MintSauce

Thank you for clarifying, appreciate the info and data provided. And I assume in the cases where it took longer, there was a justifiable reason for it.

I found this thread while looking for feedback on Bikehub Pay usage and experience. I've used it a few times and am very happy with the experience. It even saved me a few thousand rands once, when a seller intentionally (to my mind) hid obvious wear in the way he took pictures of the item being sold. I'm currently rather disappointed at not being able to conclude a deal with a seller who refuses to use it. The seller has many positive reviews and has been on the hub for many years. However, even though I used my positive reviews to once convince a seller with none to send me an expensive suspension fork and let me pay on receipt, that was before Bikehub Pay was available. Now I see no point in leaving things up to chance, no matter how slim that chance, good reviews and years on the hub notwithstanding. The seller claims to have waited several weeks for payouts in the past. So, @Matt, is this a reality for some users? And if so, why is this sometimes the case? Has anyone else experienced issues with payouts or any other reason why you'd refuse to use it?

Cleaning out my storeroom and have a few items available: 2x Fizik Gobi saddles. Both have the typical cracked shell, but definitely usable. 1x set of ODI Ruffian grips and clamps. Pretty worn out, but the clamps might be usable to someone. 1x packet Squirt tubeless sealant 1x set of MBUK bullet schrader valve caps

Like Mr Clelland, I was also on the scene of Idries Sheriff’s homicide, no more than a minute or two after it happened. I was there to hear someone say excitedly “we still have a pulse”, I was there a few moments later when they covered his body, and I was there when they handed a phone to his riding buddy and told her “It’s his wife on the line”. I’ve driven many, many thousands of kilometers in my life and as a result, have had to witness the aftermath of fatal vehicle accidents a couple of times. This one understandably hit hardest. Earlier this year my brother and I spent 3 weeks riding our bicycles in Europe, for a total of some 50 hours. Most of this time was spent on tight and twisty mountain passes. In all that time, in spite of being passed by literally hundreds of cars, we did not suffer a single close pass— not ONE. What we got, were motorists waiting patiently behind us, even when to my mind, it was relatively safe to pass. I was reminded of sitting in a taxi in Amsterdam in 2011 discussing bike culture with the driver. When asked why drivers were so aware of and cautious around cyclists, he said simply that if they hit a cyclist, they were at fault. He explained that in the Netherlands, the law stipulates that if a motorist hits a cyclist, the onus rests on the driver to prove his innocence. This I believe is largely the intention behind the 1 meter passing law— it is not possible to hit a cyclist if you’re 1 meter from him, hence the onus falls on the motorist to prove that he was not at fault. The crucial missing piece of the puzzle here is accountability and accountability rests with the enforcer. Until motorists are held accountable, the behavioural change we need will never materialise. No amount of stay-wider stickers or shirts or ads will do it. The fact is, the authorities are either too busy or simply don’t care, which leads me to my favourite quote from the piece— “There is something deeply wrong about a society where people have to pay to avoid being killed on public roads. But there is something far worse about continuing to die while arguing about whose responsibility it is.” You’d have to be pretty stubborn to not see the benefits a well-managed city improvement district, like the kind mentioned in the article, makes to a suburb. I for one am happy to pay the extra levies. He provides a clear set of ideas of how this model could be transferred to ensure accountability is enforced and cyclists can be made safer. He clearly speaks with some knowledge and experience. It’s beyond me how someone cannot see the value in at least trying and, if his suggestion works, you’d have to be brain-dead to not see the value. As for the argument of whose responsibility it is? We can continue that discussion once we’ve dealt with the more important issue of stopping people dying needlessly.

Think he was a passenger. Driver is in jeans and blue shirt, barely visible behind the runner in black.

The driver came across the middle line and hit Idries head on and then came to a stop on the pavement. He made some excuse about "another car", which is obviously bull****, because if you're not speeding and intoxicated, that is a situation millions of drivers successfully negotiate every day.

There is plenty of space if drivers obey the rules of the road and, more importantly, have respect for the lives of other road users. RIP Idries 🙏

Is it loyalty or a matter of having us by the you know what? I'm in a situation now where I want to replace my Galaxy watch. For health tracking, I want it to be on the same platform as my cycling head unit. I don't like a watch on my arm when cycling, and I find mounting a watch on the bar is not a good solution, meaning the easiest solution is a watch and head unit from the same manufacturer. Now, throw in the not small issue of Discovery Vitality, and you understand why Garmin has me exactly where they want me. This is obviously a Discovery issue as much as it is a Garmin issue, but I have absolutely zero loyalty to either of them.

I sent my old Edge 510 in via courier, which was delivered to Garmin on Monday 30 June. Received a purchase order for a new 530 this morning, at a cost of R4619. I phoned and asked if it was possible to get a 540 instead, and the response was, you can have anything you want at 30% discount. I stuck with the 540, the support rep said she'd update the purchase order, and I received it 2 minutes later. Paid, and hoping the shipping is as effective. Cost was R6159. While I dislike Garmin's sweeping replace vs repair policy, in this instance getting the 30% discount to replace a 10-year-old device that is pretty much worthless, is not too bad. Doing same on e.g. a 1–2-year-old Fenix, is reprehensible on their part. I would've loved to hang on for a 550, the launch of which is supposedly imminent, if you believe the interwebs. Even more so as I haven't needed/been using the Garmin for a few years since its issues started and I have a Galaxy Watch (a truly shite piece of kit, but that's another story). However, I MUST have a device with proper navigation in a couple weeks' time and didn't want to risk delaying for too long. Bird in the hand and all that... 🤷‍♂️

It's fondly referred to by its master as "The Carbon Fibre Bathtub" 😁

I hate to break it to you, but having been part of the winning buggy team, we were not at any point in time assisted by any e-bike. We received many offers, but all were politely declined. We just wanted it more 😉

I once called someone a cheapskate for offering 50% of the advertised price. He was quite offended. I don't understand, if the shoe fits... 🤷‍♂️

My Ultegra 6800 crankset failed in 2018. I happened to be stripping the bike for a proper clean when I spotted the crack. I emailed CWC who supplied the complete groupset in 2014 and, as is to be expected, the warranty claim was declined. I sold the left crankarm and no longer have the broken part, but I bet the saved emails, pictures and proof of purchase will mean nothing. I cannot actually believe Shimano took so long to own up to this. It's actually painful to ride components (that I far prefer to that of other manufacturers) whose maker treats their customers with such utter disdain.

Do you not think this is something that deserves a news article? There is an official release from Shimano and it should really be more visible than a mention in a random thread.

I get the comments that say not enough bike and take a DH bike. Before you do, the question that needs to be asked is what is your intention? Whenever most people think of Whistler, they only think of the park and the lifts. If you're only going to ride the park, then I would agree on taking a DH bike. However, if you've not ridden outside of SA, then the riding outside the park will BLOW. YOUR. MIND! It's so far beyond what we have here. If I were to go again, I would take an adequate bike i.e your Hyrax. That gives you the perfect bike for the stuff outside the park and you can use it to get acquainted with the park. There are tons of amazing trails in the park well within the Hyrax's ability. Once you know your way around, hire a DH bike for 2-4 days to hit the properly gnarly stuff. This is coming from someone that spent 3 weeks in Whistler on a 130/125mm travel bike many moons ago.

More than enough bike. Just keep in mind, Whistler is about much, MUCH more than A-line.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite agree with this sentiment. Where private land is involved, I'm with you 100%. However, I think we need to address the use and general perception of the term 'entitled' and 'entitlement'. It often gets bandied about when referring to us cyclists and is, I believe, used and perceived rather negatively. However, for the case in point I'd like to propose we view it in a different light. Google defines it as the following: "believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment." This is public land we're dealing with. It is effectively owned by the public and managed with the public's tax money. As far as I'm concerned I'm most happy for my tax money to be spent responsibly and frugally in managing it. I'm also happy to pay EXTRA to be able to partake in such activities that require additional expenditure to build, maintain and manage, such as MTB trails. Furthermore, if a large group of the public wishes to partake in some other new activity, then they are in fact entitled to use THEIR public land for such a purpose, whatever that might be. It goes without saying that this activity would need to be within the law, does no harm to the environment or to other users and is in keeping with the general intention that these areas are set aside for the protection thereof and for the enjoyment by ALL members of the public, tax paying or not. So, in this case, I'm happy to consider myself 'entitled'. The problem comes when 'entitlement' is misappropriated. In such a case, perhaps we can agree on a different term? I propose 'd**s' as in: 'He's being a d**s about it' I'm open to suggestions.

Thank you for the link. Clearly I did not visit the Hub regularly for many years. I actually did a quick Google search yesterday to try and verify the story, but did not do a Hub search. ????‍♂️ I scanned through it last night and was left with three take-aways: 1. My source either misrepresented the timeline or I mistook the intended meaning. 2. My opinion on SANParks' handling of the matter is unchanged. 3. In voicing said opinion yesterday, I was evidently flogging a horse the Hub had beaten to death in 2015.

That was what I was told at the time and it came from a very reputable source. A week or two after it opened, I was told that someone had been caught in the time-frame I mentioned and were being criminally charged with poaching. Does this sound like the same incident? (Serious question, I'm open to correction)

I don't disagree with you. And just for the record, again, I share no sympathy for riders caught rogue riding and certainly much less so for those treating rangers disrespectfully.

One incident was Cork Tree. To my knowledge, it happened between SanParks announcing the effective date that it would open and the actual opening date, which were a few weeks apart. Second incident happened on the Rhodes Mem singletrack, just left of the main entrance, shortly before it officially opened.

I know rangers are not the police, but SANParks manages safety and security on the mountain and it is their responsibility to ensure the safety of visitors.

Jesus, calm down. No, I'm not ignorant or intellectually challenged, but based on your initial reply, I was being serious. Your initial reply "Puts their overreaction to Dlamini into context now" in response to "According to a SANPaks spokesperson...SANParks rangers are being abused on a regular basis on the mountain by cyclists" would, to any reasonable human being, read as "Cyclists are abusing the rangers, no wonder they assaulted Dlamini" If your thought process was as you stated in your second reply, then I apologise for reading your typed words at face value and not making assumptions about what you may or may not potentially have meant. As for the escalation and where it started, I'm a Capetonian all my life and a mountain biker for 27 years. I'm only too aware of that. Let me tell you about an event that happened to an acquaintance about 15 years ago. He is an avid cyclist and trail runner who lived on Signal Hill at the time. On one of his early morning runs (not RIDES) he was running either from or to the Kramat on Signal Hill, in the dark, with a headlamp on, when he suddenly heard someone shouting at him, something along the lines of "I'VE GOT YOU! I'VE GOT YOU! YOU'RE NOT GETTING AWAY THIS MORNING!". When he got to the exit of the trail he was met by, at the time the lead ranger, who had assumed he was riding and went into a literal, fuming tirade about "YOU MOUNTAIN BIKERS!!!". It carried on for several minutes with him repeatedly pointing out that he was RUNNING and very clearly did not have a bicycle with him. I still remember him saying that this completely unreasonable, reactionary idiot was actually allowed to carry a gun, which he was at the time. This was at a time when mountain biking was much less popular and there were far, far fewer of us on the mountain. One gets the impression that SANParks sees cyclists riding illegal trails as criminals that must be caught at all costs, yet they don't seem to have the desire to catch muggers and murderers. You hardly ever see a ranger on the mountain, yet there have been two occasions where SANParks have declared that certain trails would be opened to cyclists and have then followed up by posting rangers at those specific points to catch riders. Were the riders I know of who got caught in two such cases on separate trails in the wrong for riding there? Yes, they were. But it speaks volumes of the attitude of SANParks that they would be so petty to go to such lengths to catch (and charge criminally in one case) riders trying to enjoy a trail that's going to be opened anyway in literally a few days. As I see it, it's not the riders who were antagonistic. I'm not in any way condoning riding illegal trails, the assault on the rangers or the bad treatment they endure. In fact, I strongly condemn all of it. I make a point to always interact in a friendly manner with them and to thank them for their work and I ride legal trails only. However, if they want to know why they don't receive respect, they might want to consider how much they give the people they're supposed to be serving.

Is this trolling, sarcasm or ignorance...?

I've never seen anyone console someone with such a pointy finger ???? I saw some comments last night that implied Impey intentionally swerved to block Stannard, but honestly, if you look at overhead footage, I just don't believe that. https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1396093618474074114?s=20