GeoMetron to Distribute Formula in the UK
PRESS RELEASE: Formula
UK is a country with mountain biking in its DNA, a place full of passionate and skilled riders. We’ve been looking for the right partner for a long time since we wanted to make the right choice in order to support UK riders with the best option on the market. There are not many companies that can boast twenty years of experience in the industry like GeoMetron/Mojo. Their knowledge is incredible and it’s second only to their passion. Their dedication to riders is unbelievable. We could not hope for a better partner.
 | As a fan of this sport I have been following the work of Chris Porter and his team for a long time. These guys have always been at the forefront of innovation, and they still are. Partnering with a company like GeoMetron is truly an honor for us. We will do our best to support their projects and their customers. I am sure that together we will achieve outstanding goals. |
| In order to find the innovation and the focus on performance in the mountain bike industry, it is necessary to seek out the smaller, performance-driven companies rather than the industry behemoths. It is these fast moving, flexible companies who can react to changing markets and even influence the market. Here at GeoMetron we strive to offer no compromise performance and we want to provide the best suspension solutions as part of that goal. It will be a pleasure working with Formula and helping them to strengthen their reputation in the UK! |
GeoMetron will control the distribution of all Formula products in the UK and will take care of service and warranties. For more information on GeoMetron visit: Website - Facebook page - Instagram.
Author Info:
Member since Jan 16, 2013
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
The answer is, I have never considered bthem before. Forks and seatposts have a habit of f*cking up so local support is a must
Now they are definitely on the list of possibles!
That said I'd love a geometron but it'll be a few years old if it happens and the best I'll get is sending it back to mojo for a refresh.
I got a couple of mates on Selva & 35’s too and man do I feel bad bringing them into this situation with a company who are missing in action when it comes to any form of communication. Bringing Chris in is good, hope it makes things great for you, but how about you look at doing something for the UK customers who you have left hanging for years since Silverfish left. Service maybe? Think it’s the least you could do.
Wouldn't you just go down to an ATM and get some cash out? Banks don't use the internet apart from the front ends that customers use to check stuff. All the actual banking is done on their own networks.
My dad pays for everything in cash.
It's an interesting subject though. I would be happy to never hear of Facebook or Twatter again. Much as they are useful. They are by no means essential. What else do we use the internet for? Arguing about bikes. Buying stuff. Making hospital appointments. Nothing you can't do without walking and talking. I am open to being educated though.
First, about the second referendum. It would be undemocratic because the so called "do-over democracy" principle would have been applied. That is to say, giving the plebs a vote on a desired policy. If the powers that be get the result they want, it is treated as immutable. If not, it is treated as illegitimate. In this case, another vote is held as soon as possible. The process is repeated until the "correct" result is achieved.
It is understood that the majority of power mongers and influential people in the UK were in the Remain camp.
Let's say there is a second referendum, and Remain wins this time. It is quickly followed by Leave mounting a challenge on the basis of lies and false advertising. The tables would have turned. What would be the best course of action? I know! A third referendum!
What is more important than having the right to vote? That the vote is actioned. Right now, that has not happened. Is that democracy? Wasting a huge chunk of public tax money to make the people go through the same vote again? Is that democratic? They already voted once!
Second: I was referring to that thing where some back benchers were talking about stopping the whole thing the other week, because they don't respect the electorate. They think that because they have the power to do something, they should use it. Very disrespectful, I felt. At the same time, totally unsurprising!
Third, I don't see the equivalence between the MP term limits and Brexit.
The division caused by Brexit is prime supporting evidence for the idea that we need smaller government, not larger. People disagree on pretty much everything. Instead of working towards bigger and bigger government, forcing people to surrender to policies with which they do not agree; we could move in the opposite direction. Want to smoke in public? Move to France. Want to drive your car as fast as you like? Move to Germany. Want to smoke outside and drive fast? Oh shit, now there is nowhere for you.... but there could be! The world is big enough for everyone.
Or is it the same thing/company?
That's all.
Long live Europe the continent.
Down with EU bureaucracy.
Brave of you to reveal the depth of your intellect
Related: is everyone who voted leave a dummy?
How does one classify as a dummy? Some might say, the ones who voted remain are the dummies.
Also related. Are dummies people? Do they even deserve a vote?
How about old people stealing our futures? Should they have a vote? I mean, if you're going to be dead soon what does it matter what you want?
I mostly have disengaged from politics .due to the lunatics now running the asylum.
Throughout history social progress has been two steps forward one step back . We are currently on the one step back ,globally
By the way, what is it "we" want from the EU anyway? Theresa May can't agree with her own Cabinet on what we want, and the government can't agree with their own backbenchers on what we want. Further, if the EU is so bad, why do you want so much of it?
52% vs 48% and a 72% turnout, how can you call 4% a majority?
Thats such a slim margin that there is no way it should be considered a "majority"
Add to this the fact that it was a protest vote by many people who were misinformed or simply ignorant of what it meant...
Half the country said no, but their "will" does not count it seems.
The idea to leave the EU is the most stupid and ill thought out thing to happen in decades.
Zero advantages unless you happen to be a vulture capitalist waiting to rape the shit out of anything profitable that might be left...
and glad to see Formula having representation in the UK, best brakes period.
PS: the money and time spent on this monumental f*ckup could have been invested in the NHS
To be honest, I'm not really bothered either way.
I'm disappointed by the whinging that has gone on after the vote though. The people decided by a margin sufficient to be considered a majority (however slim, it was still a majority).
I feel a kinship with Leave voters now. Not because I agree leaving is the best option per se, but because I think the way a lot of very vocal Remain voters have refused to accept the result, coming up with countless excuses why the vote shouldn't count, is an ugly disgrace. People didn't know! They are all the uneducated people! They are all old! They stole our futures! They voted on lies and misinformation! It was a protest vote!
I wonder if the majority would have been considered "acceptable" if Remain had won by 4%. I have to say, I think Leave supporters would have accepted the loss and moved on, which is exactly what Remain supporters should be doing.
A referendum is democracy in its purest form. One has to accept it and move on with life.
asking an uninformed public to vote on something so far reaching is ridiculous, their views are formed by mass media moguls they are not their own because they cannot have a valid view on something they know nearly nothing about...
4% is not a majority, it is inconclusive. anyway you want to look at it.
if referendums are so great lets have some more on key issues and see what happens
maybe we should have a referendum on wether there should be another referendum....
its not democracy in its purest form, its idiocy pure and simple.
stop reading the mirror...
Now, if the Remain camp had won, we'd be in a predictable, predicted situation. Continued EU membership was a known quantity. Since Leave won the referendum, we've slipped further and further into unknown territory that no-one predicted. Look back at the Leave campaign and find me any statements or promises from them that match what is happening now. We were told we could have common market membership without freedom of movement, we were told we'd be saving hundreds of millions, not spending billions. We were told negotiations would be easy. No-one on the Leave side predicted that after 2 years of negotiations the only deal on the table would be so bad that it would be defeated in parliament by a record margin and cause a rift in the ruling party so deep that some are predicting it may split completely. No-one predicted that the only alternative would be leaving without any deal or any of the benefits of EU co-operation.
Now that we do know this, now that the information we did not have during the referendum is available to see, what is wrong with another referendum? An informed decision on what is available to us? After all, ever since the result came down the Leave camp have been talking about respecting the will of the people. At every step, every challenge we are told that we must plow on regardless because it is the will of the people. if they are so confident that they retain the backing of the will of the people now that the consequences have become clearer, why does the prospect of a second referendum scare them so much?
Besides , you speak as if everyone is an intellectual, well surprise, their not...
Like the great Vanessa Feltz said" Hold on and enjoy the ride"
There should be another referendum though. Absolutely.
You don't agree to buy a car on a hypothetical, and then hand over your money without seeing the vehicle. This is the same principle.
You guys know the weather isn't too bad to ride your bikes rather than grumble on here.
It is an undeniable fact that we now have far more information about what Brexit will entail than we did 2 years ago. When we find out if Parliament accepts a version of May's deal or we face no-deal then we will have more information still. The argument that it would then be ANTI-democratic to ask the electorate whether Brexit still has majority support when we have, for the first time, a concrete picture of what Brexit means is facile and absurd.
Nicola Sturgeon. I hate her with a passion. She wants Scottish independence and will not stop pushing for vote after vote until she gets it, despite being in the minority. She's like a broken record. It does my head in. Remain is giving me the same feeling. Just let it go.
As an aside, one major factor during the Indy Ref was the fact that an indepedent Scotland would not be part of the EU and a large majority of the Scottish electorate want to remain in the EU. If Brexit goes through, I think that will be strong grounds for the SNP to demand, and quite possibly get, another Indy Ref. One of the few funny things about the whole situation, the people who voted leave to 'protect British Sovereignty' may well be responsible for the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
What I mean is, I would like another vote on a personal level. But this is not a personal thing, it's about democracy and to me that means the majority rules. It will make a mockery of the democratic process if Brexit is stopped by an undemocratic process - that being, the result somehow being changed by a group of influential people who cannot accept defeat. They feel on a personal level they will lose too much. But for me it is not personal. I am but one of 65 million. There are a lot of other things I disagree with too, like speed limits for example. Speed cameras. But it's not my say. I am but a drop in the ocean. A single grain of sand on a beach. I must go with the flow.
So I guess to clarify, I am with him on some things and not on others.
Do you want to pick any more nits?
First: Explain how a second referendum would be an undemocratic process?
Second: Explain how if the result of the second referendum would somehow be changed by a group of influential people, the result of the first referendum was not due to the efforts of a group of influential people? How could one result be legitimate if the other would not?
Third: Explain why we don't elect MPs for life? The people have made their decision using majority rules democracy that they want this person to represent them in parliament. Is it not undemocratic to go back in a mere 5 years and attempt to undo that decision which represented the clear will of the people?
First, about the second referendum. It would be undemocratic because the so called "do-over democracy" principle would have been applied. That is to say, giving the plebs a vote on a desired policy. If the powers that be get the result they want, it is treated as immutable. If not, it is treated as illegitimate. In this case, another vote is held as soon as possible. The process is repeated until the "correct" result is achieved.
It is understood that the majority of power mongers and influential people in the UK were in the Remain camp.
Let's say there is a second referendum, and Remain wins this time. It is quickly followed by Leave mounting a challenge on the basis of lies and false advertising. The tables would have turned. What would be the best course of action? I know! A third referendum!
What is more important than having the right to vote? That the vote is actioned. Right now, that has not happened. Is that democracy? Wasting a huge chunk of public tax money to make the people go through the same vote again? Is that democratic? They already voted once!
Second: I was referring to that thing where some back benchers were talking about stopping the whole thing the other week, because they don't respect the electorate. They think that because they have the power to do something, they should use it. Very disrespectful, I felt. At the same time, totally unsurprising!
Third, I don't see the equivalence between the MP term limits and Brexit.
The division caused by Brexit is prime supporting evidence for the idea that we need smaller government, not larger. People disagree on pretty much everything. Instead of working towards bigger and bigger government, forcing people to surrender to policies with which they do not agree; we could move in the opposite direction. Want to smoke in public? Move to France. Want to drive your car as fast as you like? Move to Germany. Want to smoke outside and drive fast? Oh shit, now there is nowhere for you.... but there could be! The world is big enough for everyone.
How many countries are there in the world? 192 is it? Something like that. That means there are approximately 165 countries that are not in the EU at this precise point in time. Are they all f*cked? Have they got a future? Why is there the belief that we cannot survive outside the EU, when the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have been doing just that for their entire lives?
Next point, the vote has been actioned. Brexit is currently law. The government has spent two years trying to get the best Brexit possible and they've come up with something everybody hates. If there is no Brexit the government can agree on why not ask the people again? Aside from your strawman of infinite referendums what is undemocratic of asking the people to decide when the government cannot?
Next point (your second), that has nothing to do with a second referendum. The first referendum was a non-binding vote. Brexit is now law, but constitutionally speaking it doesn't have to be. If those back benchers and a majority of parliament wants to cancel it then legally they can do just that, in parliament, without the express consent of the electorate. So again, the fear of a second referendum being somehow manipulated to the point of overriding the people's vote is a strawman.
Third, the question is why not? Why is it not undemocratic to keep asking the people over and over and over again the question of who they want in parliament? They made their choice, why not abide by it?
Finally, you just made another argument for the EU. They haven't stopped you from being able to smoke outside and they haven't stopped Germany from letting you drive your car as fast as you want. However, it's a hell of a lot easier right now to mave to Germany and take advantage of that freedom than it will be when we leave
An analogy - the internet. Never used to be important, right? Been around for less than 30 years, widespread broadband for less than 20. Always used to do just fine without it, right? Take away all broadband internet access now and watch society collapse overnight.
Wouldn't you just go down to an ATM and get some cash out? Banks don't use the internet apart from the front ends that customers use to check stuff. All the actual banking is done on their own networks.
My dad pays for everything in cash.
It's an interesting subject though. I would be happy to never hear of Facebook or Twatter again. Much as they are useful. They are by no means essential. What else do we use the internet for? Arguing about bikes. Buying stuff. Making hospital appointments. Nothing you can't do without walking and talking. I am open to being educated though.