Muddy

Holy Sh*t, that was quick! Yip it was that one and we all make mistakes but in this instance they actually confirmed to me that this is what they do, use pictures only for illustration purposes. Well at least they fixed it. As Tyler Hamilton taught us - there is never been a more honest man than the one caught cheating

I understand that times are tough for EVERYONE but why do bike shops feel that it is OK to use unethical behavior on their online shops? I was just browsing and I landed on Cycle Lab. I looked at they bikes and saw that they advertised a bike for what seems to be a very good price when you look at the pic. 1x11 drive train with hydraulic disc brakes. Scrolling down to the specs you realize that it is a 3x7 with mechanical brakes. It is not a difficult product pic to get as I found with a 30sec Google so why use an unrelated, clearly upspec'd picture for illustration purposed only when you are not trying to #@$ the uneducated? And then WHY do these unethical businesses make it though the pandemic when hard working honest business owners have to shutdown. Just does not seem right to me. Oh and before the Cycle Lab fans start, yip I will spend my money somewhere else, I'm just sad for those who get F'd over by them because, if they think it is OK to do this imagine what else they will do.

Stolen: GT Zaskar Pro 2014 When: 23 June 2017 Where: Pretoria, Gauteng BIke stolen from front porch of home after thief jumped spiked wall to gain access to premises. Get further details about the incident in the Stolen Bikes section

I think the key to something like this is proper implementation. In the case of Idaho it is a gazetted law and therefore road users know and understand that the cyclist is within his rights to treat a red light as a stop. But I also agree that trying to do this under the blue skies of RSA does not seem feasible. We have too many people with a sense of entitlement, starting with some cyclists.

And NO it is not yet another post about the knob treating the road like he 'owns' it.... Very interesting article about a small experiment on what happens when all cyclist obey traffic laws. Before going 'i told you so' keep in mind that this was done in town i.e. commuter style. But still the Idaho law is very interesting and I think it provides a sensible way of satisfying both sides. It would still be disobeys by Froome wannabee in fear of dropping they average speed during a training ride but in general it would be good if we could have something like this http://www.bicycling.com/rides/traffic-laws/what-happens-when-bicyclists-obey-law

Not even close to being the same as a motor vehicle, which is a necessity for most people. And why you would want the best and most expensive for the sake of having it is beyond me. But as was said previously, willing seller, willing buyer. The truth remains, if you want to incur debt for a toy then interest rates and T&C should be least of your worries.

The practice of financing bicycles should be illegal and is immoral. These 'service' providers feed of the gullibility of people who cannot afford it in the first place. In what world does it make sense to go into debt for something that is a) used for pleasure b) depreciate faster than a burst balloon c) carries the highest risk of breaking down or get stolen than any other belonging I own If any of this makes sense to you then you won't have a problem paying exorbitant prices and interest rates.

Initiatives like these are great. So much more that what CSA ever did for me. What upsets me is the fact that after all the hard work put into a campaign like this you still find way too many cyclist who wants to 'own the road' by riding in the middle of it. How do they then expect the car to Stay Wider of the Rider? Keep up the good work PPA. Hopefully common sense among cyclists will prevail at some stage.

Just want to clarify a few things for those who missed it, a) I made the assumption that the group was on a CL club ride since almost everybody had the CL club kit on. While there was one particularly verbal individual there were lots of shout from the group because I dared to stop, indicating to me that this action is accepted and supported by the whole group. b) I never blamed the club for the actions of its members. c) I did not rant about the fact that they ignore traffic rules. This is a moot point than is not worth the effort. If you feel the need to do so go ahead. My rant is about this being so accepted that there are people who actually abuse those who do actually obey the rules d) When I stopped at the red light I was probably 300 meters in front of the group already after overtaking them.

And I am referring to the incessant need by cyclist to 'own' the road i.e. disobeying the laws. But this rant is not about that per se since that is a futile debate with advocates on both sides. What this rant is concerned with is the fact that there are now groups/individuals that actually 'attack' those who do obey the laws. This Saturday I'm cut off when I cross a green light by a large cycle lab group jumping the red without any hesitation. I saw them coming so took evasive action and went on my merry way, in the same direction as them, but on the gravel since I'm on a MTB on my way to Groenies. I pass the whole group and a few hundred meters further on I'm forced back into the yellow line when the ride-able gravel ended. Another 50 meters further the next light turned red and I proceeded to stop. About 45 seconds later all hell broke loose as I'm been shouted at for stopping at the red light and endangering their (this is the cycle lab group I over took) lives. There was one particularly verbal individual. I waited for the light to turn green and proceeded to ride up to the group and this individual. Now during my brief encounter with him I was able to establish that he is a) physically weak, b) mentally weak and c) intellectually weak. He is physically weak because he thinks he is on a training ride while battling to hold the wheel of the big boned chick in front of him while riding in the middle a 30+ bunch. He is mentally weak since he obviously buckled under peer pressure to the notion that a cyclist 'owns' the road. But most astonishingly he is an individual with a very weak intellect. When I rode up to him and inquired as to why he felt the need to verbally abuse me for obeying the law he proceed to inform me that the fact that a whole bunch broke the law by not stopping at a red light means they were in the right and that I was in the wrong for stopping at a red light. My jaw dropped and after asking him to invite me to his child's funeral when a car driver who made his own law kills him I departed. What scares me is not the fact that people decide when a law applies to them and also how it implies. It also does not scare me that there are many, many of them. What scares me is the fact that he actually think that he is right and conveys this to a youth that joins the club, who then applies this same logic when driving his first car. I do not know what Andrew's affiliation with the club is but I feel sorry for him. He has begged and pleaded multiple times on national TV for cyclist to obey the traffic laws, only to have people like these show him the middle finger. Unfortunately no matter what his involvement he is still associated with the club, even by non cyclists.

I probably said this in another one of the numerous Lance threads - In the context of what happened during that era he has more integrity in his one (only) testicle than any of the whistle blowers.He cheated yes, like the rest. But unlike the others he did not roll over on everybody. What made the little spineless domestique such a 'honest' guy? Being caught out. If people like him and landis were not caught they would not have been so 'honest' would they? Now they are trying to ride the money and fame wagon, in the name of cleaning up the sport. Wonder if they would have been so 'helpful' if they did not make money and got 'excused' for their sins? Think not! Oh and on the bully thing - REALLY! These are grown men. If you are being bullied then you have a weak personality. If you have to run to your wifey every evening to cry because Lance shouted at you? You should still be living with mommy.

Kan nie meer verskil nie. Dis een van die dinge wat groenies so lekker maak. Vir elke tegniese deel is daar n chicken run. Daar is basies n buite en n binne track. Die buite track het geen tegniese obstacle behalwe dalk met die uitsondering van die stuk langs Christina/Botha teen die draad oppad terug. Maar selfs hierdie hoef jy nie te vat om terug te kom by die begin. Jy sal nie n meer beginner friendly venue kry as groenies nie. As jou pelle kla moet hulle dalk net die training wiele laat afhaal want dit is geneig om aan klipped vas te haak.

Yip that is what I would expect to happen. You will probably notice that MC lube comes out of the can in a very soluble state, almost foamy, but after a while the viscosity firms up, either wax or oil. This works for a MC chain since it generates quite a bit of heat, softening the lube, which a bicycle chain does not.

Yip as goose said - cleaning the chain will be a nightmare and it will collect a lot of gunk. Besides viscosity MC lube is different in that it has to cope with high speed and high temperature. Personally I would not use it. Everybody is tempted to use a cheaper alternative, I mean R145+ for a small bottle of lube for a bicycle is crazy, but in the end it is money worth spending. Sure if you are cash strapped then use whatever keeps the wheels rolling but if not the I can guarantee that after trying 3-1 oil, transmission oil, MC lube, Filter oil,Spray & cook, sunflower oil and any other conceivable alternative you will return to bicycle specific products. BTW since a bicycle chain is not a sealed X or O ring design there is very little damage you can do (if any) by using other lube alternatives so experiment all you want and find something that works for you.

It is attitudes like this (me, me, me) that results in minority groups being marginalized. Two very common responses regarding this topic is 'I did not harm you' and 'how many cyclist got killed running red lights'. Well my friend you are very lucky indeed but it is NOT about YOU. It is about the perception created with other road users, it is about promoting this type of behavior among all road users, it is about maintaining credibility when it is needed. Everybody knows we are not talking about a back road at 5 am on a Sunday in Springbok. We are talking about the blatant disregard in front of other road users just because I can and because I won't get killed. Stop thinking about yourself, think about the response (that you help breed) from the driver who just killed your child on his way to school. Think about the fact that the next person that follows your lead, of making up rules based on how you feel, and makes a judgement error (not everybody is as clever as you) and kills somebody, or gets killed. Extract head from ass and THINK about others for a minute, even if it is just your own family.

Let me start out in saying I'm not starting this thread to start a huge debate (but it will). Everybody have their view and this is mine (and I have the hospital records to prove it). Something that was said more than once during the Burry tragedy is that both cyclists and motorists must obey traffic laws. It does not imply guilt on anybody' part but does insinuate that both cyclist and motorist break the law while out on the roads, which is true. I saw these two letter that states the obvious - some cyclist have an attitude that breeds disregard with other road users. http://www.beeld.com/MyBeeld/Briewe/Gee-arrogante-fietsryers-eie-pad-20130106 http://www.beeld.com/MyBeeld/Briewe/Sommige-ander-fietsryers-se-selfsug-bekommer-my-20130106 This is not really about the fact that you agree/disagree or whether you feel others also break the law, it's about common sense. How often have I seen people point out quickly that the other party also broke the law i.e. just as guilty etc. or argue that since you sometime ride 110 km/h in a 100 km/h zone you are just as guilty of breaking the law as the one who rode though a red light. While this might be true it changes nothing about perception. If we always apply the logic of we are all guilty it would mean that since you exceed the speed limit by 10 km/h I am now entitled to kill you, an extreme that illustrates the basic principle that 'wrongs' cannot be measured equally, you need to consider the consequences. People by nature, are followers (monkey see, monkey do) and most will look for any excuse to do something because 'they' did it. Not very long ago we saw taxis starting to use stop streets as yield signs and eventually red traffic lights as well. People were outraged but now, a few years down the line look around you - you will see many shiny family sedans doing the exact same thing. One thing that has not changed though is the fact that we all scream about the lawlessness when that taxi kills a pedestrian but our screams is now somewhat mitigated by the fact that the finger now points both ways. So what exactly am I trying to say here? It's not about being the perfect model citizen who can claim to have never broken the law, it's about applying common sense and think about those coming after you. Most people do not apply the logic to a situation that it deserves. Take the fact that a bicycle weighs ~10kg while a motor vehicle is a few tons have a huge bearing on the outcome of your decisions. If I (the cyclist) make a judgement error on the road worse case I will pay with my life, if I do the same with my car I could potential take another life. The average motorist do not think like that. Their thinking is more in the line of 'well if they can do it so can I'. More than once when I have confronted a motorist who turned in front of me their response has been 'you cyclists ride like you own the road', very rarely do I get a 'I'm sorry'. They will justify their wrongs by pointing out 'yours' even though you were in the right in that particular case. The sad thing is the 'your' wrongs are not really yours but that of the person whose path they crossed days before. So the animosity build up against other arrogant road users are being taken out on me. Although you arrived home save you may have just killed somebody else by telling the angry motorist to F himself or flipping him the bird because he shouted at you to get out the middle of the road. Common sense really. If you don't care about yourself cool but please consider others. You loose a few seconds by stopping at an intersection and you can practice your sprints to make up those seconds. So fourietjie maybe consider that my child might cross the path of the same road users that you alienated before you threaten to 'moer' me for asking you, and your buddies to stop at a red light next time. PS. I'm not perfect and probably break the letter of the law at least once a day. I don't flaunt it or think it is my right.

What shocks me is that people are so 'shocked' by this. Really? This is the society that our government breeds - one of 'bring my AK47' and 'kill the boer'. One where the worst penalty for murder and rape is a few years with possibility of parole. One where police members have to be send on 'anti corruption' courses to make them 'uncorruptable'. One where criminals would shoot children in the back and torture/rape/kill old people. One where the majority of government officials have criminal records. One where changing names is much more important that to help the poor, fight crime and improve living conditions. One where 'take back what belongs to you' have been preached from political podiums for years. 'Criminals going to a new low' is so inappropriate. They have been there, and much lower, but luckily we are going to manguang to shuffle the corruption around a bit. That's going to help us a ton. What a shame that our young children have to be exposed to this.

They, like many others sit on a very high horse. I'm sure there are millions who benefited from the LA foundation who like me don't give a dogs ass about sports illustrated or their opinion.

As I've said many times before - the guy in from of you is an asshole, the guy behind you is an asshole, the guy passing you is an asshole, the guy you pass is an asshole, the guy in the 26' is an asshole, the guy on the 29' is an asshole and soon the guy on the 650 will be an asshole. Build a bridge and carry your own spares over it. For moral support, join a support group.

So is taking time to go to the hardware store during working hours and a whole list of other things I could mention if I was so inclined but that is not really the point now is it. Banning offenders from the sport will allow them to move on and continue their lives doing something else if they felt that taking the risk is worth it. But instead we are proposing making them, and their families, a burden the state (tax payers)? Really? I can think of 1001 things that can be done with my tax money. Let the governing body for the sport handle it with all the money they harvest from their members. Impose a ban. Finish. The thief/doper/cheater is gone.

Ok maybe I'm naive but are we really this caught up that we want to make criminals of dopers because their fans and sponsors expect them to be abnormal. This coming from a country where the police cannot police themselves so that we have REAL criminals that kill and rape women and children run around our streets, where we have a corrupt government that cost the taxpayer many many millions to support or maybe closer to home; where we have a governing body for our sport that does NOTHING for cycle safety!!! Come on lets get real. It's one thing to take away somebodies income by banning them for live from professional sports, it's something totally different to criminalize a father and husband thereby making sure they will have a very difficult time getting ANY job again.

Watching super cycling when Andrew and Owen comments on doping just pisses me off. You have two types of top cyclists - those who got caught and those who have not been caught. Chris Froome? High as a kite doing the TdF. Difference between Lance and Tyler? One got caught and the other not. Funny how everybody is proud of those who 'spoke up' but nobody mentions the fact that they were 'forced' to do so. Do I care? No not really, cycling still remains a spectacular sport. And where I live at the bottom of the food chain you can take all the EPO you want, like any performance enhancing drug it needs serious talent to make a difference, besides coloring you piss. People should get over it, performance enhancing drugs has been around since Adam spiked his libido by eating that apple. He got caught and was booted of the team but did that stop the trend? Apple then, EPO today, who knows what tomorrow. Now where is that IV?

Sure is. Typical rental for a decent bike would be usd90 - 120 per day. The USA is big so you will have to be a bit more specific.

Bit off topic but no, not extreme at all. Actually I would say if it survives your stair test more than once you are save. Airlines don't handle your luggage, it's outsourced to ground handlers. Ground handlers have absolutely no respect for luggage. With 'no' I mean NADA, nothing. These are the people at ORT who break open luggage and steal valuables on a regular basis.

Maybe a bit off topic but I just could not resist - "surely if the Hub is anything to go by they..." Seriously? The place where everybody slower than you is an a-hole, everybody faster than you is an a-hole, everybody who rides 26" is an a-hole, everybody who rides 29" is an a-hole, everybody who likes Armstrong is an a-hole, everybody who hates Armstrong is an a-hole? And there is really somebody out there who would consider this a measuring stick for what? Oh and Phil is my man.