Drugs in other sports and the media.

1184185187189190194

Posts

  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    EK's shoes were special ones, but the 4%s/Next% ones are available for all to buy. But the ones from the weekend may yet make it into mainstream.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    The fun thing about the 1:59 is that everyone complaining about the shoe tech are doing Nike's marketing for them. If they just go out and say "4% gain" everyone says "marketing bollox". But Ross Tucker going out and saying "4% gain, CHEATING!" sells them like mad :-D
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • gsk82gsk82 Posts: 2,390
    The fun thing about the 1:59 is that everyone complaining about the shoe tech are doing Nike's marketing for them. If they just go out and say "4% gain" everyone says "marketing bollox". But Ross Tucker going out and saying "4% gain, CHEATING!" sells them like mad :-D

    But no one cares what Ross Tucker says
    "Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago
  • ProssPross Posts: 21,548
    larkim wrote:
    EK's shoes were special ones, but the 4%s/Next% ones are available for all to buy. But the ones from the weekend may yet make it into mainstream.

    Bound to happen surely? The 4% came out of the shoe developed for the original attempt. As I said before the main reason for the challenge was marketing.
  • m.r.m.m.r.m. Posts: 1,636
    larkim wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    That's the key, they improve efficiency (providing your running form works with them) but mainly from the cushioning effect they provide so your legs stay fresher for longer and your form doesn't go out the window. The carbon plates have a bit of a spring effect but the cushioning is the key. Whilst the version he ran in this time are brand new the previous version, which is the second / third iteration, has been developed since the original Breaking 2 attempt are widely available. Pretty much everyone at the pointy end of local distance races are wearing them and whilst they are thought of as eye wateringly expensive for a pair of running shoes by most people (especially as the first version only lasted around 100 miles or so for some people) they are a lot more obtainable than a lot of the high tech equipment in other sports.
    They cost £240 a pair. Which, for the level of runner who would need the gains, is not much.

    I almost bought some a couple of months back, I tried a pair and they feel so comfortable, but thought I'd look a censored running my pace in them. Then I decided I didn't care and if they allow me to preserve my legs longer and recover more quickly then why not? I think Santa might be bringing me a pair of I'm a good boy. After all, I'm out there 75% longer than the likes of Kipchoge so they're more benefit to me than those part-timers!
    I'm resisting them on moral grounds :-) They might mean I get beaten in races by people that I would usually finish ahead of, but I've worked hard to bring my 10k / HM / Marathon times down and it seems a little daft to just bring those times again by spending £240 on shoes. Perversly, I might be more enthusaistic about buying them as a training shoe if they kept me fresher for longer so I could do more miles in training, but on race day it is just me and my legs against the clock and I don't want any artificial boosts.
    Then why use shoes at all :wink: or clipless pedals on a bike?
    Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!
    PTP Champion 2019
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,632
    m.r.m. wrote:
    larkim wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    That's the key, they improve efficiency (providing your running form works with them) but mainly from the cushioning effect they provide so your legs stay fresher for longer and your form doesn't go out the window. The carbon plates have a bit of a spring effect but the cushioning is the key. Whilst the version he ran in this time are brand new the previous version, which is the second / third iteration, has been developed since the original Breaking 2 attempt are widely available. Pretty much everyone at the pointy end of local distance races are wearing them and whilst they are thought of as eye wateringly expensive for a pair of running shoes by most people (especially as the first version only lasted around 100 miles or so for some people) they are a lot more obtainable than a lot of the high tech equipment in other sports.
    They cost £240 a pair. Which, for the level of runner who would need the gains, is not much.

    I almost bought some a couple of months back, I tried a pair and they feel so comfortable, but thought I'd look a censored running my pace in them. Then I decided I didn't care and if they allow me to preserve my legs longer and recover more quickly then why not? I think Santa might be bringing me a pair of I'm a good boy. After all, I'm out there 75% longer than the likes of Kipchoge so they're more benefit to me than those part-timers!
    I'm resisting them on moral grounds :-) They might mean I get beaten in races by people that I would usually finish ahead of, but I've worked hard to bring my 10k / HM / Marathon times down and it seems a little daft to just bring those times again by spending £240 on shoes. Perversly, I might be more enthusaistic about buying them as a training shoe if they kept me fresher for longer so I could do more miles in training, but on race day it is just me and my legs against the clock and I don't want any artificial boosts.
    Then why use shoes at all :wink: or clipless pedals on a bike?
    Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!
    And let’s not forget those cheaty footballers and rugby players with their studded shoes for extra grip - or ice hockey players with their blades. I’d watch those sports much more if they did away with their doped shoes.
  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    m.r.m. wrote:
    Then why use shoes at all :wink: or clipless pedals on a bike?
    Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!
    Indeed. But I don't race at cycling, and equipment is inherently a part of cycling.

    Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

    But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,767
    Are these shoes any different to LeMond and 7-Eleven using tribars back in 1989? I guess most keen amateur TTers of all levels soon picked up a version.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • gweedsgweeds Posts: 2,007
    Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
  • webboowebboo Posts: 2,080
    RichN95 wrote:
    Are these shoes any different to LeMond and 7-Eleven using tribars back in 1989? I guess most keen amateur TTers of all levels soon picked up a version.
    They didn’t in the UK as the RTTC banned them at first.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,399
    gweeds wrote:

    I guess part of the problem is that it feels a bit more like a science experiment than an athletic achievement.

    A bit like a GCN video on "How fast can Dan go with aero everything"
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    larkim wrote:
    m.r.m. wrote:
    Then why use shoes at all :wink: or clipless pedals on a bike?
    Just go have fun and be the best version of yourself. If the shoes help you be faster, just have fun with it!
    Indeed. But I don't race at cycling, and equipment is inherently a part of cycling.

    Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

    But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.

    And yet those standard shoes are faster than standard shoes twenty, thirty, forty years ago...
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    But not meaningfully so. There hasn't been a big leap forwards in a couple of years in the same way that there has with the Nike VF4%s and successors. That's the big difference.

    I'm no luddite, you can't ignore tech advances, and you shouldn't either. Over time, if I'm still running in 20 years time, no doubt I'll be in shoes that are taking some if not all of the advantages that the VFs are introducing, I probably won't have a choice. But purely and simply for my own baseline assessment of whether I am running better than before, I'll try to limit improvements in my times which are just generated through equipment if I can, and just try to improve in my comfy, injury resisting shoes.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • larkim wrote:
    But not meaningfully so. There hasn't been a big leap forwards in a couple of years in the same way that there has with the Nike VF4%s and successors. That's the big difference.

    I'm no luddite, you can't ignore tech advances, and you shouldn't either. Over time, if I'm still running in 20 years time, no doubt I'll be in shoes that are taking some if not all of the advantages that the VFs are introducing, I probably won't have a choice. But purely and simply for my own baseline assessment of whether I am running better than before, I'll try to limit improvements in my times which are just generated through equipment if I can, and just try to improve in my comfy, injury resisting shoes.

    Barefoot running is where its at. nothing but freedom.
  • m.r.m.m.r.m. Posts: 1,636
    larkim wrote:
    Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

    But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.
    Having pride in yourself and wanting to "earn" achievements regardless of how you define them is nothing to scoff at. I applaud you for holding yourself accountable. I'm less strict with myself. :wink:
    PTP Champion 2019
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 7,873
    m.r.m. wrote:
    larkim wrote:
    Whereas in running, equipment has always been a relatively insignficant part of the kit. More functional than performance enhancing, though if we were having a philosophical debate about where the limit of that is, then clearly we should all run barefoot if we want no aids at all.

    But I've been running for 10 years, and have made progress in those 10 years using "standard" trainers to run in - designed to avoid injury, primarily. I've knocked off time benchmarks and improved my PBs, but none of those PBs I could credit to wearing different shoes. But if I stuck on the VaporFly4%s or Next%s on any given day for, say, a half marathon, statistically it would be likely that I'd be 30s to a minute faster. That's not worth anything to me, I've not earned it through anything other than £££.
    Having pride in yourself and wanting to "earn" achievements regardless of how you define them is nothing to scoff at. I applaud you for holding yourself accountable. I'm less strict with myself. :wink:
    It's only like TTing surely - of course you could just do all your TTs on a standard road bike, but it's a very small step to fit some aero bars... Then before you know it you're in a skinsuit with disc wheels on a full on TT bike :lol:

    I guess with TTing aerodynamics is a really big part of it.
  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    The difference being that the equipment for cycling has always been a huge part of the equation, whereas it's been a much much smaller part of running. Cycling fundamentally is about getting quickly from A to B under your own steam with as little effort as possible using mechanical aids. Running fundamentally is about getting quickly from A to B under your own steam. (Gross oversimplification, but you get the gist). One is not better than the other or more morally superior, they are just different.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • tgotbtgotb Posts: 4,712
    larkim wrote:
    The difference being that the equipment for cycling has always been a huge part of the equation, whereas it's been a much much smaller part of running.
    I got back into cross-country running a few years ago after a break of ~25 years, expecting the equipment side to be simple. Within a few months I had as many shoes as I have cyclocross tyres; they even fit into the same categories - road/files, intermediates, muds, extreme muds. Going for a run has become almost as complicated as going to a CX race...
    Pannier, 120rpm.
  • shinyhelmutshinyhelmut Posts: 1,339
    I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

    However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 45,144 Lives Here
    I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

    However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

    It's funny with tech.

    A bit like the outlawed swimming outfits or lubrication mechanisms in speed skating (but they kept the clap skates).
  • larkimlarkim Posts: 2,259
    It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

    My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

    Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.
    2015 Canyon Nerve AL 6.0 (son #1's)
    2011 Specialized Hardrock Sport Disc (son #3s)
    2013 Decathlon Triban 3 (red) (mine)
    2019 Hoy Bonaly 26" Disc (son #2s)
    2018 Voodoo Bizango (mine)
    2018 Voodoo Maji (wife's)
  • larkim wrote:
    It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

    My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

    Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.
    Just need these
    buckingham-uk-may-plasterer-skims-high-ceiling-whilst-standing-stilts-skilled-plasterer-can-work-far-more-quickly-124216998.jpg
  • itboffinitboffin Posts: 19,541
    I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

    However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

    It's funny with tech.

    A bit like the outlawed swimming outfits or lubrication mechanisms in speed skating (but they kept the clap skates).

    I'd forgotten all about those swim suits, covered in dimpled scales to mimic sharks skin, which they banned very quickly
    Rule #5 // Harden The censored Up.
    Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
    Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
    Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.
  • WheelspinnerWheelspinner Posts: 4,462
    itboffin wrote:
    I reckon if you put me in my old Hi-Tec silver shadows, which I ran in about 30 years ago, it would cost me a couple of seconds/mile compared to my Asics DS racers which I wear now (on the rare occasions I run on tarmac.)

    However, everything I read about the vaporfly, and from chatting with my friends who race in them, they are a big step up. 30 years of marginal improvement, then 2 years ago a big jump.

    It's funny with tech.

    A bit like the outlawed swimming outfits or lubrication mechanisms in speed skating (but they kept the clap skates).

    I'd forgotten all about those swim suits, covered in dimpled scales to mimic sharks skin, which they banned very quickly
    What’s surprising is that (I think) every single record time set in the banned suits has now been beaten again without them.
  • ridgeriderridgerider Posts: 2,757
    larkim wrote:
    It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

    My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

    Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.
    Just need these
    buckingham-uk-may-plasterer-skims-high-ceiling-whilst-standing-stilts-skilled-plasterer-can-work-far-more-quickly-124216998.jpg

    Banned on our building sites...
    Half man, Half bike...and now more familiar with the work of Prostate Cancer UK
  • ridgerider wrote:
    larkim wrote:
    It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

    My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

    Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.
    Just need these
    buckingham-uk-may-plasterer-skims-high-ceiling-whilst-standing-stilts-skilled-plasterer-can-work-far-more-quickly-124216998.jpg

    Banned on our building sites...

    Who banned them and why?
  • ridgerider wrote:
    larkim wrote:
    It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

    My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

    Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.
    Just need these
    buckingham-uk-may-plasterer-skims-high-ceiling-whilst-standing-stilts-skilled-plasterer-can-work-far-more-quickly-124216998.jpg

    Banned on our building sites...

    Who banned them and why?
    difficult to hide behind the sand pile with those on.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 9,430
    ridgerider wrote:
    larkim wrote:
    It's the big leap that is raising the eyebrows isn't it. If we'd incrementally got to the VF4% stage over a 30 year period of time there'd be no issue.

    My understanding of basic physics and biomechanics isn't strong (!), but there's a lot of commentary around which almost makes it sounds as if the new shoes are providing some sort of powerboost in and of themselves, when in reality they don't and can't. The only aspect I've see which points a finger at them giving a true "mechanical advantage" is that the VF4%s are a much taller shoe than racing flats have been before, and that that "leg lenthening" for no additional mass is in itself an advantage straight out of the box. There was an estimate that that was worth 25% of the 4% advantage being touted.

    Up to now racing shoes have often been quite limited in terms of "spring" (i.e. comfortable foam), probably because there was an expectation that that foam compression / rebound cycle lost energy through heating etc, and if you made them really compliant you'd end up with a squishy foot that was difficult to run in. The VFs add the spring in the foam / energy return to a stiff carbon plate to sort out the squishiness. Contrary to what seems to get written, it seems that the carbon "spring" is hardly a factor in terms of absolute propulsion / efficiency terms - it just adds stiffness without adding weight to an already lightweight and high stacked shoe.
    Just need these
    buckingham-uk-may-plasterer-skims-high-ceiling-whilst-standing-stilts-skilled-plasterer-can-work-far-more-quickly-124216998.jpg

    Banned on our building sites...

    Who banned them and why?

    At a guess "health and safety" and because they'd rip your leg off at the knee if you had an accident in them.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 19,399
    They look even more dangerous than skis* for knees...


    (*with bindings too tight)
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 7,107
    Is it against the rules? Yes no pass fail.
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
Sign In or Register to comment.