petatodd

I'm intrigued as to how you land a ± R6k frame with only R200 levies which means approximately R165 VAT and R35 admin fee? BSR, I'd imagine, pay VAT on the CIF price plus 10% ito the VAT Act. To pay R165 VAT means your vatable amount is R1,178.57 giving a cost INCLUDING FREIGHT of R1,071.43. That's US$ 133. No wonder the feeling is that importers are ripping the locals. A R12,500 retail price including VAT. That's 11 times his money back! I wonder why every one is not doing it. Or you're not paying your fair share of VAT that legitimate businesses have to pay? I tried to buy a dual suspension frame for R6k landed in SA with VAT paid. I gave up. Although my business imports (non cycling) products I couldn't get close.

I agree. But your price of R6300 is optimistic as a final price landed here. And your warranty is pretty hard to get honoured all the way back to China. There has been more then one thread on this topic. Edit: spelling

My bad. I forgot the baby on a bike without a hellmut. It must have been while under sedation after lobotomy that I read that pearler.

Get ye to the Western Cape before you make silly generalisations like this. We have a guvernmint that does what guvernmints are meant to do. Not many blemishes on the roads around here.

Oh dear. I love my new mission. So many opportunities.

Isn't this how Clint started on the hub? Moronic posts castigating the great and the good?

Or a cyclist riding 2 abreast? But which one? Inside or outside?

Can't exactly see where I have advocated the breaking of any law. Apart from the offending the whiners who moan here on the hub of every single infringement seen on the roads. Last week it was Mr Neon, Saturday it's Team Bonitas, who's next. We know that riding in single file and stopping at the red robot is the law, do we have to whine and whine everytime we see someone who does not do it? Please inform me, from my posts in this thread, where I have advocated the breaking of any law. The problem is there is so little understanding of the ACTUAL law by you and others in these "so and so did wrong" threads that when guys like Niner, Robox and me take the mickey, some all get wound up and start frothing at the mouth bashing the keys on the keyboard that you don't actually get the message. Please read and understand Act NO. 93 OF 1996: NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1996. assented to by President on 22 November 1996 before you start throwing breaking the law at me.

As a cyclist one gets as much agro from impatient motorists for not being in the gutter as they do from not being in single file. BTW, I only ride 2 abreast on jeep track. When it's sometimes 4 or 5 abreast. And sometimes when we are both on the shoulder in the yellow line. And after 40 years of riding in the traffic I think I have developed and retain an acute sense of self preservation. But this incessant criticism of other cyclists doing stuff we don't approve of is a waste of all our time. Does anyone here seriously believe I will cause the death of another cyclist 2km down the road because I didn't come to a complete stop at a red robot? Or because I held my ground where it was not safe for me to ride in the gutter and have that car overtake me where there was not 3 metres of roadway?

As stated in the Act NO. 93 OF 1996: NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1996 Which, incidently, does not require cyclists to ride in the gutter.

If it's not some poor cyclist not riding in the gutter or stopping at the robot (Gee I love that description) then he's posting his ad in the wrong spot. Clearly we are beyond help.

According to many posters here they are NOT. They HAVE to ride in the gutter and are not allowed to ride in a lane. Oh, and many motorists believe that too. And unfortunately many cyclists. See the team bonitas thread. I like your thinking. Obviously why we have so many "Cyclist had fun on his bike today" threads like this one.

So what? They are riding their bikes and have much right to be on the road as ANY other road user. When are you idiots going to understand that a cyclist has as much right to the road as a car? Post a photo? Make me laugh.

Stop> some mistake surely? Doesn't it mean slow down a little? Then go.

Now this is really braking news. Not. Lausanne laboratory gave Armstrong key to beating EPO test USADA chief details discussion with Saugy USADA CEO Travis Tygart believes that the head of the WADA laboratory in Lausanne provided Lance Armstrong with the necessary information to avoid positive tests for EPO in the early part of the last decade. Martial Saugy has already admitted to meeting with Armstrong and US Postal manager Johan Bruyneel to explain how the EPO test worked in 2001, a year after Armstrong returned a ‘suspect sample’ at the Tour de Suisse, which had been tested in Lausanne. Speaking in an interview with Showtime’s 60 Minutes Sports programme on Wednesday evening, Tygart recalled meeting Saugy at a dinner in 2010 and discussing Armstrong’s sample from the 2001 Tour de Suisse. “He [saugy] sat beside me and said there are samples from Lance Armstrong that indicated EPO use. He also told us that he had been instructed by the UCI to meet Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel to explain the EPO testing process,” Tygart said. “I asked him: ‘Did you give Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel the keys to beating the EPO test?’ And he nodded his head yes. He explained it to the two of them. As far as I know, it’s unprecedented. It’s totally inappropriate to bring in an athlete with a suspicious test and explain to them how the EPO test works.” Swiss Cycling president Richard Chassot, meanwhile, moved to defend the reputation of Saugy and the Lausanne laboratory. “In many cases, notably the Landis affair, they haven’t been afraid to put themselves in danger,” Chassot told 20min.ch. “Martial Saugy is a good and serious guy, who has often taken a strong position against doping. “Regarding the samples tested, there are only numbers on a tube. At the laboratory in Lausanne, they couldn’t say to themselves, ‘This is Armstrong’s sample, he can’t be positive.’ If something happened, it’s at UCI level.” Elsewhere in the 60 Minutes interview, Tygart confirmed that USADA had rejected an offer of a donation from Armstrong in excess of $150,000 in 2004, saying: “It was a clear conflict of interest for USADA and we had no hesitation in rejecting that offer.” Tygart also discussed the responsibilities of heading up USADA’s investigation into doping at Armstrong’s US Postal Service team, which continued after a federal investigation of the squad was shelved in February of last year. Tygart said that USADA had a duty to make full and correct use of the funding it received from the US government. “We’re always concerned about the grant we get from the federal government,” Tygart said. “If we’re unwilling to take this case and help this sport move forward, then we’re here for naught. We should shut down. And if they want to shut us down for doing our job on behalf of clean athletes, for clean competition, then shut us down.” http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lausanne-laboratory-gave-armstrong-key-to-beating-epo-test-says-tygart