Mikee

Favourite video maker during my peak trials era. And because wow.

Removed

I've read that page. No such button has appeared.

Anyone know what to do? Youtube said I needed to activate my account and then I would be able to activate the video. I activated the account, but can't see how to sort the video.

Get 2 has been ripped. I have included all the extras as well, so it’s an hour of footage in total. I will set it uploading to YouTube overnight.

Get2, manifesto and trials is dead are the ones I have. I might be able to get on it this weekend and may even be able to upload one to youtube, with my painfully slow internet. Which of the 3 would you chaps like me to prioritise?

I never saw get1, so i'll get on it tonight. Funnily enough, I set aside a few old trials dvds (GET2 included) a few days ago, to rip and upload to my NAS. When I get round to doing it, I'll try to remember to upload them to youtube.

Would a smaller ratchet effectively wear out quicker? Surely tolerances will be tighter, because of how small it is and with less surface area in contact.

I was half tempted to buy this. But decided that I already have enough "trophy" frames, that I will never ride. Is it too good to be ridden?

The older one looks more dependable and has plenty of engagements. The new one is just over the top, in my opinion. And is the extra cost justifiable, over competitors such as Hope?

I haven't seen any old 24" street footage in a way. I forgot how long they used to be, compared to today's bikes.

I'm really struggling with the temptation not to build up mine.

Addiction, brain damage, cancer from one cigarette? What?

I have said it’s not a perfect comparison and myself have pointed out a couple of reasons why, including addiction. But saying that no parallels can be drawn between the two, I think, is not the case. I used cigarettes as an example because someone else brought them up in the beginning of the discussion. I was not saying that cigarettes and red bull are equivalent to each other. I would question the ethics of athletes if they were sponsored by alcoholic drinks, Coca Cola or McDonald’s. Red bull was singled out because of my friend’s personal experience and that they have a massive sports presence. This isn’t a thread about what is worse for human health, it’s about athletes getting paid to promote unhealthy products.

@Mark W Do you realise that 5 cans of red bull would add up to 135g of sugar? The recommended intake for adult men is less than 40g a day. Not to mention the rest of the chemistry set in them. I chose 5 a day for a good reason. I think it is a realistic number for someone who drinks excessive energy drinks. My point is that if taken equally, are energy drinks comparable to cigarettes, in regards to the negative impacts on the human body? I am fully aware that cigarettes are dangerous and I am not saying that drinking the odd red bull is worse then a smoking addiction. I am questioning the effects on the body of one can of red bull vs one cigarette, ignoring addiction.

@Mark W Excessive and repeated smoking is generally just being a smoker and is far more common than excessive and repeated energy drink consumption. So cigarettes of course kill far more people. But in a like for like scenario, would you rather smoke 5 cigarettes a day for a year, or drink 5 red bulls a day for a year? My point is that a person with an energy drink problem is at far more immediate risk, which can be potentially fatal. So in some circumstances, energy drinks more dangerous than smoking. For your question, I simply don't have an answer. It's not as clear cut as being carbon neutral. @MadManMike It wasn't supposed to be a perfect comparison, just a hypothetical like for like. Both are dangerous. Smoking used to be acceptable. And as Ali pointed out earlier in the thread, will energy drinks have a similar stigma in the future? And maybe even get an advertising ban like cigarettes?

It's contractual.

@aener I am not disagreeing with you and understand exactly wat you are saying. But I personally see it, in this scenario, as an elephant and a mouse. I was trying to focus on what I consider the elephant. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/energy-drinks-can-trigger-sudden-heart-attacks-even-in-healthy-young-people-study-finds-10152418.html @MadManMike Absolutely not solely down to extreme sports stuff. But their logo having a massive, wide spread presence is doing them massive favours. Considering their market share. What if cigarette companies came out and said that smoking should be done in moderation. A cig now and then probably isn't doing you much harm either. If a person had a red bull every time someone had a cig, who would die first? Caffeine and sugar are somewhat addictive. I have read stuff from people who had serious energy drink problems, that it was somewhat like giving up smoking.

If athletes were also environmental activists, I think you would have a valid point. But I think for this topic, it's going off the rails a bit. Sport is very much associated with health. This is even one of the headers on a red bull athlete's page "An evolving human who has the intention of inspiring people to lead a healthier lifestyle.". The reason for sponsorship is that people who look up to the athlete are far more likely to buy products that they promote. If this didn't work effectively, it wouldn't be worth the company's investment. Red Bull do not put on these events to get people into sports, that is incidental and just the nature of people watching sports. The purpose is advertising. A quick google search says that in 2016, red bull sold over 6 billion cans of the stuff, had a revenue of 7.4 billion USD (over double the revenue of Monster) and have a significant chunk of the market share over the competitors. Their marketing strategy is obviously genius and working very well. I've already asked the question, but I would like you ask you directly @Mark W. If a cigarette company were in red bull's position, would you have the same opinion?

The environment can effect health, yes. But what sport has anything to do with being environmentally friendly? And what sports are causing large impacts on the environment? I don’t really get your point. The thread is about idolised athletes getting paid to promote an unhealthy product.

Not in the way that sport encourages

Sport is generally associated with health and fitness, not animal welfare and the environment. So I think that’s a different matter.

It was purely hypothetical, if Marlboro held such events. I get your second point, but I think getting paid to promote something “negative” is worse then showing your “negative” lifestyle choices. Promotion vs art in a way.