Minion

I'm not convinced that this is the reason. A 105 chain link consists of two bushes that are press fit into the two inner plates, a roller that rotates freely on the outside diameter of these bushes, a pin that rotates freely on the inside diameter of the bushes and two outer plates that are press fit onto the pin. In the top free length, the chain is under pure tension. The rollers carry no load and the force transmission (with outer plates leading) goes Outer Plate -> Pin -> Bush + Inner plate. With outer plates trailing, the direction is reversed, but the relative forces and stresses remain the same (Newton's 3rd Law). On the free length section, direction does not have an effect. At the top of the chainring (assuming all load is coming from one tooth), with the outer plates leading, the force transmission goes chainring tooth -> Roller -> bush -> inner plate. There is no force in the outer plate or pin (actually there will be some force since the load is spread across multiple teeth, but it will be less than the free length forces. At the top of the cassette, with the same assumptions, the transmission goes outer plate -> pin -> bush -> cassette tooth. The reduced force benefits that the outer plate and pin gain at the crank are reversed when it reaches the cassette. Overall, the net drive forces that the outer link and pin experience are the same regardless of direction. If there is a valid reason for having the outer links leading, I suspect it has something to do with what happens to the chain when it passes through the derailleurs and under shifting.The FD in particular applies a sideways force onto the top free length section that is carrying all of the tensile load. If the shift plate is no symmetrically profiled, it might produce greater force in a leading link than in a trailing link.

I read it as reading that he bought them at full price and then wanted to return them at a time when they were on sale.. He still wasn't actually entitled to any refund covered by the act.

I'm afraid you are the one mistaken and you are lucky that the home retailer was ignorant of the CPA. Section 20 covers the right to return goods and says you may return non-faulty goods for full refund if: They were bought through direct marketing and are returned within the the cooling off period.When you bought goods that you couldn't examine before delivery and they weren't what you ordered.The supplier got the order partially right orYou told the supplier you needed the goods for a specifc purpose and within 10 working days you found they were unsuitable for that purpose Consumer Watch blogs on the subject: http://www.iol.co.za...turns-1.1059296 http://www.iol.co.za...ed-up-1.1094320 Full Act: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=99961

It's terse and dismissive of the customer's concerns. I'd be pissed off if I received a reply like that. I'd be in crap if I sent one.

In this case, the CPA would only cover items that are faulty or if they don't meet the requirements you gave them at the time of sale. It does not cover you if you want to return the item because you don't like it or you made a mistake.

I've also read that from various sources. Hard tyres are supposed to lead to too much bouncing when ridden on a rough road surface. Softer tyres lose energy due to flexing of the sidewalls. Presumably there's a sweet spot in the middle for each wheel+tyre combination. I actually set out to test this using a power meter and the Chung Virtual Elevation method (Google it), but my test course wasn't sufficient to get good data. Repeating the tests on a better course are on my list of things to do at some point in the future.

Shimano makes 48T MTB outer chainrings.

The don't appear to have nationwide coverage though.

Perhaps they would have podiumed if they hadn't been smoking.

Looks easy enough from the manual: http://www.polar.fi/e_manuals/RS800CX/Polar_RS800CX_user_manual_English/ch12.html

I think the 1080s are even more expensive. Price goes up the deeper you go. Non-Fircrest tubulars cost the same as non-Firecrest clinchers. FC clinchers cost quite a bit more than FC tubulars and both are more expensive than non-FC wheels.

I'm not sure about the Shova, but most other races will courier the number for around R70. If you look at Speed Services to-door service cost, this is quite a reasonable amount. Can you imagine the hassles there'd be with late numbers, non-delivered numbers etc. if they sent them via normal post (especially for races where the seedings come out less than two weeks before race day).

You can get a new set of non-Firecrest 808 clinchers for around R20k from Wiggle.co.uk, so second hand should be R10k or so. 404s are around R18k. The Firecrest 808 clinchers are around R26k. The 808 FC tubulars are around R20k.

When the brochure promises that there will be food and you plan accordingly, the ride and enjoying of the ride and the route can be significantly affected by the lack of it. I'd hardly say it was a 'nice-to-have' in this case.

Yip, but Shimano chains now seem to have different outer plates with different profiles (as I found out when installing one the other day). I don't think it makes a difference to the strength, but putting it on the wrong way round could affect the shifting.

But why? My point is simply that the reasons for using discs on a bicycle are not all the same as the reasons for using discs on a motor vehicle.

Once you lock up the wheel, the stopping force is reduced since the tyre is sliding. The point at which the wheel starts to lock represents the maximum stopping force and maximum needed braking force. Any braking force above that point isn't doing anything. ABS keeps the tyre just that point of maximum force. It would work just as well on drum or disc brakes. Disc brakes offer better performance on a car since they dissipate heat better and are less susceptible to brake fade etc. They give a more consistent performance under continuous, repeated braking. On most bicycle wheels (with the possible exception of carbon wheels on long descents), the amount of heat accumulated is not an issue.

I did it once in an emergency stop and it scared me shitless so I'm not going to try doing it again. I'm willing to concede that I don't have enough experience with disc brakes to see the benefit on a road bike, though. I'm just a bit sceptical of marketing hype.

Surely if current rim brakes give enough power to lock up a wheel, disc brakes cannot give any more effective power?

R2150 from Chain Reaction Cycles including VAT etc., excluding postage

I took a long social ride from L with my girlfriend. Took lots of pics and stopped at all the water points. Established that the orange drink in the cans was rather vile, but the plain one was pretty inoffensive. No bananas, though

Dammit, man. You ate all our bananas!

Wheels with fewer than 16 spokes, spokes with any thickness dimension greater than 2.4mm or with a section great than 2.5cm are considered non-standard by the UCI. They may only be used if they've passed a rupture test. The UCI keeps a list of wheels that have passed these tests here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjQxNjY&LangId=1 You can only legally use deep section wheels that appear on that list.

You might have to change to something else. Second hand Chorus and Record hubs seem to be pretty scarce these days.

Damn and here I thought it was about the fun people get from riding these events and the sense of achievement that they get from finishing something that is significantly removed from their normal experience. Nevermind organisers not delivering on what they'd promised.