Skip to main content

Mountain biking



This is my Specialized S-Works Epic. And er... yes, that is Lycra.

I sometimes drive to South Wales for the day to ride at Afan Argoed. I do White's Level, then The Wall, then the Penrydd, or whatever it's called. Then drive home. Then it takes me two days to recover.

I am going next Tuesday if it's not raining....

Perhaps it is "the fastest suspension bike in the world", but not with me riding it, unfortunately.

Video of The Wall here. Gets faster and faster...

Comments

Stephen,

There is yet to be discoverd any situation so diabloical or any event so 'worth it' that the wearing of lycra pants is considered acceptable.
Stephen Law said…
What if I wore shorts over the top?
Anonymous said…
You even clip into the pedals - you must be a serious biker... unless it's a case of "all the gear and no idea" ;o)

I too am an avid mountain biker. North Wales, the Clwyds, is just on my door step. Always lots of fun.

If you like The Wall you'll enjoy The Marin Trail, Betws-y-Coed. The climb at the start sorts the men from the boys and there's plenty of technical downhill and great views to be had.

Check out http://www.bike-fax.com/ and http://www.mbwales.com/gwydyr_forest/maps.htm


I wear lycra shorts with baggies over them - this way I can keep my mobile and change in my pocket without having to dig into the rucksack. Also, I can clip my iShuffle into the belt loop.
Stephen Law said…
Yes I did the Marin Trail and liked it a lot...
Anonymous said…
Wow, that looks so fun! I now wanna be a mountain biker. Lycra and all. I reckon girls can pull it off better anyway...
Stephen,

The shorts are not a bad idea but like any great crime, the perpetrator at the very least is aware of the crime. Can you really live with that knowledge?
bikingamerica said…
Mountain bike tips on what tools and gear you need to take with you on the trail to make your ride more enjoyable and to be prepared for emergencies.

biking advise

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o