Wenting!!!

LotteBum wrote:
snip
it must be that last bit before the Springfield exit that I'm thinking
off,
and now that I think about it I think you're probably right, but I'll
look ;O)

It's not that bad - by the time I get to that point, I'm thinking only
about food and bed so I barely even notice it.

I gotta take a photo of the yama I live on top of. It sucks. I freeze
coming down it first thing in the morning (end up alongside a creek,
lots of mist, etc) and it hurts on the way home.

Tam

"nebakke" wrote in news:1117078998.832568.319990
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I won't pretend to have the faintest idea what a ceilidh is

http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/10_2.html for an idea.

Weirdly enough, when I did a Google search on "ceilidh Perth" the first hit
was the web site for a group of people with a "shy bladder" who can't pee
in public. With the amount of drinking that goes on at a ceilidh (booze, or
often loads of water) that's not the sort of condition you'd want to suffer
from.

On 25 May 2005 22:01:06 -0700, "Absent Husband"
wrote:

"Sorry, didn't convince me. I'll disconnect the rear brakes on the car
and
the motorbike just as soon as I get home.

Theo"

snip

Hi Theo,

I think the above 'front brake' theory is actually why you used to see
a lot of cheaper cars fitted with front disc brakes (good), and cheaper
rear drum brakes (not as good...).

Cars are not the same as (motor|push)bikes. They almost never risk
lifting a back wheel. Sheldon's argument is good, but I don't
believe it's complete. He's assuming that the maximum braking
force you can apply means that the back wheel will lift. In
my understanding this is not the case, on any surface. If
you think about it a little further, it's clear that the bike has to
be in some form of equilibrium or it will roll over the front
wheel. He's assuming also the CoG of the bike isn't able to move.

This doesn't mean that the back wheel has to be in
the air, the back wheel can be anywhere. If you shift your weight
right back off the bike and use both brakes you will get more braking
force than if you just use the front brake. That said, the front
brake will be supplying the vast majority of the braking force
(90%) but the rear brake is not useless. The heavier the bike
the greater force you can apply with the rear brake, especially
if the CoG is low.

Also, using the front brake in a cornering situation is
one fraught with great peril, on any surface.

"Graeme" wrote in message
.4...
"Resound" wrote in
:

Whereabouts are you? I know that there's the odd rampant ceilidh in
Melbourne. My girlfriend is a rampant dancer and I got dragged along
to one pub where we were dancing four sets in about 5m square. It
was...energetic.

Perth, so it's a wee bit far to Melbourne. There is bound to be somewhere
in Perth that has ceilidhs occasionally, it's just finding the right type.
I'm used to the kind where most people end the evening with at least some
minor bruising, "Strip The Willow" involves a 50m dash down the hall and a
Cumberland Reel often results in women's shoes flying off across the room.
A proper ceilidh is serious exercise!


I can certainly see how a properly enthusiastic "strip the willow" could
produce some medium spectacular bruising. I'm sure I've done a "Cumberland
reel" but I can't remember what it involves.

"nebakke" wrote in message
oups.com...
I know I know.. I will try to remember Sheesh, nearly getting hounded
here for using my back brake ;O) But as you nicely pointed out, if need
be noone falls off the bike if I block the back brake...

-Rasmus


It's not so much that using the back brake is bad (I certainly do) but using
it in preference to the front brake can very easily catch you out if you
need to stop quickly. I do use the rear as well as the front because I can't
stand my bike on its nose from the hoods, so the rear does add braking
effort. It does lock when I stop hard though, so I have to modulate it.

Absent Husband wrote:

I think the above 'front brake' theory is actually why you used to see
a lot of cheaper cars fitted with front disc brakes (good), and
cheaper rear drum brakes (not as good...).

'Cheaper' drum brakes may be the operative word, as well as the fact that a
handbrake is much easier to incorporate into a drum brake. I have no problem
with the front brake providing the most retardation in an emergency stop,
but to even suggest that the rear brake is redundant, and should be ignored
completely, is, IMHO, stupidity.

Theo

Graeme wrote:

Perth, so it's a wee bit far to Melbourne. There is bound to be
somewhere in Perth that has ceilidhs occasionally, it's just finding
the right type.

My grand-daughter, who turned nine this week, won the State title for
Scottish dancing in Victoria for her age group last Saturday. She has
absolutely no Scottish heritage.

Theo
Aslo in Perth.

LotteBum wrote:

The reason the blocks are smallers is a result of escalating land
prices, and probably the fact that a lot of people (like me) don't
have much time for gardening. If blocks were to be in the 600m² range
(standard small block), let alone bigger, land alone would cost
$200,000 minimum (and who'd want to move 28km out of town and pay that
much for land alone?). In order to make it reasonably affordable, the
average block needs to be around the 400m² mark.

Geez! 400 metres. My paved area is bigger than that. You ever laid 11,000
paving bricks? I live 50 km out of Perth on 20,000 metres. Paid $62,500 for
the block six years ago. They're now asking in the range of $160,000 for the
same blocks.

Theo

LotteBum wrote:

Cheap dwellings? If you call my house cheap.... far out... ARRRGHHH!!!
We actually paid a fair chunk for our house to get a quality building
with quality fittings. Devine - now there's cheap cr@p.

That's basically what I meant, the way "The Lakes" is being sold I
reckon Devine is doing quite well, especially compared to Springfield
itself as it was really booming.

Not sure what
the Delfin homes are like, but I'm not so sure I'd go near them anyway.

I don't think I'd be going for one either, have heard plenty of
complaints about Delfin as is... But then it's not really relevant to
me anyway...

There is always going to be a focus on investment in new developments
due to the depreciation benefits for investors. A friend of mine has
lived in Forest Lake since day one and has only two rentals in her
street now, as opposed to 15 when she first moved in.

I suppose that is a good point that, although it's actually going
exactly the opposite way in Springfield, at least from our point of
view, lots of owners leaving and lots of renters moving in

The 'sedimentation dams' are almost a necessity when masterplanning
communities these days (Northlakes, Forest Lake, Varsity Lakes - you
get the idea).

Actually that's a very good point, hadn't thought of that at all... Not
that I had anything against the lakes as it is was just wondering why
they're always there, seemed a bit gimmicky.. We don't have many new
areas where I'm from ;O)


The reason the blocks are smallers is a result of escalating land
prices, and probably the fact that a lot of people (like me) don't have
much time for gardening.

I'm aware that the size of the blocks went up for Delfin to do what
Springfield Land Cooperation or what is was that they were called,
couldn't.. That is, make money off of selling the land it was just
surprising to see the difference. And I suppose it's a good point about
the gardening, lord knows we don't get ours done, but the dog loves a
big yard ;O)

If blocks were to be in the 600m² range
(standard small block), let alone bigger, land alone would cost
$200,000 minimum (and who'd want to move 28km out of town and pay that
much for land alone?). In order to make it reasonably affordable, the
average block needs to be around the 400m² mark.

Hmmm, I see your point...

I quite like the idea
of what they have created in Springfield Lakes, but I think at the end
of the day, investment in these sorts of areas needs to be restricted
to certain pockets - not planted sporadically.

That is a point to, actually I reckon what they need to do is limit the
amount of rentals in one street... Either that or at the very least
force the agents to better control the rentals, for further, see below
;O)

I'll take a step off my soapbox now.

Heh, hmm I guess I've caused us to stray a bit beyond bicycling, sorry
about that...



What services?!

The hourly bus ;O) Which has actually started going up around us now
too, bus services are definitely improving... Originally noone was
going to do a thing to get Busses and that up our way, fortunately it
seems like something has changed there...


I'd be complaing to the council pronto... and regularly at that. I'm a
fairly tolerant person (alright.. maybe I'm not!), but when it comes to
respect for those around me, I get really sh!tty. As far as I'm
concerned, people should at the very least keep their front yard nice
out of respect for their neighbours. But some people just couldn't
give a dang.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you, unfortunately.. Further
to above, noone was willing to do anything for a long long time.
Basically the person who owned the property had moved up to the NT and
really couldn't care much less about the house as long as they got
their rent and council was either unwilling or unable to do anything..
Eventually apparently the house was sold but noone was able to tell us
to who so we had no idea where to complain
Anyways, as I said, water under the bridge, they're gone now =O)

It's not that bad - by the time I get to that point, I'm thinking only
about food and bed so I barely even notice it.

Hehe, I suppose you're right, I might actually try and take my bike up
there for a go on the weekend, not so many cars either so if I fall
over I've got a better chance of getting away ;O) Just until I get used
to it...

Thanks for talking a bit of sense into me there Lotte,

-Rasmus

EEEEEEEEP!!!

*Ras does his best Beaker impression*

MIMIMIMIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIMIMI

I'm much happier with you guys being helpful thank you...

-Rasmus