a Dutch bike loaded with shopping and I am "generically faster" than a cargo bucket bike or someone pulling a kiddie trailer, all of which are present anywhere with reasonably busy cycleways, along with many more.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm Also, primary position is never defined as "just to the left of centre" on any other road, is it?

It isn't, but since the environment is completely different what with the lack of faster, wider, more dangerous motor vehicles why do you think it would be?

I don't, and why would I? I don't think it should be defined as such on cycleways either. The question is more why should it? It's an obvious error in Cyclecraft.

mjr wrote: ↑9 Apr 2025, 2:23pm Yeah, oncoming is not usually a problem. Most people with any empathy will move over when they see someone coming, and I find they keep left if you do clearly. Problems occur more often when they can't see someone oncoming, when the other rider is coming up behind or is around a corner.

And if that's a left hand bend for the rider in question they'll be able to see around it better, and be seen better, if they're out towards the middle. That's what Primary is for here.

So why isn't it done on roads when motorists are present and why doesn't that reasoning also apply to cycleways? Cyclecraft chapter 4 only advises "moving to the primary riding position [the usual one] will not only discourage dangerous overtaking, but can also improve both your forward visibility and your chances of being seen by drivers from both behind and ahead (Figure 4.5)" when moving to just to the left of centre would given even more forward visibility and chance of being seen by drivers from ahead, while drivers from behind would probably wonder what you were playing at and thereby also notice you more.

It remains the case that you have re-framed a description of a Primary left of centre followed immediately by advice to keep well left with oncoming traffic as nothing more than advice to ride in the middle of the track. That's quite simply a distortion of the facts.

And it remains the case that you're taking a minor modification of Primary as creating a whole secondary position not mentioned anywhere in the chapter. That is also a distortion of what it actually says.

We're actually on the same side here. There's no point in bashing Cyclecraft for its advice on cycle track positioning because your reading of what it says isn't what it actually says. That the author has some opinions that contrast with mine and I imagine yours about the merits of building segregated cycle facilities amounts to Whataboutery here.

With respect, "Whataboutery" would be mentioning Franklin's views on other subjects. His misguided opinions on segregated cycle facilities bias his expert testimony to courts, including those in the case mentioned by cycle tramp which involved a junction of cycleways not open to motorists. It's pretty directly related to that ruling.

That discipline is poor on cycle tracks almost certainly isn't down to Cyclecraft but down to lack of established culture of use, and just in this thread there's plenty of evidence of that.

The inclusion of a bundle of bad advice and political views in the Cyclecraft chapter was a missed opportunity to re-establish good road culture nationally, wider than the few local efforts which persisted such as "the Redway Code" that I remember from my youth. My point was Cyclecraft made matters worse, giving cyclists who had seen it bad advice that I'm sure some spread to others and parrotted in various forums, and so judgments about cycleways informed by Franklin are on dodgy ground.