Paging the cyclisti: fixed-gear bikes and brakes

I have a bloody nice CBR600F with an optional custom gell seat as
intended or my 5'4" daughter.
Looking for a new home.

 

Remind me again, how does one spell oxymoron?

 

Hmmm... that might be interesting. I'm not sure what she thinks of
fully-faired sports bikes at the moment, though. I'll have a word.

 

I don't think her legs are that long; she could barely get her feet down
on the Monster.

Maybe, I still think it's too tall. It also probably fails the other
criteria she mentioned: being vaguely practical enough for commuting to
work with a laptop.

 

Thing is, the suspension travel is so long I'm sure it could be lowered
without any particular difficulty. Springs, oil, that kind of shit. It's
only science.

I commute to work with a laptop. On a KTM Duke. What does she do with
it, balance the thing on her head African-style while pulling wheelies?

I have two bikes at the moment - a sportsbike that'll clock up 20k
before the end of the year, and a supermoto type thing that snaps large
pieces of metal if you look at it a bit wrong. Trouble is, as hard as I
try, I can't find a suitable replacement for either. The gixer is a
brilliant (if slightly uncomfortable) long-distance touring weapon and a
perfectly superlative track toy, and the KTM is a brilliant (if licence-
threatening) cross-town commuter (apart from the whole fall-apart-if-
the-day-has-a-y-in-it thing).

That said, there's fucking thousands of bikes out there and everyone has
the capacity to rationalise a shit decision. So never mind the stumpy
legs and arms, get something shit but comfy. Everyone loves a crap but
practical bike, right? Yeah, sorted!

 

I'm trying to work out if you genuinely believe that or whether there's
a wry smile sneaking out from behind your beard.

 

It's like I said, he's happily taking advantage of a poorly regulated
scheme that lets him get away with a free gov. handout.

And good luck to him for that, but let's not try and pretend
otherwise, eh?

 

Champ the benefits cheat - has a certain ring to it, dontcha think?

)

 

From which you deduce that "at least 50% ... for work purposes" can be
relegated to "nobody cares"? Like Ace I doubt that someone of your
integrity really believes that.

 

And the weather. In the dry even old rim brakes will stop pretty
effectively but in the wet discs are much better.

 

It's just another bizarre example of a tax and benefit system evolved beyond
any common sense. It's also suspiciously tree huggy, I'd be more
enthusiastic is it was focussed on obtaining high performance motorcycles.

 

But tyres aren't better in the wet so it might be best to use brakes that
automatically reduce their efficiency in the wet.

 

Mountain biking tends to have lots of changes in surface material - for
example cycling through 3" of mud, then a minute later descending a steep
hill on gravel: but your rims are covered in mud. These kinds of Aaaaaaaaa
moments are why I bought a bike with disc brakes.

 

P just started working for a company which apparently gives 0% motorcycle
loans as a benefit. I don't know if that is a common perk - I've
certainly never met it before.

 

I'm excluded because I'm self employed. Morally should I be allowed the
same cheap bicycles as employees if there's no need to use it for commuting.

 

Heh. My brain hurts trying to work that out.

 

Where did you get that idea from? I rather thought, from the name,
that the idea was to get people cycling to work.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument

 

But AFAIK that's not what the govmt says, so how do you infer it?
That's a genuine question, BTW.

 

I have just had a search onh Hansard and skimmed through the "Behavioural
Impact Analysis" report at
http://www.cycletoworkalliance.org.uk/oldernews.html

None of these sources address the question of efficiency: i.e. how many
people buy a bicycle through the scheme but never use it to cycle to
work. In fact they all seem completely disinterested in finding out the
answer to what would seem to be an important question.

For instance:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-07-15b.215711.h

I think Champ is right in that within government the scheme is seen to be
unquestionably good. The additional red tape to enforce it properly (and
what actually could you do? Take people's bikes away?) would probably
lead to many fewer people signing up for it.

That said, I do think Champ is taking the piss. It's similar to the MP
expenses scandal: the system is set up to allow said piss-taking to
occur, but it doesn't make it moral to do so.

 

I'm sure if you spoke to people in local government round here they'd
disagree. There are actually objectives set to get people out of using
cars for daily commutes and onto bicycles... along with a reduction in
workplace parking spaces.

And you can guess how well that's worked at the new local hospital,
just citing one example..