Most Expensive "treat"?

[FastFreddy2 282]

The 'used' bike went and for realistic money. The new owner on seeing the bike, was overjoyed. One happy buyer. 

 

The Talon didn't work out sadly, me mucking around too long ... 

 

The Decathlon "B'twin 520s" I bought shortly after the expensive bike went seems to have ticked every box in a full-suspension mountain bike. I got it 'used' by someone who had only owned it short while, and wanted to upgrade almost immediately. It's got scratches, so I've used it. Nothing near as much as I should though. It/me/tyres seem to be prone to punctures off road whenever I leave tarmac. I may have to invest in some stupidly expensive tyre to help prevent this as currently, 50% of outings include down time for puncture repairs.

 

Anyway, very happy with the bike.

 

I was hoping to add a 2014 Kona Nunu to the collection, but the sellers (Halfords) want more than they are worth. I'm keeping an eye out for an "as new" used one. Seen a few advertised, but most tend to be 200 miles away or the wrong size.  I don't need one, so hopefully I'll continue to be frustrated.   

Edited August 10, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[FastFreddy2 282]

Will I never learn?

After some brief enquiries to a seller, I recently bought another bike off an auction site. It wasn't originally offered with carriage (although the seller regularly ships bikes) but I was immediately offered shipping on my first enquiry so I accepted the deal.

While many wouldn't bother, and even I thought not to, I outlined my previous incident with a couriered bike that got damaged. "Don't worry" I was told, "it'll be suitably packed", and it was - provided the courier kept it upright. The courier didn't, as was obvious from the damage to the packing, and when unpacked, the bike inside. 

I have packed one bike, for shipment, ever. Not one of the group of items shipped could move or rub against another. Recently, I shipped a frame and two other bits. Again, nothing could move, nor rub. Why? Because I expect/expected/anticipated the package to be mistreated while in-transit. Both packaged groups arrived safely, though both recipients would have needed at least 30 minutes to de-protect their respective group of items. 

 

Why is it, "people" think putting a bike in a box is all they need to do, to protect it from the vagaries of poorly paid drivers employed by budget priced shipping companies? And now leave me with the grief of getting my money back - probably - after returning the bike. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FastFreddy2 282]

Well ......

Thanks to several photographs, and a two page letter, the courier has agreed to meet the insurance claim for the damaged bike. I should be getting a full refund, and I've asked the seller to arrange return carriage. I have spent the better part of 6 hours already helping with the insurance claim, with photo's and detailed report, and will have nothing to show for it afterward.

Another bike, identical in many ways, was seen on the auction site a couple of weeks later. Much closer to me, (18 miles) and half the price I paid for the damaged one. I didn't bid in case I ended up with two of course. Now had confirmation the claim is being met, I'm free to find a second 'cheapie' bike for the wet and muddy days. (I should be out getting some exercise.)

Or, as Mrs Freddy keeps telling me, I should just give up on the bike I'm trying to acquire.  

 

 

 

 

[Shyheels 183]

A fellow cyclist, I see. Bicycles would be my most expensive treat as well. I have three with hand made frames - tourers, not racers, and with rather old fashioned, but to me elegant, components.

[FastFreddy2 282]

A fellow cyclist, I see. Bicycles would be my most expensive treat as well. I have three with hand made frames - tourers, not racers, and with rather old fashioned, but to me elegant, components.

Hand-made frames? Jealous, me?  

[Shyheels 183]

They are all well used, but beautiful works of art. 

My extravagance - but then I don't own a car.

[FastFreddy2 282]

I suppose if I didn't own a car, I might also have a much better bike ... But ... I would still worry about damaging it. I've twice bought bikes with retail stickers of £1400+ and not ridden either of them. In fact I sold a pretty exclusive MTB hardtail frame a couple of days ago, because it was too pretty to use. Only had it about 15 years ,,,, 

[Shyheels 183]

A couple of my bikes seemed to pretty to use when I first got them, but they've all been oretty heavily used by now with many thousands of miles on each. The ride as beautfully as they look and they do no good sittng in the shed, burdened with theft proof chains!

[FastFreddy2 282]

 they do no good sittng in the shed, burdened with theft proof chains!

"In the shed"? Good grief man .... 

My £1400 (cost me £1000) Marin Rift Zone circa 1999/2000 spent 5 years either in the hallway where I walked past it several times a day, or was propped up against a lounge wall where I could see it all evening/weekend. Lovely bike.   

I rode it once around the block, and never sat on it again. (Injury). I should have waited another couple of years, and maybe I would have ridden it after all. I do ride again now, but thought I never would... 

[Shyheels 183]

I know what you mean. In a perfect world I would have oodles of space indoors for presenting my bikes as the works of art they are, but alas. One of my tourers has more miles on it than many cars do. I am hoping one day when my ship comes in - presuming same ship is not a garbage scow - to have it stripped down, the rusting old drop-outs replaced with new stainless steel ones, and then resprayed. It is a bicycle that deserves that attention and money, given where all it's taken me. It is  very personal bit of mobile art!

My other two are 5 and 7 years old. Not as high mileage but well used and loved.

Glad to her you're riding again though! 

[Puffer 258]

Are high heels an advantage when riding a bike, much as they are when riding a horse or (according to some) a motorbike?   I guess not with the racing bikes that have fancy pedals and need special shoes, but I'm thinking mainly of the traditional 'pushbike'.)

[FastFreddy2 282]

Heels, while pleasant to wear most other times, are not so good on a bicycle. "In theory", your heel should be able to dip just below the horizontal to the ball of your foot on the full pedal stroke. This allows you to get maximum power on the down stroke, without tending to shorten your Achilles tendon. 

Somewhere in my gallery here, I have a picture of a girl waiting at traffic lights on her bike, and wearing a heel. Somewhere in the 1000 or so images I have 'pending' to add to the galleries, I have a picture (just) of another lady riding her bike in heels too. I suppose gentle riding on a suitable road bike with flat pedals is do-able, but I would favour pushing the bike if wearing a heel...  

[Shyheels 183]

I have seen an immaculately dressed girl in London riding a bicycle and wearing a pair of stiletto knee boots. She looked elegant and she rde elegantly as well, manoeuvring her bicycle through traffic like she knew what she was doing. That said, I can think of better footwear choices for riding - and I say this as someone who does not use clipless pedals, and likes the flexibility of being able to grab my bike and go no matter what I am wearing on my feet.

If you are wearing long slender heels and you misalign your foot during a pedal stroke, you could easily put your heel into the front derailleur or across the line of the chain. This would not be fun. 

[Puffer 258]

I understand the comments about heel-wearing on a bike.   I was thinking of cowboy boots or similar; stilettos would certainly carry a risk of damage - to shoes or to bike.

[Shyheels 183]

Well, I have cycled in hiking boots in the past so I can't see why cowboy boots wouldn't work. Although as I say I have seen women in stiletto boots cycling in London - not many, but some nonetheless. I have even seen, and I apologise for not having the link, high-heeled cycling shoes designed for clipless pedals! I have never seen anyone wearing them - the sales figures must be miniscule- but I have seen them offered. It seems you can get anything these days... (Although I doubt this particular offering came in any larger sizes!) 

Wait - here's a link http://www.visualnews.com/2013/10/10/bringing-sexy-back-biking-high-heeled-biking-shoes/

Oddly enough this is not the pair I was thinking of. Perhaps there is a larger market than I imagined...

Edited October 20, 2015 by Shyheels

[FastFreddy2 282]

I suppose a high heeled shoe would ensure correct foot placement on the pedals? I can't say how many times (I've wasted my breathe) telling people the best push point is the ball of the foot ...

When thinking of ways to surreptitiously wear heels for any distance, a bike was a possible solution. The plan conceived, was to leave my home on bike in trainers, with heels bagged ready to change into. Once away from the general populace, heels would be donned. I would push the bike while strutting around in heels. Should anyone come into view, I could either change back into my trainers and cycle off, or cycle off in heels for a short distance at least. Our weather keeps me off regularly riding, so the concept has not been tried, yet.

Wearing a long boot in winter makes sense of course, but could not be easily removed. Jury is out on this.

[FastFreddy2 282]

They are all well used, but beautiful works of art. 

My extravagance - but then I don't own a car.

Bit of an late query (I'm not that sharp) ...

How do get around the UK? 

[Shyheels 183]

On foot and by bike, if local. Train otherwise. But generally I travel overseas so taking the train to the airport is my usual mode.

[FastFreddy2 282]

Your work must pay well.  The costs of train travel are frightening. 

I had to travel to Newcastle by train some years ago. I think the return journey by rail was £180, even back then. It was cheaper to FLY to Edinburgh.

One of the attractions for me to travel into London used to be the off-peak One Day Travelcard at circa £8. (Might have been £8-60.) A good price for the convenience of tube travel to get around London if more than one shop/mall/event was to be visited. That same ticket is now £18-50. For that money I can travel there twice using my car, and possibly 3 times using Mrs Freddy's car. Fortunately I don't have to be in London during the Mon-Sat daytime period, where parking fees would push me towards a train journey. 

I'm hoping "free" bus-passes are still around when I'm old enough to qualify. It's the one single redeeming aspect of getting older, as far as I can see.

[Shyheels 183]

My work does not pay especially well, but all of my travel expenses are covered and since I seldom go anywhere other than for work I do not worry too much about the cost of railfare or the Heathrow Express. It is not me paying it. 

But yes, the cost of a day ticket to London, with tube, is scary!

[FastFreddy2 282]

Not having to drive does have great benefits, especially work related ones. Arriving after a long car journey can mean arriving tired and worn out. Travelling by train does pretty much take the 'stress' out of travelling though ....

 

One year we elected to travel on holiday from Gatwick. We had the choice of 70 mile journey by car (mostly around the M25) or going by train. The train journey was most attractive because travelling from a station close by, meant a direct route to Gatwick. Simple, or so you'd think ...

There had been some maintenance work going on in London, and some delays had been experienced for some considerable time on consecutive weekends. I rang the train company and was assured there normal service would run the day we were to travel. Our local train arrived, and we started our journey.

Once we got to the main London terminal, we were decanted, to a bus! We had a slow, but mercifully short journey to another main station, where we again joined the train service. Instead of getting back onto what was effectively an express train, we were put on an 'all stations' train. By the time we got to Gatwick, my usually long nails had been bitten to the quick. (Metaphorically speaking.) We arrived with a little time in hand, so all  was well, but it wasn't a journey that was good for my health.  Looking back, that wasn't the worst part of that venture, rather it was the start to the worst outbound journey ever.

 

I've a similar 'nail-biting' train journey reported >> here. <<  The link has been corrected.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Shyheels 183]

I always allow plenty of time to get to the airport, check on line for engineering works and if things look dodgy just get a car and driver to get me there. Gatwick is usually a pretty easy trip. You must have been really unlucky. 

Heathrow can be a complete PITA to get to from where I live: a long train journey, a tube ride to Paddington and then the Heathrow Express. I can out a car and driver on expenses, if I like, but I seldom do so. Drivers tend to chat and I prefer silent me-time. So I take the train and generally hope for the best, with a taxi as my bail out if necessary.

[FastFreddy2 282]

I always allow plenty of time to get to the airport, check on line for engineering works and if things look dodgy just get a car and driver to get me there. Gatwick is usually a pretty easy trip. You must have been really unlucky. 

"Unlucky" is right. As my mother used to say; "If you'd didn't have bad luck, you'd have no luck at all".

At the airport, for the first time ever, our hand luggage was weighed and found to be (a tad) over. We had to leave the queue to put some items in our check-in luggage. Back in the very very very long queue, we were going to miss booking in, but for someone recognising us from our first attempt and calling us forward.

Passing the security to get onto the plane, we were called over and had to empty out hand-luggage for inspection. More delay ... When we explained the train journey, the luggage re-pack, and then being stopped for a security search (all putting our chances of boarding at risk) the fella took some sympathy on us and we were pushed into the front of the long queue for people to get "airside" of the terminal.

To cap it all, we had 40 minutes sitting on the plane before we went anywhere. I've had a 6 and an 18 hour delay at Luton, and once when the fog was bad, a bus trip to Gatwick to get to France, so the 40 minute wait could have been (much) worse...

 

As for 'making enough time', I never leave anything until the last minute as some do. I like UK airports, so always want to get there early. With the holiday journey, I'd even taken the trouble to phone BR to make sure our direct rail journey wasn't jeopardized by maintenance. That year Gatwick got onto my 'not-flying-from' list that still has only one name on it. Apparently things have improved. I'm not the only person with unpleasant experiences of the place, and it seems it has gained something of a reputation... As has Luton, but it's so close, I choose to ignore it.    

[Shyheels 183]

I have my airport routines fine tuned as closely as I can. On line check in, bag drop, lightweight luggage, nothing in any pockets whatsoever when I get to security, no belt, no shoes with metal, nothing to set off the detectors;  no liquids in carry on, lap top and iPad easily accessible to put in the separate screening tray, and boots unlaced while I am in the queue. 

I don't mind airports so much as the crowds in them

[Puffer 258]

I can't say that I entirely agree about the advantages of travelling by car (at least into London) and I guess I am a similar distance from central London as is Freddy.   In my experience, going in by car at any time other than mid-evening or on a Sunday will not only be slow and fraught with traffic delays but also likely to be less economic than the train - especially if only the driver is carried.   Quite apart from the possibility of the congestion charge and the probability of absurd costs of parking, the actual running cost of any car is not just the marginal one of the fuel consumed.   Whatever all-in mileage rate one choses - and I would suggest that 30p is minimal (whilst the Government's Fixed Profit Car Rate is 45p, and the RAC rates rather more) - I doubt it will be less than the cost of a train from almost anywhere within 50 miles of London.   And the Travelcard is still worth buying if more than one or two trips (bus, underground or train) are needed after initial arrival - with the potential for a one-third discount if a Network Card or other instrument is held.

In my case, the distance to Charing Cross is a tad under 40 miles, so a return journey would cost (at 30p/mile) £24.00, without parking etc.   An off-peak return by train costs £13.60 or £17.60 (depending on timing) and an off-peak Travelcard £21.30.   

I go to London infreqently now and, unless accompanied or with lots to carry or travelling at a suitably quiet time, would normally take the train - and (as I have an Old Codger's bus pass) use the bus in central London unless making longer cross-town journeys.

But, in truth a matter of choice and convenience.