Tomm

I have used several single speed tensioners and I'm yet to find one that actually tensions the chain better than a normal mech (By the way, rear mech = derailleur). Yes, they're smaller and lighter and less breakable, but in terms of tensioning, mechs are really good - They've just got some really nice big powerful springs in them. Having said that, the Rohloff tensioners are supposed to be good - probably because they're a similar design to a normal mech. The first thing you should do is take a link or two out of your chain. The second thing (if you're still having problems) is to run your chain through the mech properly, but you might have to find some more bits for that (Jockey wheels). And yeah those fixed tensioners aren't particularly good. But I don't think they make the chain more likely to snap - they will move (with or without breaking the mech hanger) but I don't think the chain is in any particular danger.

No, they're really really really annoying. Thank God it'll never happen then

At a guess your modem is incapable of working out which connection (USB vs ethernet) it should use. That's not its job and it won't be designed for using both sockets. I'm surprised it even works at all. You need to plug your PC into the router instead of the modem. This may involved buying a network cable OR a wireless card for your computer, but that will sort it out.

Why the hell would I want to install a program just to print off a coupon?

He means 'whether' - it's a spelling mistake

Nice riding but I do worry about your mate's prospects on a media course if he thinks tilting the camera to 45º makes for good viewing

There must have been something wrong with the axle I reckon, or it wasn't done put together properly. There's no real way that someone beginning trials can destroy an axle in a little over a week. If you get a new one fitted, that'll be the end of it I reckon (until you upgrade that is - it always happens, no-one is satisfied with their bike until it's completely pimped out ).

Yeah, those hubs are the same design as on probably 90% of bikes (from cheap argos bikes to road, XC etc - It's only when you start paying a lot more that you get sealed bearing hubs) so bike shops will know what to do. That seems pretty steep to me, it's only a metal bar and some little balls. But I suppose if it gets it all working again it's worth it

How many people are there who can build wheels but haven't looked inside a hub? I'd guess, in this country, zero. Not only is replacing an axle much quicker, it would also be much cheaper. Seriously, a bit of common sense would go down well before you start suggesting stupid things.

It would be a total pain in the arse to replace the hub - and rebuild the wheel - just to get a new axle, what are you guys on about? The first thing to do would be to phone Onza (Supercycles) up and tell them. They might just be nice and sort you out with a new axle since the bike isn't exactly old. At the very least they ought to be able to sell you one. If it's just a fairly cheap non-sealed hub then the axle is probably just a 110mm x M10 threaded bar? You might be able to get one from any old bike shop. I might be talking rubbish here because I've not dealt with non-sealed hubs in a long time, but it's common sense?

It'll just be the salt then, surely you can just wash it off? Get a lens cleaning cloth and some clean water - You shouldn't really be using anything else on the front of any lens, fingernails are probably not a great idea!

It's not condensation on the inside of the lens is it? If it is, try drying the camera out - a few days in a nice warm (dry) cupboard should do it.

It's IS. I am fairly sure that you can't get any rigid forks with post mounts. Only some sus forks have post mount (I.e. If it's off a trials bike, it will be IS). The bottom two are the post mount ones, not sure what you mean by seatstay mounts? I think they're still classed as IS, but the adapter is bigger for a given disc size (compared to the front).

Anyone would think you'd just got a new fisheye Joe? Seriously though, they're dece

Surely when you pedal though, the stiff links straighten out - at least a bit?

It does. Not good for your skin cancer risk though!

With landscape photography, there is usually some difficulty in creating pictures with the right exposure for the foreground AND the background. It's often a case of either/or. In the olden days ( ) people used graduated filters in front of their cameras with the darker bit over the top of the lens. This makes the sky darker and allows you to expose for the foreground properly. This keeps detail in both the foreground and in the background. This is a Good Thing®. You can get a similar effect in photoshop on a jpeg, by selectively changing the curves of the picture - I.e. make the sky darker. But you will lose detail this way, and the more you darken (or lighten) something, the more detail you will lose. With RAW, though, there is more colour depth and you can use photoshop (or whatever RAW editor) to push the exposure even further away from how it was taken, without as much detail being lost - compared to jpeg. What Dave has done is to use the RAW convertor to make two copies of the picture - one darker than the other. He's then superimposed one on the other one (using layers in p-shop) and probably used a layer mask to let parts of the underneath layer to show through.

I would never have thought to stretch it like that (the left hand side has been stretched), but it works quite well. The rest of the work is fairly basic though, I think you'll find most digital photography people will mess with their photo's to an even greater degree.

^^^ Anyone would think you'd just watched 300. A few of my favourites: Serious ones If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him (Voltaire) Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent (Asimov) 2nd place is the first loser Stupid ones Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos. (Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski) I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman! (Homer Simpson) Homer: Maybe, just once, someone will call me "sir" without adding, "you're making a scene." (Homer again)

Yeah, or Martin "Hawes" as it says on the website That license looks cool, I wondered what my ET would look like with some sus forks on it, might have to give it a try.

OK, it's not a complete waste of time because it's kinda interesting. But I don't think it's testing the right thing. Sweat is a great lubricant. The point of chalk is to keep your hands dry, right? Water is NOT the same composition as sweat - sweat is much, much greasier. I don't care if sweat is 99% water, that extra 1% obviously makes a lot of difference. Also, subjectively, I climb a lot and my sweaty hands hold me back a lot - and chalk definitely helps. There is no doubt at all. I have some liquid chalk anyway - which doesn't even leave any dust on your fingers. Best of both worlds?

Well it basically implies that it's best to use nothing rather than to use chalk. This doesn't take into account the amount of moisture you create whilst climbing which is surely by far the most important factor. It's only on the last line where they say that "alternative methods for drying the fingers are preferable", though it doesn't suggest any. It also says "For the coefficient of friction, largely it is. Is it useless? Possibly not, as a psychological support, although the exact magnitude of this support remains to be evaluated" which is again complete toss as they fail to really acknowledge that the purpose of chalk is to dry your hands, not to be some kind of glue that sticks you to the rock. And then to say that it's only of psychological benefit... It just reads like it's been written by someone who's never climbed in their life.

It blocks your pores so you don't sweat as much, and it probably absorbs some of the sweat too. If you're anything like me (I.e. you sweat buckets) then it's DEFINITELY better to have chalk. That paper is fairly flawed.

Crank extractors on Chain reaction. It's a tool to get your cranks off the bottom bracket axle - it's pretty much impossible to do without one of those tools. N.B. You need a second tool to get the bottom bracket (BB) out or put a new one in (just in case you needed to change BB along with the cranks).

You're missing my point a bit. I was saying that for the same sport (football) and the same surface area (your foot), the grip and the type of shoe you should use depends completely on the surface. I was saying that for the indoor floor, trainers are good because it's smooth. For a grass pitch, the boots would be better. My point is that it all depends on the pad/rim combo - not just one or the other. P.S. Have you ever run on indoor 5-a-side pitches? They're really grippy, I'd say grippier than concrete (As long as they're dry and you're not wearing the wrong shoes and all the rest of it). In terms of maximising surface area, why don't we have foot-long pads? Because they'd be rubbish. Like I said, it's not that simple. I suspect a shiny chrome rim is like trainers on the indoor pitch - very good until it gets a bit wet, then useless. But either way, arguing about it probably isn't gonna give us any answers, we need someone to actually do it.