Jump to content

Quagga

Members
  • Posts

    1685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Quagga

  1. Good Idea, I will do that
  2. Nope, walked in on a Saturday and got it and paid cash
  3. Do you still have all the paper work for it? I have a arch that I got from CWC about year ago but can not remember nor do I have the paperwork Wonder what they will say if I take it them ?
  4. Crest and Arch so far
  5. The Arch can go to 125kgf. Crest is 95kgf I tink that the spoke bed area is not thick enough and it is weird that crest and arch have the same thickness there ?
  6. Dont do the arch's you will be waisting your time....get a set of carbon ones from the east for only about 1k more (Landed) than the price of any MK3 Stans rim and build yourself a lekker wide 30mm internal carbon set :-)
  7. I had the Arch and the same thing happened. Seems the new MK3 all crack and most on the drive side on rear wheel
  8. Does the seller know that it is a fake frame?
  9. Since they are not riding side by side, I fail to see what the cyclist is doing "wrong". He is as far left as he feels safe. I wish PPA would spend more time explaining the road rules to the general public
  10. Here is an interesting read. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/26/cyclists-high-visibility-jackets-increase-odds-crash/ High visibility clothing may increase the chances cyclists have an accident rather than keeping them safer, research has suggested. A study of 76 accidents by academics found “no evidence” that those who wore reflective clothing “were at reduced risk”.
  11. Call naveworld, they are very good at repairing it and / or replace or "upgrade" options.
  12. Got the image from here. http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/rachel-stevens-seen-phone-behind-8150037 But I see that action in traffic 10 times a day
  13. How often do you see this in traffic. Not sure how holding it against your ear is illegal but this is ok or do motorist not understand the rule ?
  14. What I meantioned in my post. The cyclist is breaking the law, says he sitting there doing the same. Irony! The bigger problem here is that the motorist does not know the road rules. They think we belong on the pavement, left of the yellow line etc. You never see the PPA posting the road rules that Motorist should know. For excample, how many motorist know that it is ok for them to cross the solid white line when safe to do so in order to keep at least 1M (they just remember 1.5M) away from a cyclist. Wish PPA would rather than hand out visi-bibs, educate motorist in the morning.
  15. Carbon29 At least PPA got the subject correct. “Please OBEY the rules of the road” Maybe someone should post an article “Motorist please LEARN the rules of the road” Most cyclist know the road rules, but it seems that most motorist does not or don’t care. How many sit and text while at a traffic light? Then the excuse “but I am not moving” The same people that will hoot and go bonkers when cyclist ride side by side. If only the same amount was spend teaching motorist the rules of the road as what PPA is spending asking the minority road users to adhere to them. Here are a few pictures of my 14km commute yesterday and this morning. I think PPA is wasting money trying the minority, venerable road user to obey while the rest is doing as they please and hide behind. "BUT CYLCIST SKIPS RED LIGHTS" “RULES are RULES”
  16. So rules are rules, or are rules sometimes rules? You lot want to burn every roag rider at the stake, right? Now IF someone had to ride there and access to that section of trail is removed then everyone want to stone that person again, but if you have a chance of preventing it then the poster is being "uptight" I don't want to lose access to that trail, so where is your anti-roag supporters now? As they clarified, it was an oversight and no one should be on that road. Now the risk of someone riding up or down there and using they excuse "but xyz did it in that video" has been reduced.
  17. There is a sign also as far as I can remember. Why not be thankful that it was now made clear again what the rules are and that we run a slightly lesser chance of someone causing us to loose access to that trail. Please direct your suggestions to the club.
  18. Skubarra please note that I did NOT write with the part about walking. I copied it from the club site. As it says in my post "you can see this on the club site" Please read it properly before attacking my intent. I am pointing out what the club rules are and where you can see the rule. ThermoPhage: when the trail was released there was explicit mention of NOT riding on the road etc. Also on the Facebook page and in more than 2 newsletters. Please read my post properly/
  19. As much as I love this initiative I have to point out that the rules should be obeyed or it must be made clear that they had special permission to do things differently. The club rules state that NO ONE is allowed to ride on the cement road. Yet there is a clear shot of Gert riding down the cement road at 1:29. This can be an indication to others that it is ok to do that, and it was stated to the membesr that if anyone uses that road access to the trail will be revoked. You can see this segment on club site: You start of with a bit of flat and very tame single track till you hit an intersection which crosses the Telkom concrete access road. Please note this is a mandatory portage section as no riding is allowed on or over the concrete road at any time. walk across the road where you will see the start of the infamous Trail X aka Bloemendaaler aka Bloemslang. URL:www.tygerbergmtb.co.za/trails/bloemendal-trailpark.html Edit: Changed the bold sections to make it easier for the Hubbers to see what I wrote and what is on the club site.
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout