Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
Any more, and I'll take it over to the 'language' thread, as I suspect that others aren't so intrigued.0
-
Sadly not. I learnt mostly German. Germans have two systems. With commas - no significance in order - and without - nearest adjective to the noun forms the 'unit' for the next adjective but still no correct order of preference.briantrumpet said:If you can read academic-ish French, the full text would be worth a read, as he references the differences between English and French, it seems... I might do so, when I've made a dent in the pile of books yet to be read.
https://journals.openedition.org/rlv/pdf/1383
Snipped for the new non-intrigued.
https://yourdailygerman.com/order-of-adjectives-german/
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Is it just my opinion or is this riding position over extended? 🤔
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Saddle looks very high - right leg appears completely straight.0
-
-
Remind us Rick what this thread is called.rick_chasey said:lol he's a pro rider. let's get the amateurs on the forum to say how he's wrong.
0 -
Bike looks weirdly small but maybe it's just an odd angle. Would be good to see a shot on the flat where he is actually pedalling.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Sorry, I meant his legs. The saddle looks too high.webboo said:
If anything it longs like he needs a longer stem or top tube. However he seems in a neutral relaxed position so it’s not clear.pblakeney said:Is it just my opinion or is this riding position over extended? 🤔
Number on the bike indicates no bike swap.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well, he's seated, near the bottom of the stroke with a raised heel and his leg is straight. If his heel was dropped I'd think he's stretching. It is a trivial thing that intrigued me.pangolin said:Bike looks weirdly small but maybe it's just an odd angle. Would be good to see a shot on the flat where he is actually pedalling.
Contrast and compare.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This picture looks really odd to me, as if it had been manipulated or something. Maybe it's an effect of the perspective or the shutterspeed, no idea, not saying it's 100% doctored, but the rider looks so large compared to the bike, and then the saddle height does look very different to what we're used to see.pblakeney said:Is it just my opinion or is this riding position over extended? 🤔
[Googles some stuff] OK, so it seems Ben Turner is 1m 94. Maybe this is an effect of a slightly odd fit coupled with very different proportions to most cyclists.0 -
pblakeney said:
Well, he's seated, near the bottom of the stroke with a raised heel and his leg is straight. If his heel was dropped I'd think he's stretching. It is a trivial thing that intrigued me.pangolin said:Bike looks weirdly small but maybe it's just an odd angle. Would be good to see a shot on the flat where he is actually pedalling.
Contrast and compare.
Just wondering how long it will be before jersey sleeves go below the elbow...0 -
As the photographer I can tell you 100% that it has not been manipulated and was shot straight side on as he passed.drhaggis said:
...
This picture looks really odd to me, as if it had been manipulated or something. Maybe it's an effect of the perspective or the shutterspeed, no idea, not saying it's 100% doctored, but the rider looks so large compared to the bike, and then the saddle height does look very different to what we're used to see.
...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
0 -
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
0 -
wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.0 -
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.1 -
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.0 -
I can see an easy cost free solution going forward. 😉TheBigBean said:
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
All the services and infrastructure are still in/on the ground. So while you might avoid a complete refit of the house, it's still not really habitable during flooding. I would guess that flooding in Norway is from high glacial outflow. There was something similar in Alaska where a big river changed course by a few hundred metres. Stilts aren't going to help there - the buildings were undermined and washed away along with 3-4m depth of subsoil.TheBigBean said:
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, it is not a solution for a diverted river or a good one if the land is permanently flooded, but it seems like a decent option to save housing that might be flooded for a few days every 10 years. Clearly I have no idea how the sewage system would work, but I'd imagine there is probably an answer. Either way, it seems like a better idea than building on floodplains and then complaining about flooding.rjsterry said:
All the services and infrastructure are still in/on the ground. So while you might avoid a complete refit of the house, it's still not really habitable during flooding. I would guess that flooding in Norway is from high glacial outflow. There was something similar in Alaska where a big river changed course by a few hundred metres. Stilts aren't going to help there - the buildings were undermined and washed away along with 3-4m depth of subsoil.TheBigBean said:
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.0 -
We should avoid building on flood plains. And put in more mitigation upstream. There are also ways of building that are more flood resilient without resorting to stiltsTheBigBean said:
Yes, it is not a solution for a diverted river or a good one if the land is permanently flooded, but it seems like a decent option to save housing that might be flooded for a few days every 10 years. Clearly I have no idea how the sewage system would work, but I'd imagine there is probably an answer. Either way, it seems like a better idea than building on floodplains and then complaining about flooding.rjsterry said:
All the services and infrastructure are still in/on the ground. So while you might avoid a complete refit of the house, it's still not really habitable during flooding. I would guess that flooding in Norway is from high glacial outflow. There was something similar in Alaska where a big river changed course by a few hundred metres. Stilts aren't going to help there - the buildings were undermined and washed away along with 3-4m depth of subsoil.TheBigBean said:
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Might struggle for Part M compliance with houses on stilts too.1
-
Just wait for the flood and float in through the front door.0
-
The switch from going out side and finding a product in a shop, to sitting at home waiting for a van/car to turn up with it.
It's sad to hear about Wilko closing down, another one bites the dust!0 -
Beavers. We need beavers upstream.rjsterry said:
We should avoid building on flood plains. And put in more mitigation upstream. There are also ways of building that are more flood resilient without resorting to stiltsTheBigBean said:
Yes, it is not a solution for a diverted river or a good one if the land is permanently flooded, but it seems like a decent option to save housing that might be flooded for a few days every 10 years. Clearly I have no idea how the sewage system would work, but I'd imagine there is probably an answer. Either way, it seems like a better idea than building on floodplains and then complaining about flooding.rjsterry said:
All the services and infrastructure are still in/on the ground. So while you might avoid a complete refit of the house, it's still not really habitable during flooding. I would guess that flooding in Norway is from high glacial outflow. There was something similar in Alaska where a big river changed course by a few hundred metres. Stilts aren't going to help there - the buildings were undermined and washed away along with 3-4m depth of subsoil.TheBigBean said:
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.0 -
0 -
What's that?Pross said:Might struggle for Part M compliance with houses on stilts too.
0 -
What's wrong with stilts? You sound like I have proposed something contemptible.rjsterry said:
We should avoid building on flood plains. And put in more mitigation upstream. There are also ways of building that are more flood resilient without resorting to stiltsTheBigBean said:
Yes, it is not a solution for a diverted river or a good one if the land is permanently flooded, but it seems like a decent option to save housing that might be flooded for a few days every 10 years. Clearly I have no idea how the sewage system would work, but I'd imagine there is probably an answer. Either way, it seems like a better idea than building on floodplains and then complaining about flooding.rjsterry said:
All the services and infrastructure are still in/on the ground. So while you might avoid a complete refit of the house, it's still not really habitable during flooding. I would guess that flooding in Norway is from high glacial outflow. There was something similar in Alaska where a big river changed course by a few hundred metres. Stilts aren't going to help there - the buildings were undermined and washed away along with 3-4m depth of subsoil.TheBigBean said:
Go on then, tell me more. At the moment, houses that are not on stilts are built on flood plains. Then they are flooded.rjsterry said:
Think there may be a little more to flood resilience than this.TheBigBean said:
They should be built on stilts as is done in many other places in the world.briantrumpet said:wavefront said:
Whilst I want to laugh at the quip, it’s a little too close to home - there was serious flooding here 8 or 9 years ago and we witnessed quite a number of statics being swept away down the river and smashing into the bridges. The community really rallied around to find accommodation for those who lost their homes, and quite a few businesses permanently closed because of the damage. Took a good few years for the town to get back on its feet.briantrumpet said:I always wondered what the difference was between static caravans and mobile homes.
Sorry to hear that. It's why I didn't post it under another thread. I guess that there are quite a lot of sites that wouldn't get permission for permanent housing because of the risk of flooding.0
