View Full Version : All things lovely and cool on the bum
Assos chamois creme.
Fantastic stuff.
My bottom is in love!
32 mile ride today, no chafing, no rubbing, absolutely wonderful.
Riding almost every day has helped too, but, as last weekend
demonstrated, not to the extent that I was free of chafing.
I shall be buying this in bulk shortly, I think ;-)
--
Velvet
Velvet wrote:
> Assos chamois creme.
>
> Fantastic stuff.
>
> My bottom is in love!
>
> 32 mile ride today, no chafing, no rubbing, absolutely wonderful.
>
> Riding almost every day has helped too, but, as last weekend
> demonstrated, not to the extent that I was free of chafing.
>
> I shall be buying this in bulk shortly, I think ;-)
I'll second that !!
Sam Salt
Velvet wrote:
> 32 mile ride today, no chafing, no rubbing, absolutely wonderful.
Pshaw! I can do that any time.
The dark side is calling!
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>32 mile ride today, no chafing, no rubbing, absolutely wonderful.
>
>
> Pshaw! I can do that any time.
>
> The dark side is calling!
>
> Guy
It's been calling for aaaaaages, I just need someone to donate a
windcheetah to me ;-)
--
Velvet
Just zis Guy, you know? <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> said:
> Velvet wrote:
>
>> 32 mile ride today, no chafing, no rubbing, absolutely wonderful.
>
> Pshaw! I can do that any time.
>
> The dark side is calling!
Yebbut you can buy a tanker load of chamois cream for the cost of one 'bent.
Of course, the cream has much less Shiny Toy factor, itself a rather
powerful motivation!
Regards,
-david
David Nutter:
> Yebbut you can buy a tanker load of chamois cream for the cost of one
'bent.
> Of course, the cream has much less Shiny Toy factor, itself a rather
> powerful motivation!
You can buy a Brooks saddle for much less.
60 miles yesterday, not a hint of soreness.
d.
davek wrote:
> David Nutter:
>
>>Yebbut you can buy a tanker load of chamois cream for the cost of one
>
> 'bent.
>
>>Of course, the cream has much less Shiny Toy factor, itself a rather
>>powerful motivation!
>
>
> You can buy a Brooks saddle for much less.
>
> 60 miles yesterday, not a hint of soreness.
>
> d.
>
>
I'm still not convinced about them, especially not the bit where you
have to wear them in ;-)
And the fact that I'm not a blokey, and while I know brookes do ladies
saddles, I've found it very hard to find a ladies saddle narrow enough
till I found the selle italia oktavia ldy... I'm not going to start the
process of attempting to find another saddle that fits as nicely as that
one..
FWIW, the friction was from the shorts rucking up slightly on the inside
of the leg, not the saddle itself ;-)
--
Velvet
davek wrote:
> You can buy a Brooks saddle for much less.
>
> 60 miles yesterday, not a hint of soreness.
If I've got to sit on a saddle it's a Brooks, I've a B66 on the 8
Freight (used to be on my old upwrong tourer), a B17 on the MTB and a
Brooks Brompton on the, errrr, Brompton. And as saddles go they're very
comfy, but not in the same ballgame as a good 'bent seat suited to the
rider.
300 miles last week fully loaded touring, no soreness, no chafing.
That's not really Big News to someone with a good saddle, but comfort
extends beyond the arse. No aches, pains or any other discomfort (even
minor) in neck, back, shoulders, arms or wrists either, and no saddle
will guarantee that. Further note that the 300 miles was without
contrived backside padding in my clothing, and I wasn't wearing any
gloves or mitts either. Comfort is relative: saddles aren't popular
where they're not /necessary/ and you don't find them in furniture
shops, public seating areas and office supply catalogues, rather unlike
chairs, and comfort is the reason for that.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch wrote:
> davek wrote:
>
>> You can buy a Brooks saddle for much less.
>>
>> 60 miles yesterday, not a hint of soreness.
>
>
> If I've got to sit on a saddle it's a Brooks, I've a B66 on the 8
> Freight (used to be on my old upwrong tourer), a B17 on the MTB and a
> Brooks Brompton on the, errrr, Brompton. And as saddles go they're very
> comfy, but not in the same ballgame as a good 'bent seat suited to the
> rider.
>
> 300 miles last week fully loaded touring, no soreness, no chafing.
> That's not really Big News to someone with a good saddle, but comfort
> extends beyond the arse. No aches, pains or any other discomfort (even
> minor) in neck, back, shoulders, arms or wrists either, and no saddle
> will guarantee that. Further note that the 300 miles was without
> contrived backside padding in my clothing, and I wasn't wearing any
> gloves or mitts either. Comfort is relative: saddles aren't popular
> where they're not /necessary/ and you don't find them in furniture
> shops, public seating areas and office supply catalogues, rather unlike
> chairs, and comfort is the reason for that.
>
> Pete.
Not got a spare 'bent lurking around have you that's fit to donate to
the 'get velvet completely ensnared in the darkside' campaign? ;) Only
criteria is it must be a tadpole and preferably a windcheetah (I think!)
--
Velvet
Velvet <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> wrote in message news:<G7DKc.2952$ef.27958485@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> Assos chamois creme.
>
> Fantastic stuff.
>
> My bottom is in love!
>
What is this stuff? Would Sudocream be a suitable (cheaper?) alternative?
Velvet wrote:
[Brooks]
> I'm still not convinced about them, especially not the bit where you
> have to wear them in ;-)
If you have a backside that is broadly the right shape then you don't
actually need to do any breaking in, they'll be comfortable out of the
box. What the breaking in period does is take them from being pretty
comfortable to about as comfortable as it's possible for a saddle to get.
> And the fact that I'm not a blokey, and while I know brookes do ladies
> saddles, I've found it very hard to find a ladies saddle narrow enough
> till I found the selle italia oktavia ldy...
Don't get hung up on "women's specific design" item necessarily being
best. Things are modelled on some version of a tailors' dummy (possibly
a digital CAD one, but nevertheless a model of a "typical" person) and
if and only if that dummy happens to have a frame similar to yours is it
really relevant to how good it is for you. Now, averages will suggest
that a female dummy is more likely to be like you than a male one, but
people come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes and the /only/
way to be sure what works for you is to try things.
Case in point, a female pal of mine has a Specialized BG WSD saddle,
which she found a bit narrow. I tried it for a few miles, and /I/ found
it a bit narrow. She also was amazed by how comfy my standard Brompton
Brooks saddle (no concessions to gender AFAIK) was for her when she
borrowed it for a quick hack (OTOH Roos doesn't like it much at all).
So there's really nothing to be gained by only trying out saddles that
are so-called "women's specific" or the like. Next time you're on a
ride having a break and there's a Brooks about, ask for a seat and see
how it feels. Or if you're in a bike shop and there are a few on
display ask for a try while you wait for whatever. And don't forget they
do different widths before ruling any Brooks you have a quick try on
entirely in or out. People generally seem to take to them pretty
quickly /if/ they're the basic right shape, and you'll know within a few
seconds if that is the case. Especially on a new one, don't forget it's
shape and not hardness that's most important.
> FWIW, the friction was from the shorts rucking up slightly on the inside
> of the leg, not the saddle itself ;-)
But such rucking /may/ be caused by the saddle, of course, in which case
it's a moot point. The smooth leather on the Brooks gives very little
friction for this sort of thing to develop, another thing I like about them.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch:
> Comfort is relative: saddles aren't popular
> where they're not /necessary/ and you don't find them in furniture
> shops, public seating areas and office supply catalogues, rather unlike
> chairs, and comfort is the reason for that.
Heh. Fair enough.
However, the point remains that fitting a comfy saddle to the bike you
already have is the next best option when you can't afford a more
comfortable bike. :(
d.
Aloysius wrote:
> Velvet <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> wrote in message news:<G7DKc.2952$ef.27958485@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>
>>Assos chamois creme.
>>
>>Fantastic stuff.
>>
>>My bottom is in love!
>>
>
>
> What is this stuff? Would Sudocream be a suitable (cheaper?) alternative?
It's made for rubbing liberally into the chamois (real or synthetic) of
your padded cycling shorts. Bit of a waste of time if you don't use
such things when cycling, though may still work to ease chafing since it
can be applied direct to skin.
I wondered about it because I bought a new pair of shorts, and the first
ride out they were wonderful, no chafing. Second ride, and they felt
just how my old pair(s) feel - chafing where they seem to ruck up
sometimes between very top of thigh and nose of saddle. I couldn't
believe I'd shrunk them (having bought a size bigger on account of
having thigh muscles now, which make the original ones a little tight,
thought maybe that was the cause of the chafing) - then spotted some of
this stuff, and remembered seeing similar being used on the tdf
coverage, and wondered if there was something the shorts came
impregnated with that then washed out...
This stuff says to apply to wet chamois after washing, or immediately
after a ride before air-drying, and can be applied to dry chamois too.
Can be applied to skin.
It's antibacterial, antifungal, 100% natural.
One thing I would say is, it makes things bloody cold down there :-)
Which is most pleasant on a hot day, but is a bit of a shock to the
system when you first put the shorts on, or sit down in them.
Contains: water, glycerine, popylene glycol, decyl oleate, polydecene,
witch hazel (this'll cause some of the cold feeling) extract, almond oil
(excellent for the skin), sorbitan stearate, menthol (another cause of
the coldness!), cyclomethicone, oak bark extract, methyplparaben,
retinyl palminate, bha.
Chemists or those in the habit of decyphering ingredients lists will
probably have more luck at working out what the chemical sounding things
are.
Smells a bit peculiar, but it worked fantastically, on a ride of about 3
and a half hours (including stops to read maps) it was only really just
beginning to stop working up the frontal area, but that bit was getting
extra cooling from the wind on descents which probably contributed to it
(which was most pleasant too, by the way).
I have fairly sensitive skin, and it does feel cold and almost stingy,
but I don't think it is stinging, it's just really rather cold :-) And
in case anyone doesn't believe that, I can safely say that I've not felt
or seen any irritation of any freshly-shaved areas either, which if it
was going to, certainly would have let me know ;-)
--
Velvet
On 19/7/04 12:12 pm, in article cdga4g$66e$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk, "Peter
Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> If I've got to sit on a saddle it's a Brooks, I've a B66 on the 8
> Freight (used to be on my old upwrong tourer), a B17 on the MTB and a
> Brooks Brompton on the, errrr, Brompton. And as saddles go they're very
> comfy, but not in the same ballgame as a good 'bent seat suited to the
> rider.
I must grovel and ask for a spin on a brooks saddle at some point. I am
trying to find a decent saddle and have been rejecting almost everything as
too squishy.
(If you like fresh fruit and veg I could let you loose in the allotment ..
loads of broad beans and raspberries at the moment)
What is the difference between the B66 and the B17? Is the B66 the B17 with
springs?
...d
Velvet wrote:
> Not got a spare 'bent lurking around have you that's fit to donate to=20
> the 'get velvet completely ensnared in the darkside' campaign? ;) Only=
=20
> criteria is it must be a tadpole and preferably a windcheetah (I think!=
)
'Fraid not, but in any case don't get too hung up on exactly what you=20
want in advance of trying out a load more. Remember that Guy went to=20
Futurecycles with more or less the expressed intent of buying a=20
Windcheetah and came out with a bike instead...
And a Windcheetah wouldn't really have worked in a few spots we were on=20
last week, like sections of old railway that amounted to boggy=20
singletrack and the Sensible Track for one's wheels was no more than a=20
few inches wide. And those =A3$%&* gates to stop yoof on mopeds using th=
e=20
tracks would be more of a faff too. Two sorts, the ones where you have=20
to pick up and carry through a restricted space, and the ones where you=20
can just about squeeze a 'bent bike through without dismounting, and=20
neither would get easier with an extra wheel.
Also note that if you insist on a trike then a Kettwiesel might be a=20
delta, but so what? It's size adjustable which a Windcheetah isn't (so=20
a 2nd hand one is much less likely to fit you) and it costs a /lot/ less =
("only" =A31,450 new). You can get the Stein trikes from Westcountry=20
Recumbents that are tadpoles but /much/ less than the (admittedly nicer=20
looking) AVDs and Tricen. I'm sure Carol will furnish you with more=20
details on request.
Get too hung up on Windcheetahs and you might end up passing over a gift =
horse, and not only that but a gift horse with perfect teeth as well.=20
IME it's difficult to be completely sure in advance about what will work =
well. Roos' first reaction to a Fiero was it was too low and she=20
probably wouldn't be able to tour on one, to the extent that the first=20
test ride was just an afterthought for a Quick Larf before we left the=20
shop. She did 300 miles loaded for camping on hers last week, including =
sections that are by-passed by sensible alternatives for loaded tourers..=
=2E
Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Velvet wrote:
>
> [Brooks]
>
>> I'm still not convinced about them, especially not the bit where you
>> have to wear them in ;-)
>
>
> If you have a backside that is broadly the right shape then you don't
> actually need to do any breaking in, they'll be comfortable out of the
> box. What the breaking in period does is take them from being pretty
> comfortable to about as comfortable as it's possible for a saddle to get.
>
>> And the fact that I'm not a blokey, and while I know brookes do ladies
>> saddles, I've found it very hard to find a ladies saddle narrow enough
>> till I found the selle italia oktavia ldy...
>
>
> Don't get hung up on "women's specific design" item necessarily being
> best. Things are modelled on some version of a tailors' dummy (possibly
> a digital CAD one, but nevertheless a model of a "typical" person) and
> if and only if that dummy happens to have a frame similar to yours is it
> really relevant to how good it is for you. Now, averages will suggest
> that a female dummy is more likely to be like you than a male one, but
> people come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes and the /only/
> way to be sure what works for you is to try things.
Oh I'm not. I knew hte blokes san marco rolls saddle that shipped with
the bike was only JUST too narrow for me - almost all the womens saddles
I looked at apart from this one were WAY too wide. I have a narrow
pelvis (I'm small-boned, just big-flabbed) so knew I was looking for a
narrow saddle, just a centimetre wider than the blokes ones, which made
it very hard to find a ladies to suit - all the others were just too
wide across the beam.
>
> Case in point, a female pal of mine has a Specialized BG WSD saddle,
> which she found a bit narrow. I tried it for a few miles, and /I/ found
> it a bit narrow. She also was amazed by how comfy my standard Brompton
> Brooks saddle (no concessions to gender AFAIK) was for her when she
> borrowed it for a quick hack (OTOH Roos doesn't like it much at all).
Yeah, I can't judge a saddle on a quick hack - my san marco rolls was
comfy enough on less than 5 miles. I don't do that sort of riding
though, it went from 10 miles very quickly up to 30 miles+, and a saddle
killing me cos only one sit bone was on, and the other one *just* not
quite on was a literal pain in the arse after about 10 miles.
>
> So there's really nothing to be gained by only trying out saddles that
> are so-called "women's specific" or the like. Next time you're on a
> ride having a break and there's a Brooks about, ask for a seat and see
> how it feels. Or if you're in a bike shop and there are a few on
> display ask for a try while you wait for whatever. And don't forget they
> do different widths before ruling any Brooks you have a quick try on
> entirely in or out. People generally seem to take to them pretty
> quickly /if/ they're the basic right shape, and you'll know within a few
> seconds if that is the case. Especially on a new one, don't forget it's
> shape and not hardness that's most important.
>
I might try that, though on a ride, it'd be hard to actually get on a
bike with one on - everyone else seems to be taller/on much bigger bikes
than me!! I'm not the sort that can give a slightly too large bike a
quick spin either!
>> FWIW, the friction was from the shorts rucking up slightly on the
>> inside of the leg, not the saddle itself ;-)
>
>
> But such rucking /may/ be caused by the saddle, of course, in which case
> it's a moot point. The smooth leather on the Brooks gives very little
> friction for this sort of thing to develop, another thing I like about
> them.
>
Yep, I did think that might be the case, but it's not - it's that the
shorts were settling into a ruck after a few miles, not cos the saddle
was rubbing against them, but cos the shorts weren't able to flex with
the travel of my legs as well as they should have been.
Maybe I'm just masking the symptoms rather than fixing the problem, but
it may well be down to the fact that I think I have rather long cranks
on the bike for the size of it and me, but they suit my legs, even if
they do lead to what is probably a lot more travel of movement over a
pedal revolution than other riders who have their seats a little higher
than mine, and pedal with the toes-down at the bottom of the stroke (I'm
ankles-down to be able to set off while seated on the saddle and not
knacker my knees when putting more power in - lengthens the leg more at
the lower half of the pedal stroke than I'd otherwise manage).
Anyway, I thought I'd flag it as being Good Stuff. I think the other
half was quite pleased with it too, and he's a Serious Cyclist not given
to such things normally, being more of a just get on and go do it type ;-)
I would like to thank those who said cycling short distances would help
with the sit bones pain though ;-) I'm pretty sure it's my bum that's
got used to it, not the saddle breaking in, but the almost daily cycling
(of 5-10ish miles, depending on the type of training I've been looking
to get out of it) I've been doing over the last 5 weeks or so has meant
that there has been negligable sit-bone ache after sunday before last's
48 miler, and absolutely none after sunday just gone's 32 miler.
Now all I have to do is work on the aching wrists - but they're
improving too now that my core body strength is getting better, I can
support the torso (and the not negligable girly attributes!) better with
the stomach/back/side muscles which is helping to take the weight off
the hands for more of the ride.
(I'm even entertaining vague ideas that I might soon be able to signal
all the time with the right hand, I can sometimes do it now!, and maybe
manage signalling with the left before the end of hte year, too!)
> Pete.
--
Velvet
On 19/7/04 1:30 pm, in article cdgelt$922$1@dux.dundee.ac.uk, "Peter Clinch"
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Also note that if you insist on a trike then a Kettwiesel might be a
> delta, but so what? It's size adjustable which a Windcheetah isn't (so
> a 2nd hand one is much less likely to fit you) and it costs a /lot/ less
> ("only" £1,450 new).
Or go for a KMX X-series which would be even cheaper still..
...d
David Martin wrote:
> I must grovel and ask for a spin on a brooks saddle at some point. I am
> trying to find a decent saddle and have been rejecting almost everything as
> too squishy.
I've got a cat-sitting job on Gardener Street this week so could drop
the 17 off on the way, just email me the house # and a good time (but
not today).
> What is the difference between the B66 and the B17? Is the B66 the B17 with
> springs?
Pretty much. My 66 has the older twin rail mount while the 17 fits a
modern micro-adjust. The 66 is a little nicer but partly it has more
miles on it, and it weighs quite a bit more so would be a bit silly on
anything sporting. The 17 is the Cannonical Brooks Saddle and easiest
to come by. Since the 17 is on the MTB and I don't use that much I'll
loan you that one, which gives you a few days (at least) to play.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Velvet wrote:
>
>> Not got a spare 'bent lurking around have you that's fit to donate to
>> the 'get velvet completely ensnared in the darkside' campaign? ;)
>> Only criteria is it must be a tadpole and preferably a windcheetah (I
>> think!)
>
>
> 'Fraid not, but in any case don't get too hung up on exactly what you
> want in advance of trying out a load more. Remember that Guy went to
> Futurecycles with more or less the expressed intent of buying a
> Windcheetah and came out with a bike instead...
> And a Windcheetah wouldn't really have worked in a few spots we were on
> last week, like sections of old railway that amounted to boggy
> singletrack and the Sensible Track for one's wheels was no more than a
> few inches wide. And those £$%&* gates to stop yoof on mopeds using the
> tracks would be more of a faff too. Two sorts, the ones where you have
> to pick up and carry through a restricted space, and the ones where you
> can just about squeeze a 'bent bike through without dismounting, and
> neither would get easier with an extra wheel.
>
> Also note that if you insist on a trike then a Kettwiesel might be a
> delta, but so what? It's size adjustable which a Windcheetah isn't (so
> a 2nd hand one is much less likely to fit you) and it costs a /lot/ less
> ("only" £1,450 new). You can get the Stein trikes from Westcountry
> Recumbents that are tadpoles but /much/ less than the (admittedly nicer
> looking) AVDs and Tricen. I'm sure Carol will furnish you with more
> details on request.
>
> Get too hung up on Windcheetahs and you might end up passing over a gift
> horse, and not only that but a gift horse with perfect teeth as well.
> IME it's difficult to be completely sure in advance about what will work
> well. Roos' first reaction to a Fiero was it was too low and she
> probably wouldn't be able to tour on one, to the extent that the first
> test ride was just an afterthought for a Quick Larf before we left the
> shop. She did 300 miles loaded for camping on hers last week, including
> sections that are by-passed by sensible alternatives for loaded tourers...
>
> Pete.
Heheheh, yes, I know I'll be trying it out before I buy, and probably
doing the rounds of several first... I'm certain I want three wheels
though - I'm slow on hills on the upright, and would be even slower on a
recumbent, so to be able to twiddle up slowly I want that third wheel so
I don't need to balance - and I'll go downhill MUCH faster with three
than two - again, the balance/stability on bumps issue.
I've tried a tadpole, can't remember which one now - mesh seat, fairly
upright, not that low, USS, suspension on back wheel, rented from
futurecycles for an afternoon's fun along the forest way. Wasn't a
trice, I think it was t'other half that had the trice out - I'll know
the name when I hear it, but it's none of the above.
From that, I like the two-handed braking, and steering, though am
intrigued by the single-handedness of the windcheetah and feel this
could be a definite advantage for signalling whilst careering downhill
;-) On the other hand, it may be that my wrist strength would mean
under such circumstances it's a bit borderline on having total control
over it, so I'm quite prepared to have my hopes of a windcheetah dashed
when/if I find that out.
I know I'm looking for something lower and definitely more reclined than
the one I tried - it was too upright - I drive in a lying back type
position, despite my short height, and want the same out of a 'bent. If
I end up going piling into a situation, I'd rather go in feet first than
head first, logical or not ;-)
Re the gates and anti-bike measures - I'm no big fan of off-road cycle
paths as it is, having discovered that they're sometimes more dangerous
than being on the road, and also sometimes a lot more faffing around
than being on the road! I'd be fairly happy to stick to the road route
even if it's a bit longer, to be honest, to avoid the barriered routes.
As yet, my cycling leanings are toward tarmac rather than trail, though
I do love the countryside, I'm really not the right disposition or build
for the mountainbike/trail type stuff, though I thoroughly enjoyed the
rattling along the forest way path, but that's really good as off-road
surfaces go, I think.
I have money in the bank that could be spent on a bent from new, I doubt
I'd find a second-hand to fit unless it was an adjustable-boom one - I'm
short, so I've already come to terms with the fact it'd probably be a
new one and lots of wonga. However, I really need to hang on to that
money till I've:
a) cleared off debts,
b) been at my new job long enough to have a bit of security
c) saved up enough to have something to fall back on if the worst
happens, and
d) put down a deposit and finally got a mortgage going instead of renting.
All of which means a 'bent of any shape of form is still just a pipe
dream far far in the future... in some ways I wish I'd not tried the
whateveritwas out from FC - I know for certain now that I want one,
whereas before I thought I might like one but wasn't sure ;-)
Having experienced the silly grin while hurtling down hill and then
laughing when I manage to just about lock the wheels on the loose gravel
at the bottom (not a scary moment in sight, normally even the prospect
of this on my upright leads to panic and fear) I know at some point I'll
have to have one ;-)
Oh, and it'd have to live outside till I buy my own house, too, cos
there's NO WAY I can lug it up the stairs and inside.. so another reason
not to get one quite yet. Though if anyone does feel the need to donate
one, I'm sure I can chain it to the iron stairs and construct a tarp
shelter for it somehow... ;-)
--
Velvet
David Martin <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> writes:
>(If you like fresh fruit and veg I could let you loose in the allotment ..
>loads of broad beans and raspberries at the moment)
You may regret that offer....
Roos - looking forward to raspberry muffins :)
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0