Mark W

Ditto. Ran SD7 calipers and levers for 2-3 years and they were really good.

"Tell them I was at full lock." He's aware that they have these things called replays, right? I mean, that's not even including the telemetry/data the team would have to give up to the stewards if they requested it. Just read the Autosport article about it: "It took me by surprise, definitely," he said. "I didn't expect a penalty for that. "It was racing. I was really ecstatic at the time because I thought 'wow, that was awesome, I came from miles behind'. "And I was very happy to get the position because that meant I would have got second place at least - it was damage limitation. "I was very surprised to get a penalty for it." willy. Anyway, unrelated but this is pretty hefty:

With how important track position is, and how tight the times are with pitstops, even just doing it a few times to get the undercut on someone would have a pretty big impact on a race simply due to gaining that place and then being able to hold off. Verstappen held Raikonnen off in Spain and Hungary despite Raikonnen being quicker, so if you can eke your way into that position by making those little gains... Sounds like they've been f**king with the limits over the weekend already, incidentally. "Track limits don't mean anything" before FP1, then - using their sensors - they found there were over 100 instances of people exceeding track limits there. They've now gone to the Hungary "3 strikes" rule with them now.

If you're new to trials and don't know what you're after, I wouldn't recommend getting a custom frame simply because there isn't much point if you're not sure what you'd want your frame to be. You'd probably be better off picking up a decent spec second hand bike, getting to grips with that, then gradually changing the parts on it to ones that suit your riding style more once you've got the hang of things.

Taking the whole G "hacksawing a frame up to prove a point" thing to the limit.

http://bsdforever.com/Transmission/#free-edition-dvd BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY

...right. Anyway, radio ban being lifted - I see they can't make their mind up on that at all. Just going from one badly thought out, knee-jerk reaction to another, seemingly.

Can't remember who it was now but I remember seeing an interview with a Premier League player who said that they were told from a very early age that you contest every decision if the ball goes out of play even if you know you were at fault because you never know if you might be able to sway the decision your way. You can see that happening in plenty of games too, so it doesn't seem like it was an isolated thing, although I imagine that's just because it's a cultural thing for them now. The thing about your rule is that there's a clear issue that needs to be solved, but your rule would - to me - unfairly impinge on a lot of things that are either already dealt with in a fair way or shouldn't really be penalised. The timing loop system they used at Hungary would do the job fine if they rolled that out to other tracks, and if they dialled in the accuracy of it. They could just set that to 0 or 1 for the amount of times you're allowed to do it, and you'd have neatly solved the issue of people deliberately going outside track limits to gain an advantage. By contrast, if you look at Vettel's move on Massa at Silverstone where he bombed down the inside, ran onto a wet patch and slid off, he forced Massa off there too because Massa was on the dry line, and was going with the right speed to make that corner. Vettel was the one deemed at fault there, and because he totally f**ked that move up he negatively impacted Massa. Massa lost a load of time there by basically having to stop to get the car to turn back onto track, and also by getting his slicks coated in water. To then get a 5sec penalty doesn't really seem fair to me because, using your example above, it wasn't that he wilfully didn't slow down, he was just forced into that situation and there was no way out of it. Vettel's move was illegal, so Massa getting penalised doesn't make much sense for me. Rosberg/Hamilton at Austria too - the stewards ruled what Rosberg did was illegal and he was penalised for it, and that forced Hamilton into a position where he would then have unfairly been given a 5sec penalty. If something happens that the driver couldn't have been reasonably expected to know was going to happen or predict was going to happen (in that instance, Rosberg was in his blind spot, he left him acres of space and had Rosberg had any intention of turning in it would have never happened), and that was deemed to have been caused by illegal actions from another driver, penalising the blameless driver in that instance as part of a rule designed to penalise people for something that was completely different doesn't make sense to me. People sliding out at T1 and having to follow the access road until T3 seemed like a fair penalty for getting caught out by the damp patches there, and similarly at places like Monza where if you outbrake yourself at the first chicane you've got to trundle down that access road, thread the needle around that bollard-chicane then go back along the access road that seems like a fair penalty (for example Rosberg losing a position to Hamilton there). Basically, my point is that they've got really precise trackers on the cars and already have the technology available to specifically target exploiting track limits to gain an advantage, so they'd be better served doing that rather than adding yet more penalties for random things, especially ones where arguably the driver wasn't necessarily at fault.

That seems kind of odd - BBC are the only place reporting that, and it seems to just be from a Tweet that the Lloyds Twitter account made when someone chatted shit about them doing it just to protect their own interests because their profits were going to get squeezed post-Brexit. They definitely had the plans in place to cut jobs, but the additional ones that have just been reported - from the statement the Lloyds CEO made afterwards - seem to suggest that the need to save money due to the change in interest rates and the consequent drop in money they're going to be making are the main cause. It's literally only the BBC who reported that, and the only 'confirmation' appeared to be that one Tweet? Tried searching for other info about that 'confirmation' and couldn't find anything. Happy to be proved wrong on that point though, just seems weird that the statement and release from Lloyds seem to not mention the pre-referendum timing of it, and literally no other news website mention that aspect?

3000 Lloyds employees losing their jobs partially as a result of predicted economic slow-down due to Brexit - I assume those dudes didn't get the "Just work harder" memo from team Leave post-referendum. EDIT: Also, Owen Smith and his millionaire friends can f**k off with their high court leadership election challenge bullshit too.

I see you're new to this thread Speaking of new, new video from Rich Forne. Things get pretty heavy later in the video after a fairly sloppy, low ledge nibbly intro.

Old: New:

Good shit dude Whereabouts is that red brick flatbank/wall spot? I rode there with Ali aaaaages ago, but haven't found it again since. Had a bit of an explore in centre to try and track it down again last time I was in Manchester but couldn't find it...

Dude, let's both be sub-par together. Let me know when you're out and about next!

New mounts all up in hurrrrr:

Shimano RT76 rotors would be a good one to go for. I smashed mine a good few times and they dealt with it. Good braking surface/material too so the brakes worked well to boot.

You're probably better off heading over to OTN for that. The North American/Canadian dudes are better represented there, and I'm pretty sure there are some guys from Vancouver on there too. Hope you're having a good time over there, been seeing the photos/videos you've been posting on FB and it certainly looks like it

What's that bar angle saying?

This looks great too

I reckon it looks better without - without making the frame taller (which kind of defeats the point of that type of bike), putting a seat on it is going to make it look pretty TMS. As it is it just looks really functional and purposeful. Plus, every bike I've ever seen with a trials bar and stem like that that's had a seat has looked really, really weird. I think 24s get away with it because the proportions of the bike are a bit more suited to it, but for a lower trialsy frame they just look odd.

I seem to remember it's because the MT6s have a bit more pad clearance than the MT7s do. Also, because weight weenie

Possibly - there was so little turn-out for younger people though it didn't make much of a difference. That was what skewed the stuff people were saying after it about how X% of 'young people' voted Remain but Y% of 'old people' voted Leave. If only a small percentage of 'young people' actually bothered to vote then that's all there is to it, really. Older people just look after their own interests more I guess which is fair enough. We're all allowed to vote, if you don't bother then people shafting your interests to benefit their own is the price you pay. Dan - that depends how involved with it you want to get. There are a fair few elections (from council level shit up to general elections), and every councillor, MP, lobbyist, campaigner, etc. started from not being engaged with the whole process.

Some of you who went to Radfest might recognise these - the Alias 20"/20" and 19"/20" demo bikes:

What was that in relation to? The bit where she bitched out of answering his question about Boris?

Luckily with BoJo at Foreign Secretary I assume we'll be balls deep in some kind of nuclear armageddon before the clusterf**k really kicks in.