Search results for:

will do. it will still be built - if you want to come have a look i'm near london fields or i can ride it and meet you.

i have a silver Langdale track frame that i'm thinking of selling. very good condition, 531, recent paint job, 56cm(although i need to check exactly).

I'll sell with miche bb, stronglight headset for £220 and i'lll chuck in stem handbars for another £30.

if you're interested. i'll get photos, exact dimensions and post later this evening.

Nothing wrong with a bit of arrowspoke action for the over 18's

nope - i traded in my dura-ace, open pro's wheels for an aerospoke the other day best thing i've ever done. but yes only if you are over 18 as they are sometimes hard to handle, just the other day mine tired to kill a small child at broadway market. down aerospoke.

i'm curious on what is the cool sound at full pelt? does it really only make a cool sound at full pelt? what is full pelt? can i reach full pelt between home and the local? (i think it is a great bike, great bike - wish i had the cash).
irony (or jealously) could play a large part as all on-onelangsters bike on his pages are pretty crass with aerospokke action galore

murakami has been mentioned a few times but this book of his, even though not cycling related, got me really motivated to train for an ultra. it is great.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/27/books/bk-murakami27

also if you like murakami, this guy is far represents far more 'raw' japanese writing . far better in my mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sailor_Who_Fell_from_Grace_with_the_Sea

another murakami (not the same one) is also good but a lot less tame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_Locker_Babies

I've filed fork dropouts before with no issues. just take it slow & use a file with a rounded profile less than the diameter of the drop out & get filing. Make sure to do it evenly on both arms or your wheel will sit askew

many thanks. i'm off to do some filing.

spacing is fine. it's the width of the actual dropout that is the problem - they are too small for the hub nuts (i think that is what they are called - but i'm meaning the bit that is inserted into the front fork drop outs).

i'm doing up an freddie grub racing bike and I've hit a small problem.

The drop out of the front forks are not wide enough to allow the hub axle to be inserted in them. after looking at sheldon brown and searching the forum i cannot find anything about different size drop outs. and i'm not having the same problems with the rear drop-outs as they are fine.

I'm tempted to file the drops to get the spacing as it is not far off....is this a dangerous option or ok?

help appreciated.

I think is the kind of thinking that ruins a city:

When a city is actually all about this:

designing a utopian city is about the people in it not the colour/height of the buildings (although the people of the city may like a certain colour).

some goods points made oliver shick, although i question your theory that localisation is a good think or actually something that can be achieved realistically.

Studies have shown that travel times are remarkably constant over time and there is some inherent 'budget' that will be filled regardless of how you plan a city. i found this good review of the different studies:

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/tdc/documents/consistency-in-travel-time.pdf

in the canberrra example of master planning the idea was that the city would be a series of cellular communities where people would work and life but unfortunatly people didn't work where they were suppose to. so travel increases, the city needs to cater for demand and pressure is to construct more roads. the idea of putting uses together was there, but in practice, people that use the city seek to maximise their opportunities.

also strangely i quite like to travel myself - getting on a train is enjoyable if it is not full and on time, cycling across town is great fun and walking is relaxing. some would say driving is also enjoyable (i think i got that point from the car appreciation thread).

so i think that we need to admit that travel needs to be actively facilitated but we need to minimise the externalities produced from this travel - hence by strong bias against the car in the urban context.

....

i don't really get crossrail either. seems a little illogical to me given the state of the rest of the system but politics always plays such a strong part in these things. decisions are not made on the basis of rationale / scientific decision making, they are made on the basis of politics and then justified to those that think they are not a good idea by science. This is not good planning in my mind. decisions need to be made on a consultative basis. this allows local involvement in the decision making process and an ownership of both the problems and the outcomes.

good post, nice one.

+1

london is an interesting example of a city but i think it is far from ideal really. walking near oxford street today was hell and it really shouldn't be so bad and difficult to walk along given it's status. the majority of space is given to the cars whereas the majority of movement is walkers.

but i do agree that london is a great city due to the organic nature of its development - unlike planned cities that attempt to order activity. but i like grids and power so i like the idea of planning a city.

on. Yes, it would be brilliant if central london had less cars and more bikes (as long as the cyclists were properly educated, but guess what, most aren't) but it's pretty unlikely, =P

what do you mean pretty unlikely???

example 1 - congestion = 20% less cars over night. cycle trips up 93% in past 6 years. it is not pretty unlikely

example 2 - city of london's ring of steel 25% drop in traffic over one weekend

it has happened. my point again is that you can change a city you just need vision and not people arguing for things to stay the same as they 'must' for no real reason.

what is a 'properly educated cyclist' anyway?

Texas, if you really want to have a proper conversation about town planning, get it into your head that the automobile as a personal form of transport will always be with us, the only difference in the future will be the means of propulsion.

my point is that the 'automobile' is unacceptable in certain circumstances and not really needed if you look at the actual problem and what you are trying to achieve. my examples of new towns are where planners have tried to plan the city to suit the car. The result - FAIL.

you might as well add +100s to your statement as the car lobby is very powerful and represents the majority (eg. have you looked at the transport appraisal advice and noticed values of times recently?). therefore having 'a proper conversation about town planning' is indeed difficult as we are stuck with people saying 'the car is essential so plan you city for it'.

so to answer your question directly - no i'm not going to get it in my head that we're stuck with the car when thinking about an ideal city. but merry christmas to you indeed!

culprit number one. brilliant architect, terrible urbanist.

this is spot-on. terrible urbanist that has a lot to answer for around the world.

arn't rolling cities cycling cities??

oh yes, when i said excellently planned city i didn't mean it was a good place. i prefer melbourne the original capital of aus.

it also looks nice as a plan.....

yep i've been to canberra. i agree it is dull and overrun by cars but the thing about canberra is that it was planned for an additional 400,000 people but never filled up due to socio-political factors. therefore it feels like it is empty and not working but if it was full it would probably would feel good. also the problem with 'cellular cities' (similar to milton keynes) people generally don't work where they are meant to due to buying nice cars.

interesting the architect (and very importantly his wife who was siad to be the brains behind the operation), when kicked off the project, went to syndey and designed a small community north of the river - this is extermely successful and still running today.

I love those images. People just don't realise how much space cars take. I wish they had sound effects too.

I always laugh when people say "imagine if all cars were replaced by cyclists", errrr more space for all. Imagine if all the cyclists were in a car.

imagine america....and you are about there.

one way to make a city better would be to sort out crap weather....

In December 2006, Kazakh President unveiled plans to build , a "giant, transparent tent", over an area of the city. The tent will be 150 metres high, and was designed by Norman Foster. It is expected to take around a year to build.

Astana is also a 'new city' in a kind of weird way. Only half is new build, they want to be a freight-city rather than eco-city and they want to be like berlin rather than canberra (the really strange bit canberra is an excellently planned city).

they will have used it only if it is mountain moon uplifter soap.

http://www.localharvest.org/mountain-moon-uplifter-shampoo-bar-C2162

what about marginal users?

http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/index.php?id=6550

i think that it is better to discuss less specific points as when you argue on minor streetscape points the arguments are far more compelling but also mean that the lines are drawn between cars/peds/cyclists. it is better to discuss what we really want the city to be - quiet, plesant, fun....etc or dull like canberra and Brasilia.

based on a random survey of 1000hh in london -

'Evidence suggests that pedestrians and cyclists do not necessarily conflict, and of those walking or cycling on a shared pavement at least once a month, 3 in 5 (60%) said they are satisfied and less than a third (30%) are dissatisfied. '

although to me that is inconclusive.

does this all come back to how fast should a car go in a city?

adding bike lane in the city doesn't necessary mean sharing space, especially when it's separated from the road most of the time, that just made the road to be focus by motorised vehicle only (such as Bloomsbury).

i didn't mention bike lanes. i meant 'shared' space where pedestrains and cyclists are both allowed. e.g. queen street

Does the idea of shared space necessarily have to rely on a certain degree of tolerance? Or does tolerance develop with 'acclimatisation' to shared spaces?

the answer is unknown and arguable. although the city of london has implemented a fair few with cyclists and pedestrain and it works whereas when mixing cars with pedestrains it has been less successful and, due to lack of ongoing political backing, they implemented traffic lights where shared spaces existed beforehand.

but you need to provide access for both. unless you're living in some fantasy land people are going to need cars for a variety of common purposes, and there's no point planning a city without adequately catering for that.

not everyone has the same ability to replace cars with bicycles as I do.

I don't think you need to provide access for 'both'. in central london there is no need for the private car.

you can provide accessible public transport rather than facilities for non-accessible private transport.

you can also limit freight activities to certain times but provide incentives (to reduce costs so consumer doesn't pay).

planning needs to be sensitive to needs but must also have vision