Give Richmond Park a miss for the next few weeks...

[Will]

Richmond Park is in the process of being "resurfaced"

They're taking the cheap tar + gravel approach which has resulted in: 1) a horrible surface, and; 2) long piles of gravel at the edge of the road

At some points the gravel piles are 2 to 3 feet wide meaning you have to cycle right out from the edge - unless you want to risk falling off by going through the gravel

[Alex P]

Cheers for that..

Probably doing it on purpose to slow the cyclists down...would never happen in France

[-Adam-]

[url]http://www.londoncyclesport.com/News/All_News/Richmond_Park.html[/url]

Wanting to see what all the fuss was about, I had a little spin round there myself yesterday. So when I read the above article I was not suprised.

The chippings in many places seem not to have been rolled flat as I thought normally was the case? Any civil engineers please step forward.

The result, as Will mentions, is roads of gravel. The Sawyers Hill section was bad enough to make me want to ride along the asphalt path to the side, as were many other cyclists. I even encountered a Police car on the path! Anyhow, if you want to practice your cross skills with some loose surfaces, be my guest. If like me you value the unbroken nature of your collarbone, steer clear!

[carl f]

was there myself at 7.am today
didn't know what all the fuss is about its not that bad,just stick to the car tyre tracks
Cheers

[Marek]

Could somebody actually explain to me why chucking a load of gravel onto a road actually makes the road surface better. I just don't get it. They have done a load of this along the club run route and around the local area and I just cannot see the point. The holes that were there before just get a load of gravel in them, they are still there and the road is still as bumpy as it was before, its now just gravelly and even worse to drive/ride on. I originally thought it was meant to be a preparation surface for a proper layer of tarmac to then go on top, but that does not seem to be the case. Am I missing something here, what is the benefit?

[Andrew G]

I think the gravel is meant to bed in to the road. I'm no road engineer, or engineer of any sort, but think that it's meant to be more hard wearing and grippy. In other words it doesn't need doing as often and if a car brakes hard it gets more grip and stops quicker. Probably wrong but that's why I thought they did it.

[Will]

Using tar + gravel is clearly cheap. It is not effective, and is by no reasonable measure "better".

Imagine if you are a council - or in this case the Royal Park people - and you are being hounded by residents / councillors etc. to achieve resurfacing targets within a limited budget.

Do you spend loads of cash and do a short stretch of road so incredibly well that road engineers travel from miles around to stroke their beards and lick the tarmac in appreciation?

Or do you hire some cheap resurfacers off their faces on crack who can bang out a couple of miles of resurfacing in 15 minutes for £35?

(No offence intended to anyone involved in the resurfacing business )

[-Adam-]

[quote="Will"]cheap resurfacers off their faces on crack

[andyclark]

That made me laugh! I've seen it too, definitely crack heads. And in a Royal Park. What would the deer say?...