Chris Juden's talk at the 2017 York Rally

[bikepete]

Some on this forum may be interested to note that former CTC technical expert Chris Juden will be giving a talk at the 2017 York Rally, at 5 PM, on Saturday 25th June.

Chris says: "The title of my talk will be 'Choose your Discipline!' in which I'll discourse upon how my mission during my time at CTC was to provide some much-needed balance against the domination of cycle sport in all matters technical."

Many thanks to Chris for offering this talk! Also to our other speakers, including the Bishop of Selby (the "Cycling Bishop") whose talk is at 2 PM on Saturday. The full talks list will be finalised in the next few days - proposals are still very welcome, especially for touring talks!

Entry to all talks at the York Rally is free and all are welcome! There's also camping on site (advance bookings close end of next week!) and much more: see the event website or the York Rally 2017 thread in the "Events" sub-forum here.

Hope to see many of you there!

Peter Eland
Publicity, York Rally http://www.yorkrally.org
For the all-volunteer York Rally organising committee

[Samuel D]

I wish I could be there for this. Sadly I’m in the wrong country.

[LaidbackMalc]

Will be there at the rally, haven't missed one since 1995, even went with mates camping in 2013 and 2014. Will be attending the talk, sounds interesting, just hope the weathers ok. See's you all there.

[Roadster]

Should be a welcome breath of fresh air, no doubt of that. The domination of cycle sport, however, is not confined to all matters technical but extends to every aspect of modern cycling from the choice of machine and its components to the clothes the rider wears.

Any newcomer could easily get the impression that competitive sport is the only legitimate use for a bicycle and that a "Road Bike" (meaning "road racing bike"), a "Mountain Bike" (for riding up and down mountains) or a "Hybrid Bike" (an ill-conceived combination of the previous two) were the only choices worth considering. Oh, nearly forgot, there's also the "Expedition Bike" which is now the minimum requirement for going to the shops or pub.

Many people who just want a bike for recreational or commuting purposes can all too easily end up with a machine more suitable for competing in the Tour de France, climbing Mount Kilimanjaro or riding around the world, all things which they will never even attempt let alone do. No wonder there are so many secondhand "Road" and "Mountain" bikes for sale so cheaply, or ending up abandoned and neglected in garages and sheds.

[Cyril Haearn]

I wish I could be there for this. Sadly I’m in the wrong country.

Ditto

I would like to read the text or hear/see recordings

The cycling bishop sounds interesting too

Reminds me of Eric Treaty the railway bishop, +1

[drossall]

Another interested in a recording.

re cycling bishops, I've enjoyed this blog.

[Sweep]

Any newcomer could easily get the impression that competitive sport is the only legitimate use for a bicycle and that a "Road Bike" (meaning "road racing bike"), a "Mountain Bike" (for riding up and down mountains) or a "Hybrid Bike" (an ill-conceived combination of the previous two) were the only choices worth considering. Oh, nearly forgot, there's also the "Expedition Bike" which is now the minimum requirement for going to the shops or pub.

.

I fail to see/understand what your problem with hybrids is. They have got many people into general cycling. They got me, who never liked or understood drops, into cycling 20 years ago. I still have that hybrid. It's been to the shops many many times, lots of other interesting places and is also capable of going round the world if i wanted to. It also doesn't look very different from some modern tourers.

[Cyril Haearn]

Another interested in a recording.

re cycling bishops, I've enjoyed this blog.

+2
Bishop Edward for PM!

[Roadster]

I fail to see/understand what your problem with hybrids is... It also doesn't look very different from some modern tourers.

Well, why not just call it a "Tourer", then? At least that would provide some indication of its intended use, whereas "Hybrid" can mean anything the marketing men want it to mean.

[Sweep]

I fail to see/understand what your problem with hybrids is... It also doesn't look very different from some modern tourers.

Well, why not just call it a "Tourer", then? At least that would provide some indication of its intended use, whereas "Hybrid" can mean anything the marketing men want it to mean.

When it came out (1997) tourers, at least to the Brits, were drop barred bikes.

And very specialist.

This bike is flat barred.

And of course has rapidfires.

It therefore as I said above encouraged the likes of me to get into cycling.

It also, horror of horrors, influenced by mountain bike design, has a sloping top tube.

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't 1997 Brit tourers have horizontal top tubes?

That also encouraged me to get into cycling.

Since 1997, as I said above, SOME tourers (quite possibly not yours but that's a choice you are perfectly entitled to make/ride) have adopted some aspects of this hybrid design - flat bars, rapidfires, sloping top tubes.

I now have two other tourers (one 700 wheeled, one 26 inch) which share these features.

I fail to see what is wrong with this.

So, in short, it's not, as I see it, like any Brit tourers of 97, it is like SOME of 2017.

Isn't it a wonderful varied world

I share your suspicion of modern bike marketing but the hybrid was not marketing flannel.

[PH]

I fail to see/understand what your problem with hybrids is... It also doesn't look very different from some modern tourers.

Well, why not just call it a "Tourer", then? At least that would provide some indication of its intended use, whereas "Hybrid" can mean anything the marketing men want it to mean.

Why not just call it a bike and forget the labels? How much touring do you think the average Touring Bike does? I don't label my bike that gets used pretty much every day for work, and for dozens of Audax, and a couple of long tours a year and countless CTC rides, and which is my main means of transport, but if I had to put it in a category it would be Hybrid.

[Roadster]

"Why not just call it a bike and forget the labels?"

Why not indeed, and that's precisely my point: the term "Hybrid" has now become so vague and widely applicable that it no longer conveys any useful meaning. We may as well just say "Bike".

For example, my own bike is marketed as a Hybrid yet looks for all the world like a traditional English tourer fitted with straight handlebars instead of drops. It does not have a sloping top tube and nor does it have rapidfires (whatever they are). It does not even have derailleur gears but has Alfine 8 hub gears instead. It appears to have little in common with Sweep's machine, and yet they're both marketed as Hybrids.

Clearly, when it comes to bikes, the term "Hybrid" can mean different things to different people. It's the value of the label that I question, not the value of the many and varied machines to which it's casually applied.

[PH]

"Why not just call it a bike and forget the labels?"
Clearly, when it comes to bikes, the term "Hybrid" can mean different things to different people. It's the value of the label that I question, not the value of the many and varied machines to which it's casually applied.

I'd agree with that entirely, if it's what you meant in your first post it wasn't clear.

a "Hybrid Bike" (an ill-conceived combination of the previous two)

[meic]

I quite like the idea of having an extended vocabulary when it comes to describing a range of bicycle types. Though I have to admit it is much more useful if the definitions are in at least some sort of agreement.

[drossall]

Getting back to the topic of talks about cycling...