Feed aggregator

Re: Aeropress Coffee Maker

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 10:57am
drink TEA

Re: Heathrow airport by bike

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 10:45am
Great reply thanks. I hadn't realised it was temporary.

Photos from the Old Ports Reliability

CTC Forum - On the road - 8 February 2016 - 10:20am
Nice to share some love for the old school reliability rides. Like Audax dating back to a time before cycling was cool again!
Good turn out yesterday, if you're new to cycling and don't fancy the Audax route then the early season reliabilies are great. There's still about a month or so of them left around the country. If you don't know what they are think original sportive. For a couple of quid.

Pics from Old Ports one here

Re: Heathrow airport by bike

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 10:03am
We fell foul of this last year arriving into T3 with a tandem. Not sure I can answer all your questions because the web pages I got information from seem to have disappeared, but from what I can remember...

This is a temporary arrangement while the tunnels are refurbished. The intention is to bring the service tunnels back into use as a cycle route when the refurbishment is finished. Not sure if its going to be one dedicated tunnel two way for cyclists (which I encountered in 2014) or one way tunnels shared with taxis as before.

For us, the best route in/out was via T5 and Heathrow Express (fast, frequent and free between terminals). Cycle paths to T5 are excellent.

Heathrow seem genuinely keen that their workforce cycle (to do with targets they have for air pollution/CO2 I think). I think the bus you mentioned is primarily for Heathrow workers who are encouraged to park at the Cycle Hub and get the bus in. (Not sure if it's the same bus to actually take your bike in.) It might be worth contacting the Cycle Hub with your questions. http://www.heathrow.com/company/heathrow-jobs/commuting-to-heathrow/cycle-hub

This page http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/08/about-85-million-spent-to-update-heathrow-tunnels-and-reinforce-them-against-heavy-a380s-above/ says the work is to be completed this month, so depending on when you are travelling, you may not have a problem.

Re: Downslink works: Bramber to Shoreham-by-Sea

CTC Forum - On the road - 8 February 2016 - 9:57am
Despite what it says on the engineering drawings, limestone 'dust' has been used as the top surface, so much like the recent Downslink alternative route under the A283 by the river. For drainage, the designer seems to be relying on camber plus permeability of the sub base. Having ridden it yesterday, my main concern is the edges in some parts, which are not to spec. and are going to crumble quickly, as well as presenting a bit of a hazard.
30cmEdgeDrop.jpg

Trains in Ireland

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 9:37am
Hi all,
We have booked our ferry from Holyhead to Dublin and we have our accommodation booked in Kenmare (Kerry). We now have to get 3 cyclists and their bikes from Dublin to Killarney (and back). Our preference is not to use a car but it seems the Irish inter city trains only have space for 2 bikes? Although there seems to be differing opinion on this one?

Is this true?

We are considering hiring a car with rack / van but didn't really want to drive all week.

Anyone got any ideas?

Cheers
Dave

SOLD Hase Pino Semi-Recumbent Tandem

CTC Forums - Bikes For Sale - 8 February 2016 - 9:23am
SOLD Hase Pino Semi-Recumbent Tandem - £1,800 ono - Buyer collect from South Derbyshire (near M1 Jct 24)

pinopic2.jpg

This is a great tandem for all sorts or users and uses. Unlike a traditional tandem it’s controlled from the back seat. The front, Stoker’s, chainring is on a sliding boom which can be adjusted to accommodate adults or older children. For small children (~under 8s) there is an additional crankset (pictured on ground). The recumbent seat has a 3-point harness; the front pedals have elasticated heel loops; and there is an extra freewheel so the stoker can take pedalling breaks. Also, riders’ heads are much closer together making for easy communication when riding.

The frame splits which allows the whole bike to fit into the back of most cars for transport. Splitting and re-assembling takes about 30 minutes each.
This bike is great for touring, commuting, and day rides. It was bought new in 2009, and the spec is very similar to the current version (see Hase website http://hasebikes.com/95-1-Tandem-PINO-ALLROUND.html).

Features & Equipment includes: 7005 aluminium frame, front suspension fork, Shimano Deore rear derailleur, Shimano Tiagra front derailleur, Sram twist shifters, Magura hydraulic front and rear disc brakes, double kickstand, rear rack, Schwalbe Marathon Plus tyres
Categories: Go Cycling

Re: Pump Recommendations

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 9:14am
Thanks both, I have something similar to the road morph for touring which I carry in my panniers, so the lezyne seems a good compliment for day rides

Re: Wheel recommendations for credit card touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 9:10am
My experience with the hand built wheels is that the spokes aren't tensioned as tight, which means that they absorb more, are more comfortable and more suitable to carry a load. The spokes are also less likely to break (IMHO), but they feel sluggish

My experience with the mavics is that the spokes are really tight, transfer power really effectively, and feel really fast, but the spokes are more likely to break and not designed to carry a load. Comfort is not a problem when paired with 28mm tyres

I have Ultegra hubs on the hand built wheels and these roll brilliantly,hence why I'm considering the Ultegra Wheels, at £200 they seem a bargain

The Mavics are great, but already have a pair, and the Ultegra is £300 cheaper

Re: Downslink works: Bramber to Shoreham-by-Sea

CTC Forum - On the road - 8 February 2016 - 8:54am
squeaker wrote:Regarding the surface (there is a spec on the drawings but difficult to read) WSCC Highways said:
I can confirm the drawings are to the specification agreed by the Public Rights of Way department, I can also confirm the dressing specification for this scheme A to E is:
“Dressing - 100mm of Eco-Mix Type 1 (recycled product comprising concrete/brick & primary material such as limestone or granite, produced by Dudmans. Similar products may be available from other sources & are acceptable subject to prior approval). Please note: material must contain no glass.”
Please note: material must contain no glass. What material is "no glass"?

It either does or does not contain something. I think I speak a different language.

Drainage is one of the most important considerations for a path - even more so than surfacing. I hope that is sorted.

Re: Aeropress Coffee Maker

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 8:46am
you guys know the Porlex grinder (small) fits inside the Aeropress body?

Re: Aeropress Coffee Maker

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 8:40am
That's not good to hear H
Think I'd be inclined to take it back.
I bought mine in June last year and has been used daily since. Showing no sign of degradation I can see at the moment. Still a clean way to brew and dispose of grounds. Always used inverted after the first week.
Are there different manufacturers of the Aeropress?

Re: Aeropress Coffee Maker

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 8:19am
The Aeropress. Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Ahem.

I wouldn't give the Aeropress a second chance. Useless after 6 months.

Aside from it's low weight and initial ability to make a clean cup of coffee, I feel as if I have wasted nearly £30. After 6 months the rubber seal has degraded to a point where it leaks in the 'upright' position or collapses in the 'inverted' position. As for the mess it makes: All very well in a campsite but I'm fed up with the extra wiping up I have to do in my kitchen

For the cost of postage, you are welcome to any spares: funnel, chamber, paddle, filters and holder. PM if you'd like anything.

For the extra few grams I'm back to my Bialetti....b

Re: Wheel recommendations for credit card touring

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 8:11am
mnichols wrote:My current wheels are hand built on Ultegra hubs, I forget the rims as I type, but have been told that they are heavy due to the spokes rather than the rims. They are heavy and springy and therefore lose a bit of power. Also I don't need 32 spokes. I only weight 75kilos when I'm touring and carry one change of clothes. When I refer to heavy this is more to do with feel rather than actual weight. On a recent tour I swapped the hand-built wheels for Mavic Kysrium Elites from my carbon bike and this made an 'ell of difference. It flew up the hills - and this was on 2500 mile ride with 100k of climbing.

The Mavics are back on the racer, and now I want something similar, for the Enigma (bought frame only and built up a component at a time - so no wheels)

At the moment, I'm probably going to go with Ultegra 6800 wheelset which I can get for £201 = seems like a bargain

After 3 punctures today in my GP4s, I think I'll go back to GP 4 seasons.

Sounds like you have pretty much sorted what you need. But you raise a question that has always interested me. Do some wheels deflect vertically more than others. Is this all down to rim design (deep = stiff; shallow= flexy)? And how does this affect efficiency and comfort? Anybody know?

Assuming your choice of wheel will be vertically stiff and possibly tending towards a harsh ride, the GP4 Seasons are good at absorbing road chatter and giving a smoother ride. So that might be a good combination.

Re: Pump Recommendations

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 8 February 2016 - 5:14am
I've had a Topeak Road Morph for years and it's bullet proof. You can get 120 psi no problem. I believe the Mountain Morph is the same thing with a bigger piston so if you have large volume, lower pressure tyres it may be a better bet, the Road Morph takes a lot of strokes to pump up my wife's 1 1/2" tyres.

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

CTC Forum - On the road - 7 February 2016 - 11:54pm
jan19 wrote:York Hill is a monster.WAY beyond me. Hubby has done it (once) with the Catfords and says its at the limit of his ability. Kent/Surrey can surprise you with their hills.

Jan It may have well been beyond me, but with the problem of cars on my tail I never had a chance to try. OS marks it as 1 in 7, but I think OS is not very consistent in gradient marking.
Same problem with Chalkpit Lane just north of Oxted, but with so many vehicles going up and down a fairly narrow road there's absolutely no room to "wobble" which makes cycling very difficult at low speeds. I think I would have been able to climb that, but with traffic trying to squeeze round me I've walked it rather than cycled. Coping with motor traffic on hill can be more of a problem than the hill itself.

I know the Downs and sandstone ridges of Surrey/Kent and also Sussex have many hills. I can climb most even if only at a slow speed, but there are one or two I don't. Cycling in the Low Weald is relatively easy.

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

CTC Forum - On the road - 7 February 2016 - 11:34pm
tyreon wrote:What's "Joint Enterprise Rules"? When do they apply? When not? Are these the rules wherein at a murder scene when more than one person is in attendance and no murderer identified,all persons can and are charged with murder?...As in,5 youths going down for a stabbing wherein no one will say who killed X? Or police cannot identify said perpetrator?

Applicable in this case?
If you read through the comments under the road.cc coverage of the incident, there's a fellow who posts as 'Dan S' - Daniel Sawyer, apparently - who appears to have extensive legal knowledge. He summarises the policing and legal aspects on Page 2 of the comments - he contends that it's the law that's the problem, not the police or the CPS (although as the posters on this here thread have suggested, the police investigation certainly seems to have been seriously flawed) - and the answer to your question concerning Joint Enterprise is at the beginning of Page 3 of the comments:

http://road.cc/content/news/177519-vide ... prosecuted

Daniel Sawyer has also set up the petition linked to earlier in this thread by Vantage:

"My petition:

Increase the penalty for failing to provide driver details under s172 RTA 1988

Failing to provide details of a driver involved in an offence is 6pts and [up to] £1000. This can be exploited where the offence alleged carries a higher penalty than that above (e.g. dangerous driving). The penalty for failing to provide should match that of the offence allegedly committed by the driver.

An example is this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35472617 (link is external). A driver deliberately hit a cyclist and drove off. There were two possible drivers and they simply refused to say who was driving. The penalty was 6pts and £150. If the s172 penalty matched the index offence then witholding driver details would cease to be an attractive option. Alternatively, s172 could carry custody where it is wilfully committed."

As Vantage explained, you'll see the petition is awaiting approval.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... ation-info

I don't know anything about this kind of stuff, but when you've got the law preventing justice being done you've got the tail wagging the dog. We need to do something, and hopefully if everybody keeps pushing, this case will be the catalyst.

Re: Pump Recommendations

CTC Forum - Touring & Expedition - 7 February 2016 - 11:08pm
Got the Lezyne - excellent!

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

CTC Forum - On the road - 7 February 2016 - 10:50pm
irc wrote:Not impressed with the priority given to this investigation. The postal 172 notices (with a 28 day limit to respond) to a keeper to identify a driver are appropriate for volume offences like speed cameras. Not for a hit and run with serious injuries.

The 28 days limit only applies to a 172 request by post. A verbal request face to face requires an immediate answer. Given the seriousness of this crime I would have thought a better course of action would be tel contact with the lease company to establish who was actually keeping the vehicle. In this case it would seem it was a garage which gave it to the suspect as a courtesy car. Thereafter police attend at the garage and speak to the appropriate person and make a verbal requirement under S172 for the identity of the driver. Result - user of the car identified in a day or two not a month or three. Get a statement from the garage employee then move the enquiry along.

I'm relieved to hear that it is actually possible to do this- the video suggested that the investigating officer said it wasn't, and she had to follow the 28 day stuff. Clearly she didn't have to do it this way (as I suspected). Which just reinforces my feeling that the whole investigation was a mess. It certainly needs investigating. If the victim's allegations about what happened during the investigation are true, then the force itself ought to be investigated to find out whose decisions caused the whole mess - and the failure to convict someone of some very serious offences (not least of which was failing to stop).

Re: Brutal hit & run - Nottingham

CTC Forum - On the road - 7 February 2016 - 10:24pm
When do they apply?

When it is "bad" people like gangs who are not entitled to the same level of "innocent until proven guilty" as respectable car drivers are.

Or less cynically when a group is involved in a crime and you cant prove which one actually had the murder weapon in their hand, they are all guilty (as they are deemed to have gone out with a joint mind to commit the crime) and cant all get off because the detail of who's hand is beyond proof.
Must say that the hat fits from the moment the cyclist was hit.
Syndicate content

About

CTC

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions