Cycling UK Forum forum

I guess that we’ll eventually discover similar with BE cars too, that with selection of the right motor and battery energy consumption per distance travelled will significantly drop This is unlikely. Electric vehicles are already extremely efficient at converting energy to wheel power, about 80% https://insideevs.com/news/339502/bevs- ... -the-road/ (sorry, can't find a better source immediately) Batteries are quoted at something like 90%. So there's not much to go at and any improvements will be marginal.

the result will never be what Carlton wants TBH, I am not anything like totally clear what Carlton does want, so I’m not sure! One thing to bear in mind in all this is that a surprisingly high percentage of pensioners have occupational or other non-state pensions on top of their state pension, about 70%, so tinkering with tax rates, let alone any of the exotic measures proposed by Carlton, would impact a lot of people. This is worth a look: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... 95-to-2025 In a nutshell, what it tells you is that the spread of incomes of pensioners is very wide, which means that generalising is unlikely to bring meaningful insight.

The State Pension ‘benefit’ would be progressively reduced as private pension income increased and then tax would apply to their combined value. Put some figures on this proposal. What would be the marginal tax rate your hypothetical pensioner was paying in this scenario? You might be surprised at what you're actually proposing. As pointed out above, this would destroy any incentive to save for a pension.

My point is that the tax system already does what you are talking about, that you don’t need to invent new mechanisms, merely change the tax rate if you think the complete payback point should be lower than it is now. There is no real "payback point". There is a level of additional income such that the tax due on state pension plus extra income becomes coincidentally equal to the value of the state pension. But you will always have greater net income with than without the state pension, so the result will never be what Carlton wants, however much income you have and tax you pay. The fact is, you pay tax on total income, and the more total income, the more tax, but also the more left over. The State Pension is often described here as a benefit. My belief is that that ‘benefit’ will have to become means tested and that the means tested will be an individual’s alternative/private pension entitlement/provision. The State Pension ‘benefit’ would be progressively reduced as private pension income increased and then tax would apply to their combined value. That, as you correctly point out, is rather different to others’ interpretations. Just using myself as the example I know best, I ask myself whether I would have been so keen to pay into my own private pension over all these years if I had been told that having that private income would cost me my state pension. Also, there would be a repetition of the injustice that happens when an old person with their own home needs to enter a

As an aside to earlier debate. I would expect a diesel Yaris, in good fettle driven steadily, to achieve easily 70mpg on those super smooth French motorways, so 600 miles on a tankful certainly very possible. In the distant past, as part of my job, I would occasionally drive a Peugeot 309 pool car fitted with a 1.9 litre diesel engine. It seemed to only sip fuel, almost traveling along on fumes, and 70 mpg plus could well have been its consumption on long runs at a moderate pace. It wasn’t a powerful car but it provided the necessary transport and highlighted that - with the right selections - the fuel consumption of fossil fuel cars can be significantly lowered. I guess that we’ll eventually discover similar with BE cars too, that with selection of the right motor and battery energy consumption per distance travelled will significantly drop.

My point is that the tax system already does what you are talking about, that you don’t need to invent new mechanisms, merely change the tax rate if you think the complete payback point should be lower than it is now. There is no real "payback point". There is a level of additional income such that the tax due on state pension plus extra income becomes coincidentally equal to the value of the state pension. But you will always have greater net income with than without the state pension, so the result will never be what Carlton wants, however much income you have and tax you pay. The fact is, you pay tax on total income, and the more total income, the more tax, but also the more left over. The State Pension is often described here as a benefit. My belief is that that ‘benefit’ will have to become means tested and that the means tested will be an individual’s alternative/private pension entitlement/provision. The State Pension ‘benefit’ would be progressively reduced as private pension income increased and then tax would apply to their combined value. That, as you correctly point out, is rather different to others’ interpretations.

That seems to be a quote from https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/775103 given without supporting evidence. Oh, what a surprise, Al posting content as their own without acknowledgement of the actual source. Would never, ever have expected that.

My point is that the tax system already does what you are talking about, that you don’t need to invent new mechanisms, merely change the tax rate if you think the complete payback point should be lower than it is now. There is no real "payback point". There is a level of additional income such that the tax due on state pension plus extra income becomes coincidentally equal to the value of the state pension. But you will always have greater net income with than without the state pension, so the result will never be what Carlton wants, however much income you have and tax you pay. The fact is, you pay tax on total income, and the more total income, the more tax, but also the more left over.

I’m seeing less choice in bike shops - not that I visit them that often as there isn’t much local to me and I hate going into the city. However, I have a couple of observations: - There is a good market in direct to consumer brands - Prices from the large on-line retailers (whether based in UK or mainland Europe) can be very competitive - Many of the on-line retailers have a very good returns procedure I find with cycling clothes, like most clothing, that I find and stick with brands that fit my body shape, style and the type of cycling I do. I’m fairly “well built” middle aged cyclist ; the kind that wears baggyl shorts over their bibs if they’re doing anything that may involve a coffee stop or interacting with people off the bike. Brands that I have affinity with are: Victory Chimp; Torm; Endura; Sportful; Rapha (sparingly and selectively); Gore; Vaude; ShowerPass; Chapeau (though nothing for a while). Beyond bibs and tights I have padded lightweight Endura liners or Rapha cargo lycra shorts and get on well with both of those. (Though when putting on bibs or tights I note that I generally reach for my Sportful ones.) My wife picked up great Vaude rain -jacket in a sale when on holiday in Germany. Great fit on a lady with curves.

Which model did you get I think there are 3 different ones that work better at slower speeds?

Two things I'd like, which they must be storing (and so could provide) : 1. Details of my entry and exit dates/locations so that I can check that they are correct. 2. A mechanism by which I can correct any errors. I can't find an online way of doing that, nor any references to one. Apart from the complexity it would contain a lot of additional personal information, and I wonder if confidentiality is a factor in it not being available. Jonathan

A rotor truing fork can be replaced with a clean imperial adjustable, metric adjustables don't work Just close the jaws down enough to slip over the rotor in the spot it is slightly out of true.