Search found 1148 matches
- 10 Mar 2016, 8:29am
- Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
- Topic: building a new audax bike help
- Replies: 63
- Views: 4649
Re: building a new audax bike help
Yes, that's my point: with discs you can't have radial spokes. Price worth paying, though
- 10 Mar 2016, 12:41am
- Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
- Topic: building a new audax bike help
- Replies: 63
- Views: 4649
Re: building a new audax bike help
reohn2 wrote:Though they'll be heavier,the penalty isn't huge,I'd estimate 500g no more and possibly less.
It's around 200g or so: the levers are the same, and the calipers weigh about the same as dual pivots, so broadly speaking it's just the rotors that add the weight. (I've just built up a disc audax-ish bike with an eye on weight. The fork weighs the same as the one on my light road bike, and since Cannondale have on occasion made frames that are lighter in disc variant than rim brake variant, it's probably safe to say there's no appreciable penalty in the frameset.)
Discs every time for me. The sole disadvantage in my book (other than the 200g) is that I like the aesthetics of radially laced wheels…
- 4 Mar 2016, 3:32pm
- Forum: On the road
- Topic: Another pothole death
- Replies: 42
- Views: 12252
Re: Another pothole death
reohn2 wrote:Though more reason it should have been repaired quickly as it was repeatedly reported according to reports.
One source said it had been repaired in 2014 (I'm not sure if it had been repaired between 2009 and 2014). Unfortunately Surrey CC seem to have a habit of making low-quality repairs.
FWIW relevant articles can be accessed via the "References" section here: http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/2268/
- 2 Mar 2016, 10:34pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
- Replies: 703
- Views: 295715
Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
Philip Benstead wrote:the point i am getting accross is that even a high profile orgainisation will not be known by some people
But you're doing that by either saying that an organisation that doesn't exist isn't known by some people (which isn't surprising), or that an individual isn't known by some people (which is neither surprising nor an organisation).
Your point was in reply to someone who had highlighted the fact that someone had said "CTC" was "recognised" and also that "CTC" was "meaningless"; the clear implications being that as a brand "CTC" was both good and bad at the same time, which read rather oddly in what appeared to be a strong objection to changing the name "CTC". The obvious fact that no organisation is known to every single person isn't really relevant; especially given that meaningfulness and recognition aren't quite the same thing.
- 2 Mar 2016, 9:27pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
- Replies: 703
- Views: 295715
Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
Oh, yes, Hackney Cyclist I'm familiar with via Twitter. You said "Hackney Cyclists", in the context of branding of campaign groups.
No, does that matter? I see you're querying others' supposed credentials on other threads as well. It all seems rather petulant.
Philip Benstead wrote:Do you live in Hackney or even London
No, does that matter? I see you're querying others' supposed credentials on other threads as well. It all seems rather petulant.
- 2 Mar 2016, 9:08pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
- Replies: 703
- Views: 295715
Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
Philip Benstead wrote:Also I have meet cyclist from Hackney who had not heard of Hackney Cyclists
I'm not entirely surprised. I've never heard of "Hackney Cyclists" either, and it seems neither has Google.
- 2 Mar 2016, 1:50pm
- Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
- Topic: Take the Train?
- Replies: 15
- Views: 1658
- 25 Feb 2016, 11:55am
- Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
- Topic: Fat vs Thin.... an accidental experiment
- Replies: 45
- Views: 2549
Re: Fat vs Thin.... an accidental experiment
If we're chucking anecdata around then I've punctured a little more often with 25mm GP4000S than with 23mm (in fact, I'm not sure I can recall ever having a puncture with the 23mm ones).
I think the issue here is that the sample sizes are so far away from statistical significance that it's hard to justifiably see past random factors.
I think the issue here is that the sample sizes are so far away from statistical significance that it's hard to justifiably see past random factors.
- 23 Feb 2016, 4:21pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
- Replies: 703
- Views: 295715
Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
Ah, touché. I was probably bearing the point in my second paragraph in mind a little too much. Some parts of the debate may have nudged me in that direction
- 23 Feb 2016, 4:02pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
- Replies: 703
- Views: 295715
Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
Bicycler wrote:The CTC has always included Audax, commuting and leisure cyclists.
Well, the formation of the "Bicycle Touring Club" predates the conception of Audax by two whole decades, and the renaming of it to "Cyclists' Touring Club" still predates Audax by 16 years. So I think we can probably agree that the CTC hasn't always included Audax riders.
Without pointing any fingers, because this is a general observation, it always seems that people who oppose change are very selective about their reference points.
- 23 Feb 2016, 1:25pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: CEO's statement
- Replies: 92
- Views: 53474
Re: CEO's statement
mjr wrote:Please could you share what you know of those plans?
I don't know anything of specific plans, but I recall reading stuff somewhere online which was to that effect. I'll see if I can dig it up.
mjr wrote:How does the rebranding itself do that, or what other activities do you know of?
Referring back to an earlier post on this thread,
honesty wrote:Out of interest I showed the old brand (winged wheel) and the new brand to some non cyclists at work.
They said the old brand made them think of old crusties doing heroic rides, and the new one as more family friendly and inclusive. If that's the aim then CUK seems to been heading in the right direction...
I think it's reasonably plain that the branding is more inclusive, and to my mind inclusiveness is at the heart of progress. It's the "cycling/cyclists" thing that I keep mentioning. "Cyclists" is a niche, "touring cyclists" is a niche squared, "CTC" is just opaque, and a stylised pictogram of a wonky bicycle is neither visually appealing nor graphically versatile.
mjr wrote:In the longer term, how likely is it that excluding and marginalising active members from the club's decision-making will enable better progress? Having non-cycling people designing infrastructure at most highway authorities isn't exactly working out better!
I've no idea of the details of the internal politics in question so I'll refrain from airing an opinion on that one
- 23 Feb 2016, 12:43pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: CEO's statement
- Replies: 92
- Views: 53474
Re: CEO's statement
Psamathe wrote:Seems a lot of people think both the name and logo "naff". So I think the petition is to allow the membership to decide on their organisation.
No single aesthetic is going to please everyone (and for what it's worth, I'm no great fan of the aesthetic of the trade mark myself), but that's inevitable. What hasn't been seen yet is the entire branding, just one registered trade mark. It has already been made clear that certain groups won't have to rebrand and as far as I'm aware the organisation is planning to use the CTC heritage in some form or other.
Anyway, is the petition proposing an alternative, or is it just to say "ugh"?
Psamathe wrote:I also think there is significant feeling that the name/branding change is just furthering other recent changes where the club has effectively been hijacked by others with different interests. Thus a poll of all members would seem very appropriate. Of course, in asking for such a thing seems to leave you open to public abuse from senior CTC management.
If that's the motive, then is it the most appropriate course of action to derail activities that seek to enable better progress towards more and safer everyday cycling?
- 23 Feb 2016, 12:18pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
- Replies: 703
- Views: 295715
Re: It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club
reohn2 wrote:They need to get real,someone on a bike is a cyclist like it or not,that's a fact!
Words are not without connotation, and are lost without context. It surely can't have escaped your attention that there is much media generalisation of "cyclists", and this both reflects and feeds a similar generalisation among the public at large.
Is someone who walks to work through a field defined as a hiker? Is someone who runs briefly to catch their bus a jogger? There are lots of nuances about how people define themselves, before we even get to the more important point: The people who really matter in all of this are the people who are not yet cycling at all. The discussion of whether, once they do, they become "cyclists" is completely and utterly missing the point. Right now, they are not cyclists. Real progress can only be achieved by including people who are not—by anyone's definition, including yours—cyclists.
An organisation working for "cyclists" is an organisation working for people who have already decided to overcome the obstacles in their way—the danger, the hindrance and the aggression (which, by the way, are all fostered by infrastructural shortcomings)—and have decided to cycle. An organisation working for cycling is an organisation working not just for those people, but for those who cannot or will not overcome those obstacles; it's an organisation which inherently has to break down those obstacles.
That's the crux of the "cyclists/cycling" issue, and it's absolutely the core of making any progress whatsoever.
- 23 Feb 2016, 12:05pm
- Forum: The Cycling UK brand refresh
- Topic: CEO's statement
- Replies: 92
- Views: 53474
Re: CEO's statement
Philip Benstead wrote:What is wrong with CTC - We are Cycling
Is that the objective of this petition you're seeking? To simply prepend "CTC" to the new name?
What will that achieve, other than propagating a name which surely cannot help the organisation's ability to promote safe, everyday cycling for all? The "Touring" part of the name can only obstruct that, and the "CTC" abbreviation can only serve to wrap that obstruction in a layer of obfuscation.
What is wrong with retaining "Touring" as a subsection of a broader organisation? If the important objective is to achieve safe, everyday cycling for all (as I believe it should be, and as many of your comments suggest you also believe it to be) then, as far as I can see, all your petition would achieve is to interfere with that; whether delaying it significantly or undermining it outright.
If you don't mind me saying, I think it would be worth your while explaining clearly and exactly what you seek to achieve (or what you seek to prevent) and what specific alternative courses of action you propose.
- 19 Jan 2016, 4:51pm
- Forum: Does anyone know … ?
- Topic: Gaining more Real Estate and Other Hacks.
- Replies: 6
- Views: 1146
Re: Gaining more Real Estate and Other Hacks.
Last time I bought Edge mounts they were about £8 for two (from a German retailer, I think) so not too pricey.
I've never had a problem with the Edge mounts; they're pretty secure. And you can get a variety of types: the rubber O-ring mounts, out-front brackets and so on. The O-ring ones are pretty easy to swap between bikes, too: you just unclip the rings and then hook them up again. I tend to use mine on the stem and they sit there happily. No problems with the weight of a smallish phone, even off-road, IME.
Of course, mishaps aren't impossible, so I won't guarantee the welfare of your phone but I've not had a problem. Mounting it on the stem may help: it's pretty out of the way there.
I've never had a problem with the Edge mounts; they're pretty secure. And you can get a variety of types: the rubber O-ring mounts, out-front brackets and so on. The O-ring ones are pretty easy to swap between bikes, too: you just unclip the rings and then hook them up again. I tend to use mine on the stem and they sit there happily. No problems with the weight of a smallish phone, even off-road, IME.
Of course, mishaps aren't impossible, so I won't guarantee the welfare of your phone but I've not had a problem. Mounting it on the stem may help: it's pretty out of the way there.