jmaccelari

I have an RM Team. I just take my dropout in to the LBS and match it up. I can NEVER get a frikkin' Raleigh one, but have always managed to find a generic one...

Depends. Again, my understanding: Usually lower than a tube tyre to allow for more grip. I usually pump to around 2.5 bar. You can pump them up to 4/5 bar depending on the tyre, but then you'll get a harder ride. For sand, I pump slightly lower, for mud I pump slightly higher. A UST can be pumped lower than a tube tyre since there is no tube and thus no chance of snake bite punctures. However, if you pump too low, a UST tyre will "burp" on hitting an obstacle since there's not enough pressure to hold the bead to the rim.

As in "All halibut are fish, but not all fish are halibut"? http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/fish.htm

I am not an expert, but this is as I understand it: UST is the bicycle industry tyre standard for tubeless tyres. LUST is a Maxxis marketing acronym: L.U.S.T. TECHNOLOGYLIGHTWEIGHT ULTIMATE SIDEWALL TECHNOLOGY http://www.maxxis.com/Repository/Images/iconLust_Logo.jpgMaxxis Mountain Tubeless tires, certified to UST? standards, now feature Lightweight Ultimate Sidewall Technology (L.U.S.T.). L.U.S.T. offers better puncture resistance, improved air retention, better longevity and lower weight than previous tubeless technologies. Our engineers were not content with simply having one of the best tubeless tires on the market. Instead, they went back to the drawing board, reinvented the tubeless tire from the casing and tread and addressed your concerns about tubeless technology. By adding a thin fabric layer to the sidewall, covered in a special air-tight rubber compound, Maxxis created a casing that lighter, tougher and holds air better. Now, it?s available to you on all of our Cross Country and Freeride Tubeless tires. 15% lighter than our previous tubeless tires Better air retention than competitors? tires Increased sidewall puncture resistance

For tubbies for your mate's road bike, tell him to put in some Doc Blue (it's like slime for tubbies) or carry an inflator, like Vittoria's Pit Stop. Both will plug small holes and get you home. For a tubeless MTB tyre, put some sealant in like Slime or Stan's (everyone has their own preference) before you ride. This will seal up most punctures. If you get a flat on a ride, I carry plugs (miniature ones like the ones you get for car tyres) and a tube. If I can't plug the hole, I open the tyre, remove the tubeless valve by unscrewing it and put in the tube. Firstly, check your tyre for thorns, etc... before putting in the tube. These can often stay in a tubeless tyre and not cause flats due to the sealant plugging their holes up, but if you put in a tube, they'll puncture it immediately.

I ride William Nicoll regularly when commuting, and it's mostly fine. I ride a cyclo-cross bike (previously I rode an MTB), so pavements/parks/verges are acceptable. The problem areas I see are: - Hyde Park with no verges, but the pavement, gutters and park are ridable. - between Sandton Drive and Grosvenor - no verges, but there are long sections of ridable pavement and verge. So as long as you avoid a road bike (which I do from a commuting point of view for the glass on the road as well), most of the road is fine...

Big H, do you cross-reference your little black book?

I think you'd better get yourself read up on doping regulations. You are showing that you really don't know how it works. Your insinuations that it's who you know that's important are utter rubbish. If CSA ever needed to cover up a doping offence it was Nolan. This disproves your theory immediately. There is a massive difference between doping (as in the Hoffman case) and a positive with medical exemption as in this case. This is the second medical positive I have heard of this year and both riders were cleared - so it has nothing to do with team or sponsor. So again your conspiracy theory falls apart... CSA is required to investigate any positive and the rider can either be cleared if he has medical exemption or charged if he does not. This happens both locally and internationally. Note that whether the medical exemption is genuine or not is not part of this discussion, but will probably rate another 20 page rant somewhere.

What k@k is this? Nolan was "hard done by"? He was busted for testosterone, was man enough to admit it and took his punishment? Are you implying that since he is a "development" rider (and an outstanding star for development until his doping incident - I had a lot of respect for the guy) he should have been let off?

IMHO, not until it counts for UCI points and attracts the world champions. Phil Liggett riding on the 7th day was cool, but not street credilicious... So, then, who actually wants street cred? I'd rather ride the Joberg2c...

I have done the Epic (old 970km one) nad the Joberg2c on a hardtail. There were probably 3 places I would have liked a soft tail. I don't like the feel of soft tails and having seen the problems the guys have with the rear suspension, feel the simpler the better - less to go wrong. As for the Epic, if he wants a decent ride with an amazing level of satisfaction, do the Joberg2c. When I finished the Epic I was ****ing happy and swore never to do another. When we finished the Joberg2c I was already thinking about entering again. Value for money the Epic ain't, either... However, I think it is vital for MTB street cred (is that an oxymoron?) to have at least one Epic under one's belt...

The Fortuner is quoted at 1800kg, the Patrol at 2360kg. Heights are 1885mm for the Patrol versus 1790mm for the Fortuner. Width is 1840mm for both. The Patrol's roll over angle is quoted at 49deg. The only figure I could find for the Fortuner is 0deg, so I suppose that figures...

I agree -but this holds for ANY 4x4/SUV... Why then is the Fortuner singled out as being so adept at driving on its roof??? I have a Patrol and have never felt even close to any problem. I had an incident with my Discovery (which was my first 4x4) some years ago where I did something I should not have, but it still managed to stay upright. I bet a Fortuner would have rolled...

It's amazing how as soon as "The Mac" (I loved the "W" Anchor!!!) posted the thread looked dodgy... Thanks Juan for the explanation. I know a lot of people who got screwed over at Illovo, so that ain't a surprise. As for the Polar, it's amazing what happens if you just ask. And it's good to see someone apologising for stuffing up a favour (does that make sense? ). Keep up the good work!

I smell a rat - and it's name is "The Mac"... And it ain't me!!!!

If it's like Sani2C, there will be.

As I said, I don't condone the behaviour. But - assuming she did something to cause the reaction - surely she should have thought of the effect a dead cyclist through her windscreen would have had on her children in that case? I have found that nowadays just as many women are dangerous, testosterone laden maniacs as men. Saying "but she's a LADY" just doesn't cut it on the roads anymore... (And I'm certainly not saying anyone's wife is a testosterone laden maniac either...)

A woman driving a 1.5 tonne car is just as lethal as any man. Why should she be treated differently if she nearly kills someone? I do not condone the described behaviour (assuming it is actually what happened), but if the modern woman wants equality... In other words, I don't care if it was a man, a woman or a pygmy dwarf. And it wasn't me...

Get his vehicle number and report him. Nothing will happen (probably), but something might...