Feed aggregator

Re: Increasing restrictions on conveying cycles on trains

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 10:54pm
Richard Fairhurst wrote:I believe it'll be 10 hanging spaces on the 9-car trains, 4 hanging spaces on the 5-car trains, and they look like this: http://hitachirail-eu.mynewsdesk.com/im ... ace-323845

Oh no! I'd feared something like that appearing. Those hangers are hideous to use for the touring cyclist who has to unload panniers and other luggage, either on the platform and then carry each bag on plus load the bike, or in a confined space on board with the train swaying about, and then the reverse to get off again. They are presumably designed by someone who looked at their teenager's stripped-down mountain bike and thought all bicycles looked like that. Did it really not occur to them that cyclists taking their machines on long-distance services will generally have luggage with them, and that the luggage will come attached to the vehicle?

Re: Increasing restrictions on conveying cycles on trains

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 10:33pm
tyreon wrote:I'm thinking taking bikes on trains is like more torturous that a stay in Gitmo. Problems,problems. Or no?

Thinking about holidaying in the Hebrides. To get a 'reasonable' return price on the train(s),I book the price online,right? But then can this be done easily when you want the separate(?)companies trains to take the two bikes? Without applying to Oxford for mathematics/computer studies,can booking this transport be readily(easily)done?
If you are getting the night train from London That should have space for at least six bikes.

Re: Casual cycle clothes

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 10:32pm
ArMoRothair wrote:meic wrote:To the shops, to visit friends, Audax or an 1100 mile camping tour of France, I wear these.

http://www.rohan.co.uk/mens-bargain-tra ... e=03598730

I used some elastic cord threaded inside the hem to keep the bottoms from getting overly intimate with the chain.
Both legs (not because I have a tandem but because it would look silly otherwise).

They dry out very rapidly and are quite windproof, which are the important things.

Also worth a look, for an amazing price http://www.decathlon.co.uk/arpenaz-50-m ... 41486.html

At that price you could buy a new pair every week on tour, rather than wash or dry the ones you start with!

Re: Back to Winter weather here on Skye - 25th April

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 10:30pm
Please can you arrange for it to be warm and dry for Heb Celt Festival?

Re: Wild camping in France

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 10:27pm
It will get harder as you get North. Down in the Dordoigne public spaces seemed pretty open and I would even find picnic spots with taps and electricity! They must have decided that it costs more to fence off than to let people use them.
as you go North the population gets denser and fences appear more and more, followed by gates that get locked at night.

There are still opportunities if you keep your eyes open, though dogs seem much more popular there, which limits you from camping near houses, also they get up to walk their dogs insanely early, often before dawn, which defeats the wild camping ethos of arriving late and leaving early. No trouble from any of the dog walkers though, just bemusement, the bike seems to make it all "OK".
You often find toilets attached to the Marie, water in graveyards, smaller town stadiums have grass and often taps as well.
Again in the South you will find nice public toilet facilities open for use but they disappear as you get further North.
In Paris I found a space behind an embankment outside of a major stadium just off a cycle route. Cycle Routes will often have some open space that you can use, even with a bench for picnicking.


On the other hand the Camping Municipal can cost as little as 5 Euro for a cycle camper. With use of shower, charging sockets and washing surfaces for that price. They are mostly closed when I go so I use them for free without the facilities, down South some had even left everything on except for the showers.

Re: Back to Winter weather here on Skye - 25th April

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 10:01pm
Thanks for that. I'm not surprised, it was probably in anticipation of a visit from me!

For many years I've been travelling to NW Scotland for the first week in May. The last five years I've been touring on my bike mainly on the islands. For many of those years I've been lucky with the weather and had a great week. However the last two have been pretty grim (I gave up last year after 3 very windy and wet nights in a tent). This year I've decided to make he most of my flexible time and to keep an eye on the weather and try and get a good spell. If I was a betting man I'd be putting my money on the week of the 7th-14th as being perfect weather (as it is the only week I can't go!). But if you have any local insight as to when would be good I'd love to know!

Re: Increasing restrictions on conveying cycles on trains

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 9:58pm
One thing is that design of trains has moved along from the introduction of the 125s. Both the 125s and the Class 91s/225s on the East Coast mainline are locomotive style trains with a dummy car at the other the other end of the train. On these design of trains passengers are not allowed to travel in the locomotive so effectively there is space for bikes at no cost to passenger space.

The new trains replacing the 125s and 225s have distributed traction with no locomotive. You can see in the pictures that seating goes much closer to the drivers compartment so good bye to the space that was used for bikes.

I consider it lucky that for all the trains I've taken on my bike on in the UK I've not been charged for taking my bike. The alternative could be that to get your bike on your charged the equivalent in the number of spaces taken up. If that was the case and I'd paid I'd expect to always get my bike on.

Re: Casual cycle clothes

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 9:57pm
Have a look around a TK Maxx for general outdoor wear. They often have quick drying trousers with seams that aren't too heavy. Leave some time browse, unless you are a regular. Their racks can be a bit chaotic, and things hard to find. But if you can find something suitable in your size, you are likely to be rewarded with a bargain price.

Also the after season sales at outdoors shops and outfitters can produce some bargains.

Wild camping in France

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 9:56pm
I'm cycling /camping from Bordeaux to Cherbourg this June and hoping to do quite a bit of wild camping on the way. Can anyone tell me how they've found this in France. Legality, acceptability etc.
Also ... whilst you're here! ... has anyone experience of being dropped off by the Bike bus in the south of Bordeaux and successfully crossed the city to head up the peninsula to the ferry to Royan. It's crossing the city that gives me the shivers a bit. Ta and, as usual a bottle of fine malt to the first person who gives out the kind of advice liable to save at least the cost of two bottles of fine malt.

Re: Casual cycle clothes

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 9:56pm
Phil66 wrote:Jeans on the bike just seem to cut me right in half, exactly where I shouldn't be

Cheers all.

It depends on the jeans. I've been commuting 20 miles a day in these http://www.decathlon.co.uk/mens-climbin ... 75777.html - comfortable stretchy lightweight denim; and very important for a man of my age: a comfortable elasticated waist. I love them so much I have three pair.

Re: Casual cycle clothes

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 9:52pm
meic wrote:To the shops, to visit friends, Audax or an 1100 mile camping tour of France, I wear these.

http://www.rohan.co.uk/mens-bargain-tra ... e=03598730

I used some elastic cord threaded inside the hem to keep the bottoms from getting overly intimate with the chain.
Both legs (not because I have a tandem but because it would look silly otherwise).

They dry out very rapidly and are quite windproof, which are the important things.

Also worth a look, for an amazing price http://www.decathlon.co.uk/arpenaz-50-m ... 41486.html

Re: Panniers for weekend tours

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 9:33pm
Great minds think alike.


[emoji86][emoji85][emoji87]

Re: Appropriate words of advice ?

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 9:31pm
It's a while since I've had anything to do with the Metropolitan Police force, but I always found them very aggressive and'forthright'.
In this video the copper is unnecessarily aggressive, but I'm not sure that the cyclist is blameless either.
Anyone constantly calling me 'mate' would hack me off.
I think that the original sin here might have been the cyclist pulling out of the lane without indicating - we can't see this o the video, but if he did pull unexpectedly out in front of the police car (or another vehicle) then that was probable cause of the beep we hear.
The other possibly wider issue is the fast and furious nature of the cycling was seem to see in London where commuting is turning into a list of Strava segments to be beaten. Chill!
The way the police car was used to try to pull the cyclist over was just plain daft - I wouldn't have responded to the siren.

Sent from my P01W using Tapatalk

Re: Panniers for weekend tours

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 9:30pm
mjr wrote:ribblerouser wrote:I've used Carradry 2X10 litre panniers for years, and found them to be very tough and waterproof, seldom take them off the touring/utility bike now.
Do you secure them to the bike while stopped? How? Thanks in advance.
No I never bother, there is a strap on the top which I attach to the rack, sort of belt and braces in case I've forgotten to close the fasteners, which I did once when I was at work and the pannier parted company after a large pothole. If you want to secure panniers a cafe lock would be ideal, it could be looped through panniers and rack, and also helmet.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 9:28pm
Manc33 wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

Its too easy to make all manner of other phenomena look like gravity is causing it. Gravity waves were debunked the day after they were announced, recently. A guy with the equipment showed what causes the effect and it doesn't need to be gravity.
I must have missed that press release from the teams involved - as did the rest of the world.

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket doesn't need air to push against...
It does.
Why would a rocket need air to work?
It's trivial to get a small rocket motor and put it in a vacuum chamber and demonstrate that it generates thrust in a vacuum. Ok, on earth the vacuum won't be very substantial for long - due to the rocket exhaust - but the thrust is demonstrably present in a vacuum.

[XAP]Bob wrote:...in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily.
If they are the size and distance claimed you shouldn't be able to see them.
Can you see something the size of a bus 200+ miles away?
Can you see something the size of a jumbo jet at only 7 miles up?
Yes but barely!
So with that in mind, why do you think you're looking at something far smaller (a satellite) that is more than 28 times further away than a plane?
Dude seriously!

There are such things as telescopes you know. Besides the visual acuity test doesn't require points of light against a dark background to have any defined angular size. I can't see them occlude the moon without a 'scope, but I can see them traverse the night sky quite easily - and in exactly the direction and time predicted by orbital mechanics...

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust.
This isn't physically possible. This is like saying if I grab your collar and pick you up and you grab my collar, we can both rise up, magically lifting (floating) each other upwards. Of course that can't happen, it needs the ground to be there for anyone to lift anyone at all and you can't just "float" up.

Of course not - but If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
If we were on ice, or wheels or any low friction scenario, and I punched you in the face then we'd move away from each other - You being the exhaust and me being the rocket... The rocket doesn't push on the exhaust when it's exhaust, but to make it into exhaust.

[XAP]Bob wrote:What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.
No, all of the momentum is there but in the form of gas floating away into space with the rocket unable to propel anywhere.

So there is a net change in momentum. Hmm - I should probably have added the phrase "conservation of" to each of the properties mentioned. You can magically throw the gas backwards and not experience a reaction force...

[XAP]Bob wrote:The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude.
There isn't any shielding material we know of that can tolerate this, nor is there any material known that can convent and conduct 2,500C heat away from these objects (like the ISS, satellites, rockets and so on).
No one ever answers any of this, they hate that it exists in fact, I mean its pretty obvious nothing can conduct or convect in such an environment but people will carry on pretending as though it is all possible.

Wait - what?
Shielding to tolerate single atom/molecule impacts at 17k mph - that's tiny energy...
And when did anyone mention convection/conduction - to dissipate heat in space you use radiators.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

All air pressure proves is the air is heavier nearer Earth, it certainly doesn't prove gravity or hint that it is there either. The only "hint" would be that Earth is a spinning ball, but this is also an unverifiable and unverified thing.

Didn't mention gravity - just look at the air pressure gradient - fairly soon as you go up (do you believe in up?) the air gets too thin to breath.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.

Here's a few axioms that are not proven:

1. Earth's "ball" shape.
2. Earth's rotation.
3. Gravity.

They aren't axioms. They're not mathematical constructs of any sort.

None of it has real answers, just "what if" answers with a load of maths purpose built around it, none of that maths makes it reality. After all what does maths do apart from measure, calculate and predict? Nothing, in a physical demonstrable way it "proves" not one single thing. It is a tool.
Saying maths proves anything in reality is like saying "Spanners proves nuts exist".

Maths, and theoretical physics, makes predictions. Those predictions are then tested, and if, as with gravitational waves, they are found to be accurate predictions then our confidence in the model that led to the prediction increases. If they don't then we look at the model and improve it.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them.
This isn't possible though. The "exhaust" is the rocket.

Only in the sense that the exhaust is the car. Rocket exhaust is a carefully controlled flow of gas, the rocket motor is carefully designed to extract the greatest possible exchange of momentum between rocket and fuel/exhaust.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory.
From an English dictionary or a scientific dictionary where meanings are purposely changed to confuse people just like with law dictionaries?

Erm - no, where definitions have been stable for centuries.

TPTB simply find something that works and stick with it. Science has its own dictionary so they can craftily call a theory a "fact", everyone knows it can never be, unless proven.

TPTB? The powers that be?
Who they hell are they meant to be?
There is a difference between a theory and a fact. I'll refer you to a dictionary again.
They have quite specific meanings.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets work - relativity works - space works.
In people's minds yes, it works a treat, but verifying any of it is a problem... why is that?

Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.
You rely on orbital mechanics, rockets and the time dilation of relativity any time you get your location from GPS/Glonass/???/???


Re Tesla: I was wrong - Tesla was brilliant, but also unwilling to countenance the theories being developed at the time. He wasn't alone in that belief, but it doesn't make him right.

Re: Panniers for weekend tours

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 9:27pm
mjr wrote:ribblerouser wrote:I've used Carradry 2X10 litre panniers for years, and found them to be very tough and waterproof, seldom take them off the touring/utility bike now.
Do you secure them to the bike while stopped? How? Thanks in advance.String is good. In fact essential for when catches, brackets, straps fail. Very difficult to undo in a hurry if you are trying to steal something - add a wire bike lock so a knife would be no use.
The best string is that nice nylon stuff used for walking boot laces. Doesn't tangle. Always carry string.
.

Re: Groundeffect Bodybag. Any thoughts and where to buy

Cycling UK Forum - Touring & Expedition - 26 April 2016 - 8:53pm
andymiller wrote:
The only problem with the Bodybag is the length - which isn't a problem for flying but could be an issue on trains. The Tardis is a better size for train travel.

True, but nothing to stop you further dismantling the bike (which is necessary with the Tardis anyway) and tying up the loose ends of the Bodybag with some straps or tape.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 8:31pm
[XAP]Bob wrote:That is so absurdly unlikely to happen by chance that it is a confirmed discovery. Now since we have a theory of the universe which predicted these waves would exist - we're fairly confident that that is in fact what we have seen.

Its too easy to make all manner of other phenomena look like gravity is causing it. Gravity waves were debunked the day after they were announced, recently. A guy with the equipment showed what causes the effect and it doesn't need to be gravity.

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket doesn't need air to push against...

It does.

[XAP]Bob wrote:...in your scenario we'd have no satellites, and I can see them quite easily.

If they are the size and distance claimed you shouldn't be able to see them.

Can you see something the size of a bus 200+ miles away?

Can you see something the size of a jumbo jet at only 7 miles up?

Yes but barely!

So with that in mind, why do you think you're looking at something far smaller (a satellite) that is more than 28 times further away than a plane?

Dude seriously!

[XAP]Bob wrote:A rocket pushes against it's own exhaust.

This isn't physically possible. This is like saying if I grab your collar and pick you up and you grab my collar, we can both rise up, magically lifting (floating) each other upwards. Of course that can't happen, it needs the ground to be there for anyone to lift anyone at all and you can't just "float" up.

[XAP]Bob wrote:What your scenario is losing isn't energy, but momentum.

No, all of the momentum is there but in the form of gas floating away into space with the rocket unable to propel anywhere.

[XAP]Bob wrote:The vacuum of space does have particles in it - The ISS orbits at about 220km, and there are single digits of particles per cc at that altitude.

There isn't any shielding material we know of that can tolerate this, nor is there any material known that can convent and conduct 2,500C heat away from these objects (like the ISS, satellites, rockets and so on).

No one ever answers any of this, they hate that it exists in fact, I mean its pretty obvious nothing can conduct or convect in such an environment but people will carry on pretending as though it is all possible.

[XAP]Bob wrote:There is no "atmosphere edge", but the atmosphere peters out... the reason for this is gravity, and it's easily observed by taking a barometer and measuring the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain, from that (and lots of points inbetween) you can predict the data for higher and higher altitudes...

All air pressure proves is the air is heavier nearer Earth, it certainly doesn't prove gravity or hint that it is there either. The only "hint" would be that Earth is a spinning ball, but this is also an unverifiable and unverified thing.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Actually - Mathematics exists in a pure form, the basic premise of maths are called Axioms - they are assumptions which are made. If you try to make an axiom which is incompatible then you choose which one to discard.

Here's a few axioms that are not proven:

1. Earth's "ball" shape.
2. Earth's rotation.
3. Gravity.

None of it has real answers, just "what if" answers with a load of maths purpose built around it, none of that maths makes it reality. After all what does maths do apart from measure, calculate and predict? Nothing, in a physical demonstrable way it "proves" not one single thing. It is a tool.

Saying maths proves anything in reality is like saying "Spanners proves nuts exist".

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets works by pushing against their exhaust, not the air around them.

This isn't possible though. The "exhaust" is the rocket.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Someone needs to educate you on the meaning of the word theory.

From an English dictionary or a scientific dictionary where meanings are purposely changed to confuse people just like with law dictionaries?

TPTB simply find something that works and stick with it. Science has its own dictionary so they can craftily call a theory a "fact", everyone knows it can never be, unless proven.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Tesla was referring to a specific group of people who were building things that didn't work.

You can't just "fit" an answer to it like that and accept it, surely?

Aren't you only saying this to cover it? I mean its what you'd have to say and is typical.

He said "today's scientists" and he meant Einstein, among others.

No offence but you're just sort of fitting the right answer to it there, even if some book claims Tesla was only referring to idiot scientists or whatever it is, why do you believe what that book says? We get told this crap endlessly and encouraged to believe it without question. I am amazed really that you'd make an answer up like that and if you have read in a book somewhere that Tesla didn't mean Einstein, this is the problem, Einstein simply got promoted - it was his wife that wrote the theory of relativity, he is a fraud, a complete and utter fraud, put on a pedestal because he was promoting all the right ideas, whether he knew it or not.

Copernicus is a similar thing where the guy dies before his book gets published!

In that case:

1. How do we know he even took it seriously himself?!

It could have just been mathematical grandstanding to show 'this is the maths for an Earth if it was a ball orbiting the sun, for the sake of doing it'.

2. How do we even know it was Copernicus that wrote it, if he isn't alive to talk about it, follow up on it, or tell us if it is supposed to be taken seriously?

That is a problem to me, that this guy wasn't around afterwards to update people with anything on it, he could have done it as a JOKE for all we know, a demonstration, this is the maths IF Earth were a spinning ball sort of thing.

[XAP]Bob wrote:Rockets work - relativity works - space works.

In people's minds yes, it works a treat, but verifying any of it is a problem... why is that?

I would move this to fun and games myself if I knew how to, or could.

Re: What camera?

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 7:47pm
Vantage wrote:Basically an audiot overtaking me by driving in excess of 30mph on the footpath just to beat me to the lights. I was taking the lane to prevent close passes on a short stretch of road where one lane was closed due to canal works....reinforcing the canal banking.
A very heated argument developed between the driver and I when I caught up with him.
Fuming isn't the word.

Reminds me of an encounter when we were cycling along with a car waiting patiently to overtake. We heard a squeal of brakes, burning rubber, next thing a car undertakes us and the following car by driving along the inside grass verge which fortunately was quite wide. He grins at us and gives a sheepish wave as he goes past. Clearly he was distracted and almost ran into the back of the following car and took to the grass verge to avoid a collision.

Re: Poor maintenance

Cycling UK Forum - On the road - 26 April 2016 - 7:35pm
Flinders wrote:I'm female, actually


Ooops. So sorry! (I mean, sorry to have made assumptions, rather than sorry you're female... natch.)
Syndicate content
 
  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cycling UK is a trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no: 25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales charity no: 1147607 and in Scotland charity no: sco42541. Registered office: Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9JX.

Copyright © CTC 2016

Terms and Conditions