has anyone got the 'next' issue of Cycling plus?
jonathan2
Posts: 78
Hi, it is in the shops on Friday. Normally I have mine 4 days before it goes on sale to the general public. There is an article on shorts and I want to know which ones to get NOW!!! :evil:
0
Comments
-
Not seen the 'latest edition',but if you've got deep pockets,it has to be Assosjonathan2 wrote:Hi, it is in the shops on Friday. Normally I have mine 4 days before it goes on sale to the general public. There is an article on shorts and I want to know which ones to get NOW!!! :evil:
so many cols,so little time!0 -
Castelli Free £125 10/10.Winner: PTP Vuelta 20070
-
£125, for shorts!! that's silly no matter however you look at it!
Nice though.http://twitter.com/mgalex
www.ogmorevalleywheelers.co.uk
10TT 24:36 25TT: 57:59 50TT: 2:08:11, 100TT: 4:30:05 12hr 204.... unfinished business0 -
I thought £100 plus for one of their winter tops was OTT 'til the wife bought me one,so the next birthday,I got their roubaix tights.Awesome kit,worth every penny.Saving up for the shorts now!Mark Alexander wrote:£125, for shorts!! that's silly no matter however you look at it!
Nice though.so many cols,so little time!0 -
£100 for shorts that's ridiculous. Its only a bit of lycra for crissakes. :shock: :roll:
if it didn't have the label sewn on would you pay that much for shorts ? 0 -
peanut wrote:£100 for shorts that's ridiculous. Its only a bit of lycra for crissakes. :shock: :roll:
if it didn't have the label sewn on would you pay that much for shorts ?
Why do you say £100 for shorts is ridiculous? I paid £3.90 the other night for a bag of crisps. Now that's ridiculous.
I can't speak for the Castellis but I'm sure they are very good.
Why don't you lash out on a pair of Assos and see if you can tell the difference between them and your usual shorts. If you can't sell them on eBay. My bet is that you'll realise that Assos shorts (and probably Castelli) are worth the money.
Don't criticise when you don't know.0 -
70 quid shorts are described as mid ranged pricewise in that article, I think thats getting towards the expensive end personally though. Edit, Ribble were selling last years odds at ends off at 65 .. they ran out of most sizes pretty quickly and now don't appear to have any left.0
-
-
redddraggon wrote:Assos Mille shorts are only £65 from Ribble - can they be beaten?
Not for 65 bills they can't (even at full retail they're worth it)pm0 -
Would be nice if they actually had any left!redddraggon wrote:Assos Mille shorts are only £65 from Ribble - can they be beaten?so many cols,so little time!0 -
Won't help many people, and not quite as cheap, but cyclestore have XLG (over 6 ft 3") + and XS (under 5 ft 2") 2007 still in stock for for 71.54.
http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/productDeta ... goryID=3120 -
What ever happened to Alexa - made in Manchester - top kit !!! Lusso is also good stuff, but doesn't get sold in too many places.0
-
Anybody who pays £125 for a pair of shorts really should be paying a lot more tax."Swearing, it turns out, is big and clever" - Jarvis Cocker0
-
NorwegianBlue wrote:Anybody who pays £125 for a pair of shorts really should be paying a lot more tax.
Why?
It's just a matter of what they want to spend their money on. How do YOU know what they spend and what they don't spend. Or how hard they work to earn money. They might spend £120 on shorts, but they might be buying less fuel for cars, less alcohol, less cigarettes. But thanks for showing us all on how to make you're self look like an idiot in one easy sentence.
I'm happy with my DHB/Decathlon shorts, what i don't know is better doesn't affect me until I can afford to spend that on shorts, until then for me I'll be happy with what i class as comfy
0 -
azzerb wrote:NorwegianBlue wrote:Anybody who pays £125 for a pair of shorts really should be paying a lot more tax.
Why?
It's just a matter of what they want to spend their money on. How do YOU know what they spend and what they don't spend. Or how hard they work to earn money. They might spend £120 on shorts, but they might be buying less fuel for cars, less alcohol, less cigarettes. But thanks for showing us all on how to make you're self look like an idiot in one easy sentence.
I'm happy with my DHB/Decathlon shorts, what i don't know is better doesn't affect me until I can afford to spend that on shorts, until then for me I'll be happy with what i class as comfy
AzzerB is right. I buy expensive bike stuff, but I don't drink (much) alcohol, or drive a car, or have to pay a mortgage, or spend extravagant amounts on holidays.
So why should I pay more Tax because I redistribute my funds differently?0 -
azzerb wrote:NorwegianBlue wrote:Anybody who pays £125 for a pair of shorts really should be paying a lot more tax.
Why?
It's just a matter of what they want to spend their money on. How do YOU know what they spend and what they don't spend. Or how hard they work to earn money. They might spend £120 on shorts, but they might be buying less fuel for cars, less alcohol, less cigarettes. But thanks for showing us all on how to make you're self look like an idiot in one easy sentence.
Tax should be levied not on income, but on disposable income. The old Italian system of increasing the rate of VAT in line with what you may describe as a luxury rating was probably the best system of taxation the world has seen.
For example a small car attracted a low rate of tax say 10%, the more expensive a car the higher the rate of tax. A big flash car would attract tax at something like 50%. This is the way tax should work. Unfortunately the world's politicians and civil servants are overpaid and have overpaid friends, so the poor pay too much tax and the rich pay too little. You only have to look at our supposedly left wing (hah!) prime minister increasing taxes on the low paid recently, to see the truth of this.
The only fair system of tax is to abolish income tax altogether and tax purchases based on a measurement of necessity of the purchase. That way those who can't afford to pay tax don't pay it, those who can afford it do. And there should be no way of reclaiming these taxes. In this way the rich and in particular non-doms would have no easy way of avoiding taxes.
It is an unfortunate fact that the very rich generally pay very little tax because they can afford to pay accountants and tax lawyers to reclaim huge amounts of tax. The worst part of it is that they even manage to make the salaries of these accountants and lawyers tax deductable. The rest of us can't afford to employ these weasels so we mostly pay the full whack of tax, miss out on rebates we are entitled to and essentially spend our hard earned subsidising the super rich."Swearing, it turns out, is big and clever" - Jarvis Cocker0 -
NorwegianBlue wrote:[The only fair system of tax is to abolish income tax altogether and tax purchases based on a measurement of necessity of the purchase.
Yeh, but why put more of a tax on expensive shorts? They are more necessary for me as I commute by bike, and cars should be taxed massively then as most people don't really need a car.0 -
Tax should be levied not on income, but on disposable income. The old Italian system of increasing the rate of VAT in line with what you may describe as a luxury rating was probably the best system of taxation the world has seen.
For example a small car attracted a low rate of tax say 10%, the more expensive a car the higher the rate of tax. A big flash car would attract tax at something like 50%. This is the way tax should work.
Fine in principle, but who decides where everything fits on the all-important "luxury rating" scale? What is a luxury for one person may not be for another, either because of differences in lifestyle or just different opinions. So I might consider fresh, unground coffee beans to be a basic staple while many people would consider it a luxury, because for them instant coffee is the "basic" item. There are some parts of South America where expensive hotels serve Nescafe instant coffee in silver bowls and freshly ground coffee is only for the less well-off! And where would bicycles and cycling gear fit in I wonder? Who decides whether the reason I need a more expensive bike is because I use it more and avoiding maintenance costs is important, or if it is a luxury item? And you can just imagine the scale of the debate about how much of a luxury or a necessity cars in general are...0 -
Personally i'd put cycling shorts under a "merit good" category, so why would they tax a good which yields positive externalities under your system of the rich paying more on purchases?
0 -
Back on topic - Assos shorts £100 plus, club kit shorts (Giordana) £25 - I can't tell the difference!0
