Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

Last year's activation fee was R 865 so it's a bit of an increase. But it's in conjunction with VA and you pay THEM. So it follows that it's VA setting those tariffs for the activation. As for the amount of times you need to go - more than 3 per month if you want to keep your discount at 80% (67% for premier membership) less than that and it falls to a 50%discount

What a dumbass. Clutch in BEFORE you pick it up.

Just a pity that the signage is so horribly wrong ito the information it holds.

This. Employ properly first time, and you won't have this problem. Continue employee training, properly, and you won't have this problem. Employ people who have common sense, as well as rational thought patterns, and - guess what - you won't have this problem.

Definitely going ot do it again next year. Even if only the 1/2, due to my knee.

Took the road bike for a quick spin seeing as my mtb is currently out of commission (broken lower linkage) just for a 40 kay round trip to fish hoek and back. Found that my rear wheel needs a complete rebuild. 3 broken spokes, all on the drive side. First one popped 2 km in. 2nd at 25 km and 3rd at 30. Was interesting riding on a wheel with that much wobble. Needless to say I got a bit more training in... and we went a bit shorter than originally planned...

Sheesh. That's one helluva difference there, Iwan

Dave, those Roox cranks are a work of art.

Damn, Joeboy... sorry to hear. Dogs and cats really worm their way into you hearts, don't they? My wife - who up until recently was a cat person through and through - changed her tune when our brak (we don't know wtf he is) started sleeping as close as possible to her when she was pregnant with my little one. Regardless of how hot it was, or how she was feelong, his head would be either on a leg or he would be curled up next to her. Your big girl looks like such an awesome dog. But DJR is right - the needs of the dog come first, and it's unfair of us to make them stay around for longer than their fragile bodies can handle it. 14 years is a very healthy innings for a rottie, and if the onset was as sudden and as severe as you say it was then personally I think it's time to bite the bullet and take the long road to the big kennel in the sky. Really sorry for yiu dude... never an easy decision to make. I've lost 2 dogs to cancer, one tl a car (my mom drove over his back leg when he was in his very late teens) and one to drowning (she was 21 years old and blind as a bat, but she fell into our pool when we were away and the house sitter was looking after the place) so I know what you're going through. It never gets any easier... Whatever you choose - make sure it's the right thing for the dog.

Yep. If you take care of them they last for ages.

Lol. Quite interesting that this argument, when applied to elections on the governmental side of things and the tax paying public, is met with an entirely different reaction. Just an observation.

Yeah dude, true to a certain extent (and that's how I operate as well) However - in an area that I have zero expertise in, and when I'm relying on the expertise of a sales person to sell me the correct item for my needs, I place my trust in that person. In this case, his needs in the bike itself were (or may have been) pretty obvious. Being a guy who is on an xl frame and who was pretty large, the most obvious need would have been something that would have fitted him and dealt with a possible heavy oke. What is the number one item that would have held the majority of the weight? The seatpost. So - if the guy was oversized, the sales person should have taken that into consideration and perhaps advocated the sale of a stronger post, or, if the post on the bike on question was a 27.2, advise against that one and tell him to go for a bike with a 30.9 or 31.8 mm post for the extra strength they offer (I've bent 3 27.2mm seatposts but then I'm not a lightweight either) The guy walking in wouldn't have known about the structural integrity of a seatpost or the virtues of a bigger profile seatpost if he wasn't mechanically minded. Might not have even known it was am option to begin with. So maybe there its a bit of both ito the responsibility. But more leaning towards the salesman as it would have been pretty obvious that the guy is big or not. On the wheels - nothing the oke could have done to educate himself on that front - he asked the lbs to convert the bike to tubeless. A reasonable request. If the tyres were not able to be converted then the salesman should Have told him that and sold another set of tires that were tubeless compatible. So both failings of the lbs. The oke could only really be partially blamed for one of them if he understood things like structural integrity and the lever principle and so on. But then he was asking the lbs and buying from them. Afaik all he asked for here was a bit of advice on which bikes were okay for bigger people. Not the components of them. But the LBS should have picked that up anyway... Anyway - to blame momsen for those failings is completely unreasonable. Some tall okes are skinny, others aren't. And they don't spec their bikes with tubeless at that level - it's an aftermarket conversion which the lbs generally does. I'm sure we could argue this further, but for me it's pretty cut and dried... Not momsen's fault at all.

Hey, it's a pass according to some people

I still reckon a Mercer bike would be the best bet.

That's hardly Momsen's fault re the wheels not sealing if they're not tubeless wheels... that's the LBS making a stuffup or just being plain useless... May be the tires aren't tubeless compatible, may be that the LBS didn't prep the wheels properly, may be something else entirely. Also on the seatpost issue - if he was so tall, why did the LBS not tell him he'd need a stronger seatpost? If he's heavy, then the standard seatpost (which are normally the cheaper, weaker variety designed to handle lightweight cyclists) wouldn't have lasted long at all... Again - not Momsen's fault. It's all with the LBS on that score.

Snap...

And that's why they wanted to get hold of the PPA coffers. Why can't CSA start their own series? A national series which Elite level cyclists enter and get points for, then are able to enter championships through that avenue? Charge a fee for that, get the series going on all levels (junior, Elite, Masters etc) across all disciplines and then get income from sponsorships that will come from individuals and companies wanting their name associated with a national series. TV rights (supersport, for one) and so on? Oh - right. They'd rather go for a company that is cash flush in an attempt to gain control of their income stream. CSA gets lottery funding. CSA needs to use that lottery funding properly. Not mismanage it and spend it all on KFC and Nandos & business class flights when there is a DIRE need for national / provincial level cycling events. Contrary to your belief, CSA MUST make the difference. Proper governance. Proper planning. Proper utilization of the existing properties and proper business management. Only when the CSA is run like the PPA is at the moment will they be able to get past this, though. Stop looking at it as everyone else owing you something, and start looking at it as a body that needs to service the needs of the cyclists which (unfortunately) rely on CSA for funding and guidance for international competition. Start running it like a business. Like the PPA does. Like other cycling bodies do. Use the lottery money to start setting up national and provincial cycling series, instead of going to each event and saying "you must have us here for UCI certification, R 100,000 license fee please" when all the organisers want is a ride that is fun for all (excluding the Epic here)

what time are you riding on sunday? May have to join you for a road session.

LOL. Snap

They are. But it shouldn't stop with them. CSA gets government funding through the National Lottery. It's up to them to ensure the continual development of promising riders that things like the Spur Schools Series, PPA Summer league, Track club rides and many other privately funded non-CSA licensed rides & competitions have highlighted. It's not their job to foster elite-level competitors. That is, or rather SHOULD BE, CSA's job, in conjunction with major sponsors, TV deals etc etc. But CSA's continued maladministration, squandering of funds and inability to put a competitive series together is not doing them ANY favours - why SHOULD a private company sponsor / help to contribute towards a sports body that is intrinsically corrupt and unable to manage its own incomings without leaning on other, more established, cash-flush cycling bodies?

Oh absolutely - but then that wasn't the point of the OP, considering the bikes he's mentioned. A trek Fuel with 120mm at the back and 55mm extra height at the front is going to perform very differently to how it was intended to. And that also would have levelled out the head angle quite a bit. But yeah - you CAN make it work, but at what level does it stop being a viable option, and become just plain stupid? The extra height in the front and the slacker angles would have made climbing quite a bit harder, at least on technical stuff, compared to the Intense he was running before (with the same fork) Taking my old hardtail into consideration - a bike that was designed around a 100mm fork. I slapped that Revelation on there, which was a 150mm fork, and changed to a 40mm stem. Did it descend better? Hell yeah. But it also climbed like a donkey on the technical bits (much like I climb anyway, but still) and I had to keep my weight very far forward to prevent it from lifting up at the slightest provocation - leading to a loss of steering input as well as me coming off the back quite a few times when climbing. But then I just dropped it down to 120mm and that problem went away... I put it back up to 150mm for the downs. The BB started off being low with the 100mm fork on there, so with the 150mm on there it was in the same height range as bikes designed around a fork of that size... Point is though - a bike built around a 170mm fork is going to handle and ride a lot better than a bike designed around 120mm with a 170mm fork shoved in the front. It's just plain physics. There may be cases where this isn't true, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of the time this rings true. So - the effect of the bigger fork on the Trek Fuel (at least THAT much bigger than designed) led to a bike that performed very differently to what the OP was used to, and led to him going back to the old bike with the same travel, but a steeper head angle. If the increase in fork size was more moderate, though, it would be a slightly different story - I'm thinking of the guys putting 140/150mm forks on the Trance / Fuel etc - which lessens the head angle, increases the travel, but doesn't affect the other variables enough to take it over the edge of viability.

AFAIK that was going to be implemented as well.

it has been. Can't get more obvious than "inspect first" Sadly the baboons had other ideas. So the guys in charge of the signs are looking at alternative solutions to ensure the signs stay in place. Until a solution is found, no more are going in - I said this earlier as well...

Until CSA & SASCOC tried to shaft them, yeah. During that time they were also "allowed" sole control over their events and finances, something CSA wanted to change...

Problem is, Tim, in this case it's an extra 50mm travel and the a2c measurement is an extra 5.56 cm - which raises the BB by about 2.5cm, raises the headset by about 4.5cm, and extends the wheelbase by quite a bit. It would also have a dramatic change on the head angle. making it very much unlike the bike it was designed to be..