Search results for:

I'm not familiar with the Squire Vulcan lock but I can confirm that it is not approved by Sold Secure:
https://www.soldsecure.com/search?name=Vulcan&action=

The cheapest padlock that we do from Squire that is approved by Sold Secure is the SS50-P5 open shackle lock, and that's about the same price as the one you mentioned:
https://www.soldsecure.com/search///ss50-p5-padlock.html

Open Shackle locks are not as tough as closed shackle, but they are lighter and cheaper. However, we would only recommend that lock with our lightest, 11mm chain, and that is not tough enough to be on the 'Locks that Work' list. We do offer all of our chains in Package Deals with locks that are approved.

This all comes down to how much weight you want to carry, how much you want to spend, and what security level you are after. We are happy to give advice via e-mail if you like?

They didn't even ask us if we wanted to participate.

We happened to tell them about our new DIB D-Locks back in March and we were told about the test that was already underway by then. They said it was "a damn shame" as it was too late to add anything else. I was very disappointed as we have provided samples to C+ etc many times, with the most recent being a fair old pile of stuff last summer.

You're welcome. Useful feedback, so thanks to you too. Several people have said when they're out on a proper ride they won't need to lock the bike so a holster/bracket isn't relevant. Keeping our bikes next to us on a cake stop has been OK for us in the past, but it is a restriction for sure.

We did research an idea suggested by @GA2G, actually, wrt a bracket but couldn't get the dimensions to work on a range of frame sizes. Plastic moulding is tricky due to tooling costs and you need so many adaptors with the variety of tube shapes these days and that compounds the problem, so we've not got any good solutions so far, I'm afraid.

I'm more than happy to bounce ideas around e.g. if anyone knows another manufacturer that has a strong bracket that will fit an 18mm diameter shackle? (The steel on our DIB locks is 16mm diameter, but there is a rubber cover so the OD is 18mm.)

Sincere apologies. I was about to say I've got no idea why I didn't get a notification about recent posts on this thread, and then thought it might well be caused by us moving our web/mail server a few weeks ago and the new anti-spam system doesn't seem to be as reliable as we'd like. I was also on holiday around when you e-mailed, so that probably didn't help. Apologies again.

No, to answer your question, we looked into some ideas about a lock holder but decided that they are getting more and more compromised by the new shapes and sizes of frame tubes such that many D-Locks that do come with a frame bracket don't work on a lot of bikes now anyway. Your mileage may vary, of course, but we also had another example recently of a mainstream manufacturer's D-Lock bracket breaking and falling off a bike whilst it was being ridden, very thankfully without any injuries of other serious consequences.

We have a Restrap "lock holster" for testing and intend to offer that for resale, assuming we don't have any problems when we finally get round to trying it properly.

I'm always happy to hear feedback and ideas on this, and this is an excellent forum for exactly that.

Oh, perhaps I should say we've almost sold out on the new DIB D-Locks, so if you do want one, despite us not having a frame bracket, you might wantt to bear that in mind. We will have lots more stock, but it'll be close to Christmas. Apologies on that score, too.

For anyone that's interested, we did some chain link cutting tests comparing a cordless grinder with a powerful mains grinder, in a vice and on the floor and also completely hand held. I said to Jonny69 that we don't want to reproduce actual time figures as that might show a thief that his "quick cutting time" could perhaps be quicker, but the ratios are perhaps more meaningful anyway as it gives some guidance on what might be gained by using a thicker chain and/or using it properly.

We did some cuts on our Protector 11mm, 13mm, 16mm and 19mm chains. These were held in a vice and cut with a Dewalt mains grinder and also with an 18v Dewalt cordless grinder (with fully charged lithium battery), and we also did some cuts with a chain lying on the floor and holding the chain by hand.

The ratios between similar cutting tests were as follows:

The cordless grinder typically took 2 to 3 times as long as the mains grinder to cut the same link, with the thicker chains being the 'worse' ones to cut in terms of ratio as well as timing (naturally). I think this is because the thicker chains bind more on the sides of the disc as the cut gets deeper, which obviously applies more in the thicker chains.

With a cordless grinder, the time taken to cut the 11mm vs. 13mm vs. 16mm vs. 19mm was around 100% : 200% : 280% : 367% as percentages of the time to cut the 11mm chain. E.g. it took twice as long to cut the 13mm compared with the 11mm.

Cutting a 13mm chain link lying on the floor with the cordless grinder took about twice as long as when it was held in the vice, significantly, cutting it when it was swinging around in mid-air and I was holding the link by hand, took about 5 times as long as when in a vice (or more than 3 times as long as when it was on the floor).

I think these last figures are the most important of all as they illustrate why we always say you should try to keep a chain off the floor. This makes it much harder to cut with a grinder and also with bolt croppers.

This suggests you might be better off using a 13mm chain 'properly' (particularly keeping it off the floor) rather than having a 16mm chain lying on the floor.

These poorly gripped situations (on the floor or in mid-air) are actually likely to be non-linear as I found the 13mm link was repeatedly snatching in the cut and in fact, so much so, that I would refuse to attempt even a single cut of a handheld 16mm link let alone 19mm! Even with a cordless tool, which is relatively weedy compared to a powerful mains grinder, it was decidedly dangerous on just a 13mm link and it is as you get deeper into the cut that it becomes more likely to snatch. Naturally, a 16mm or 19mm link requires a deeper cut, even with me rotating the link around in order to minimise that effect. It would be harder to rotate a larger link and in a real-life theft situation it would be happening at a mid-point in a run of chain rather than an isolated few links like I was doing. So, the manipulation time would increase significantly and the snatching risk would increase markedly, so you’d have to be very desperate to even try handheld cutting on thicker chains IMHO.

We didn’t try any scenarios where one person was holding the chain and another person was using the grinder. That would presuppose a situation where there is enough room to get 2 people close to part of the chain, which also hints at incorrect use of a chain, just as leaving a chain on the floor.

We also didn’t attempt anything in an awkward handheld position. The only handheld cut I did was scary enough as it was, honestly, when I could rest the link close to my leg.

So, the summary is that whatever you do, it is crucial to keep the chain off the floor (and similar findings would be expected with a D-lock etc).

I hope that helps.

Hi Jonny69,

GA2G is right. I am tempted to suggest that you might want to edit your post to remove the detail you've got near the bottom of it as many thieves may not know that such things exist.

Just imagine if a thief normally takes 'x' minutes to cut a chain and you tell him about a way of doing it quicker than that? He will surely investigate the advantage. If you also tell him about a tool he doesn't know about, even more so. We all have to be very careful about this. Ditto when cutting D-locks etc etc. There are doubtless thieves reading this thread, too.

We would be happy to post you an offcut of our 16mm chain as you will get the same results as with chopping up your own. (Perhaps also the 11mm/13mm and 19mm.) PM or e-mail me your address (info@pragmasis.com). However, that would be on the condition that you don't reveal anything that could be useful to thieves. You can put comparative timings on here if you wish so people can make their own judgement on the extra benefit from 19mm over 16mm for that type of attack, given your tool/situation/skill, but we would not want actual figures, even if you're terrible at cutting chains ...as the thief might be even worse! :-)

I hope that make sense?

If MrDrem wants to do a home-made ground anchor, we would actually suggest it is not a good idea to concrete-in a bit of chain as the link that emerges from the concrete is very vulnerable to attack with hammers etc, as it is very solidly supported and not flipping and flopping around. If it is attacked and damaged/broken, you end up with a lump of concrete and a worthless bit of chain coming out of it with no easy way of fixing it unless you like using a Kango rather a lot ;-)

We suggest a better home made idea is to either get an offcut of 4" underground PVC drain piping and ideally 2 bends to suit, to contrive a big 'U' shaped tube that you would then embed in the concrete, optionally with some rebar sitting within the 'U' and the whole caboodle embedded in the concrete. That 4" pipe will be big enough to take any of the big chains and potentially more than one of them (depending).

Another similar idea is to use a short length of 4" land drain pipe (also available from builders' merchants) and to use a piece of string to hold that in a 'U', and some duct tape or cling film to bung up the holes (as it's porous piping), before embedding that in concrete as above.

Note that the big eyes used for lifting and fixing things are invariably not big enough to take a decent chain. We get that quite frequently, where someone has made an anchor with one of those as the locking point, and then discovered how bulky the decent chains are. You can solve that by using something like a mini-D-lock to go through the eye and the end of the chain, but that combination can itself make the D-lock vulnerable to twisting attacks against the eye. Better, in our opinion, to either do one of the embeded drain pipe ideas above, or to use something with sufficient capacity to take a proper chain ...such as a decent ground anchor :-)

The other thing to be wary about with home made solutions is that they may not satisfy the insurance requirements. Some cycle policies just require an "immovable object" (read the small print), where something like the drain pipe or other idea may do the job, but if they demand something with Sold Secure Bicycle Gold etc approval, there is little option but to go for a commercial product with the right piece of paper. That is exactly why we pay out initially with each new product and on the annual audits again, so that the piece of paper is available for those that need it.

I hope that helps,

Steve ...a 'he' :-)

Hi MrDrem,
Well, since you asked, we make the second one (the Torc Series II anchor), but the first one (PJB's Concave anchor) is also good. We can supply the Torc with a specific fitting kit that allows you to set it into fresh concrete (so there is more metalwork than you see in your photo, as well as different fixings to hold it all together - PM me and I'll give you a link to our web page that details the range of fitting kits, with more photos).

The Concave has the advantage that it is truly flush when it is installed, until you put a chain through it and then none of them are flush ;-) The Concave can trap water in its 'U' bend, and although there is usually a drain hole (that should be positioned below the concrete), such things tend to get bunged up with leaves etc after a while. That is pretty minor as the security of your bike is likely to be more important than whether the chain gets mucky or not.

To be honest, it can often be what each supplier also offers in terms of Package Deals etc as there may be more difference in terms of chains and locks and other products. If you can get what you want from a single source, you can potentially save on shipping.

Feel free to ask more specific questions if you like.

I hope that helps,

Steve.

I'd be wary of relying on any type of lock just going through the bent bars of the bike rack as they look easy to bolt-crop or hacksaw. I'd certainly put something around one of the more structural horizontals of the stand. The lower horizontal may be impractical because of the woodwork behind it so there may not be enough room to get anything worthwhile around that.

Beware that large D-locks are most vulnerable to twisting and jacking attacks.

For me, a decent chain would be the best solution here by far as you can go through even the upper horizontal if you have to and then the same chain goes through the frame and potentially one or more wheel(s) as well. It's much easier to lock a bike the right way up in those frame, IMHO, too. However, I'd still be wary of clearance behind those horizontals as a chain that will provide a good deterrent will be quite bulky.

I hope that helps.

As a manufacturer, I'm not going to get drawn into comments about specific locks, but I will state that bolt croppers are most certainly one of the biggest threats to anyone wanting to keep their bikes (bicycles and motorcycles - they are all commonly stolen with bolt croppers). Bicycle thieves often use bolt croppers up to 24"/60cm and occasionally 36"/90cm, whereas motorcycle thieves will very commonly use the b-i-g 42"/105cm croppers. GA2G is absolutely correct that carrying these things in vans is a common approach, generally for the more professional of thieves. Bicycle thieves do carry the 24" ones under a coat, for example.

Thieves will look for the fastest and most reliable way of stealing a bike, often ignoring the damage that may be caused to another bike (so don't rely on one bike 'anchoring' another bike as you can lose one and have the other one trashed). Hammers work quickly on many cheap locks and chains; 42" bolt croppers on virtually anything below 16mm thick where there is access to get the croppers to bear. This latter aspect is why it can be OK to use a lock with a sub-16mm shackle on a 16mm chain, for example, but only when the lock is a close fit on the chain, and even then most certainly only with 'closed shackle' locks.

I disagree with your comment that U-locks are the only things that are relevant, even for portable use. Most thefts happen from home so the heavy chains etc are very relevant and are immune to various of the attacks that can defeat U-locks. U-locks are often more practical to carry and can be used in addition to a chain where possible. They complement each other and have different advantages and disadvantages, but they both have a role.

Dambek, the first post in this thread and in the Secondary Locks thread set the scene for what each thread was seeking to achieve and GA2G and many others have given a lot of help to countless people that are trying to wade through so many options. Many manufacturers don't make it any easier by having subtle changes to product names or indeed to product specifications over time, so a thread like this that has fresh input on a frequent basis is a very useful resource to many people. I don't agree with everything that is said here, but I do think people can make more informed decisions as a result of these threads being available.

This is Steve of Pragmasis and I'm glad you found our stuff helpful and thanks also for posting your findings with the Ingersoll locks. Ingersoll have an excellent reputation, but they are pricey.

You didn't mention how you got on with the Abloy PL362 with those spare links we sent in combination with various chains? That is a popular topic as the Protec is a very highly respected cylinder (certainly one of the best in the world as a padlock cylinder). However, we advise against use of the PL362 with any 16mm+ chain as the shackle is very very exposed as the opening below the shackle is extremely wide. So, if you've found that you can compensate for that by using odd links of smaller chains, that may offset this concern. Personally, I'd still prefer both of the Ingersoll locks you mentioned, or the similarly-closer-fitting SS65CS from Squire, as relying on e.g. a 13mm chain link to protect the shackle means there is a possible Achille's heel, if someone chooses to crop that thinner link. Even so, those that already have a PL362 may wish to consider it, if you found it workable, as it increases the work a thief needs to do to get at the shackle on that lock.

Thanks again.

The lock body allegedly involves Squire and we sell a lot of their stuff so we may be able to find out more about it. I have asked. We would potentially be interested in it if it really is a good and useful compromise between weight and security. I suspect it won't belong in this thread, but perhaps as a secondary lock it may have some advantages. I definitely remain to be convinced as I for one would want to have a go at it to see how it fares with basic tools used forcibly.

The traditional or restricted type of key doesn't relate directly to the bump/anti-bump issue. That is down to the internal design of the cylinder and how the pins are machined, etc. Hence, you can have a simple, non-restricted key profile in a cylinder that is still anti-bump. Restricted profile keys are really there to make it harder to pick, and are a separate/independent defence against attack. Having both anti-bump and a restricted profile is good if you want to keep stuff safe.

FYI the 19mm chains are about 40% heavier than that 16mm. (6.3kg per metre, vs. 4.5 kg per metre, same for ours and Almax's.) More bulky and a lot harder to handle (carefully). Some of our customers with a series of previous thefts have fabricated a shelf bracket-like support to take the weight of a 19mm chain so it doesn't all rest on the bike. If the thieves keep coming back then you have to do something to stop them, but a 19mm chain on a push bike is getting extreme IMHO.

To put that in perspective, although only a little, grinders are very rarely used for stealing bikes. It does happen so it's small consolation if you are a victim, but it is very rare. It's a somewhat different story for agricultural and industrial kit, but for bikes it's a better situation.

There is also a huge difference in capability between mains powered grinders and cordless grinders, with the latter often getting low on battery power and especially so with cheaper cordless tools and with the thicker chains etc. There is another huge difference across different cutting discs, and again, another big difference when cutting things that are not held in a vice - the thicker materials/deeper cuts get more dangerous anyway and especially so if the parts are not held very firmly. Trying to keep chains etc off the floor and to obstruct access to them does make it a little more awkward for you, but it also makes it a lot less appealing for a thief with whatever tools.

At the end of the day thieves don't want to get caught so if you want to keep it more than they want to nick it, you will hopefully keep your stuff.

I think it is a shame when thieves muck up the lifestyle of law-abiding people, but it does happen and I suppose it's a case of minimising the disruption & worry. Of course, not riding the Mather to work may mean it's left at home where you won't be able to respond to an alarm going off, and thieves are potentially able to work indoors and out of sight. If it is a really special thing to you, then having it nearby and multiply-locked as you plan could actually be the best security you can have for it ...assuming it's locked to something really solid :-)

Ah, that product detail page is just inside our shopping cart, whereas our 'Info' pages have the main guff on our products. It is on my to-do list to restructure the site to make all this easier to navigate. Apologies that it is not as easy to find info as it should be. Most people come to our cart via the info pages, but if you bypass that then you may think there is a dearth of detail. Checkout the other pages (at the top of the navbar) if you want detail on any of our stuff, and we always try to answer questions ;-)

I'll still go for the Abloy PL362 though.

Fair enough, but PM me separately with an address and we'll send you a 13mm offcut link and an 11mm link as well, FoC. If you put one or other of those in the gap next to the chain, whichever is the tighest fit, you should be able to obstruct access to the shackle and get the best of both worlds, hopefully. I'd be interested to know if this works as we've got loads of offcuts from the smaller chains and it might be something of use to others :-)

Hi Velocio,

Sure, I want to sell my product, but more than that I want proper information and to allow people to make reasoned decisions. I will actively encourage people to buy products from other companies if I think they are better suited to their needs.

I said 'thin' re Almax's chain because it is less than 19mm across the 'flats'. It is not round but is slightly square. This gives them a commercial advantage in terms of campatibility with the standard SS65CS lock as their chain fits and ours doesn't so we have to get Squire to make a special version with a slightly wider opening (only 1mm clearance, though). However, my point here is that their flattened shape means there is more clearance inside the opening on the PL362 lock, and that could be significant for croppers and grinders. With the SS65CS, it is insignificant, but the PL362 is a different thing altogether.

You say the shackle on the PL362 is 25mm but that is actually the vertical clearance, which is not that important. The horizontal clearance is my main worry as that is 30mm, so lots of room for croppers or grinders to get in there next to a chain link. I was also talking about the thickness of the shackle itself, which is only 15mm (so far less than the 19mm chain). Hence our concern that the shackle is very exposed and at 15mm thickness could be a major weakness when partnered with a 19mm chain. I would not do it if I was you.

The video you quoted is made by a chap called Adrian Weber. He has also made several videos on our chains and other products, e.g. :

http://youtu.be/LFafq-u7wqQ

You could ask him what he thinks about the chains in comparison and whether the shackle clearance on the PL362 is a concern.

The Squire keys you photograph are the Quick-Change/standard profile. I think Squire dropped the QuickChange option last year. We never used it. We don't use the standard profile and our 'restricted' keys are different. However, these Squire keys are 'conventional' profile keys and I would agree that the Protec cylinder (which is the one to have in the PL362 - beware not all PL362 have the same cylinder inside!) probably is harder to pick. That is theoretically speaking as we've not heard of anyone ever picking either of them, including 'Bosnian Bill' who has done a lot of work with Adrian - search YouTube for l-o-t-s of videos from someone that really does know his stuff and can pick almost anything and his videos are genuine! We checked the restricted cylinder with Adrian and with Bosnian Bill before we switched to it last year. As far as I know, he has never been able to pick it. Even so, picking virtually never happens in real life: Thieves like far more reliable types of attack, such as hammers, croppers, jacks etc. Hence, the concern about shackle vulnerability is a far bigger issue than the pickability of high-grade cylinders in our opinion.

I'm not sure why you found it difficult to find the dimensions on our chains as we quote this for our whole range:

http://securityforbikes.com/security-chains.php#linkdimensions

Does that give the information you were after?

Personally, I'm not convinced of the value of 19mm chains on bicycles in general as the advantage they give over 16mm is basically down to angle grinder resistance, and realistically an angle grinder has a chance of getting through anything. The usability disadvantage of a 19mm on a bicycle, however, is huge. I'd rather see a 16mm chain looped through multiple parts of the bike than a 19mm just around the top tube, for example. We have seen multiple cases where frames are cut in order to separate a chain, and the bike is gone. Your multi-part strategy should have a major deterrent against attacks like that and I applaud that type of approach. Every deterrent is a good deterrent :-)

Does that help?

I'm Steve at Pragmasis. There are lots of lock-picking videos on YouTube but you can never tell which are genuine from those where people have doctored the cylinder inside in advance (e.g. these locks have removable cylinders so it's easy to take out half of the pins, for example, and then make the video), or where they're practised for ages with that specific lock, or where they've got advance knowledge of the profile of the key. Squire have checked into several of these claims and have never come across anybody that can pick an unknown SS65CS lock in a realistic situation like those videos suggest.

Independent of all that, we actually use a different cylinder inside the SS65CS and SS50CS locks anyway. It is a 'restricted' cylinder that has a much more convoluted keyway and we've not heard of anyone, ever, being able to pick it. We switched to that cylinder last year and Almax are now using it, too. These locks are not 'accessories' that are trivial to pick.

The PL362 is an excellent lock, but not with these chains, and especially not with a 'thin' 19mm chain like Almax's. There is far too much clearance on the shackle so someone with bolt croppers can gain access to the shackle beside the chain. The following video (in German) demonstrates, albeit with a smaller Abloy 'PL342' lock and a smaller chain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiaOSf2sQxM

It is important that the chain link fills most of the space below the shackle on the lock, unless the shackle is as thick or thicker than the chain link. This is why neither Almax nor we sell our 16mm or 19mm chains with the PL362. FYI RiDE magazine did a locks & chains review with proper testing earlier this year and scored our Protector 19mm identically to the Almax Series IV - we both got joint first place.

If anyone wants to see any of our stuff in the flesh, we will be exhibiting at the Cycle Show at the NEC in September and we'd be very happy to show you what our stuff is like.

After about 5 years of use my squire lock decided to jam. Filled it with oil and it never helped. Seems like the innards did something very bizarre, the key position is 180º of where it should be based on the locking "teeth".

Squire have a 10-year guarantee on most of their products, so I'd suggest either contacting the place where you bought it, or going direct to Squire themselves on their helpline: 01902 308052.

I hope that helps,

Steve.

I would put the Fah' around the head tube and post along with the chain in the same place for the front wheel and frame, then Mini Evo' on the rear wheel, seems safer?

I think that's potentially a good idea except ltc said the existing chain won't fit on the Fahgettaboudit, and having the chained lock on the head tube might still allow a scrote to remove the handlebars and lift the lock up 'n' over to the top tube and cut that to release lock and chain, after releasing the front wheel. We prefer the seat tube and rear triangle routing for the chain because the scrote can't take the rear wheel off without making a second cut of the frame or of the wheel & tyre, none of which are likely to be appealing to him. Still good approaches and probably all sufficient for this value of bike (although a scrote often won't know how much a bike is worth, of course).

^ I will check the thickness of the chain! It was bought on here a while ago and I could be getting confused! Either way the bike in question is probably worth about 1/5th of the £1500 upper suggested limit for the 11mm if it turns out that that is what it is after all. I will use your technique going through the main and rear triangles and rear wheel. Thanks for the advice! Any reccomendations for a chain that would fit the fahg through as an alternative to a new padlock would be appreciated as well.

You're welcome. The Fahgettaboudit Mini we have here measures 21.2mm maximum thickness across the plastic covering, so our Protector 13mm chain should fit that although it could be close as the nominal internal link width is 22mm and that does vary slightly from batch to batch. Feel free to specify 22mm internal width if you decide to order and we can check what we've got. Feel free to PM me if you want a link to our web site as I may get moaned at for spamming if I put links in here! You might also get away with an offcut that is shorter than our normal minimum length of 0.8m - again, PM me what length you might need and we can see if we can help out without breaking the bank for you!

Cheers,

Steve.

I'd suggest double-checking the actual thickness of that chain. If it's one of ours (I can't tell from the photo), the grey-coloured sleeve would normally indicate just an 11mm thick chain, and we would normally only recommend that up to about £1500 bike value, depending.

We also normally prefer putting the chain through the main triangle and the rear triangle and rear wheel. With the arrangement you've got now, it looks like a thief could make a single cut of the down tube of the frame, drop the front wheel out, and steal the rest of the bike. That wrecks the frame, of course, but he gets all the components and rear wheel with only a single easy cut. He can deal with the other D-lock at his leisure. A heavier chain that will fit the Fahgettaboudit might be cheaper than a second Fahgettaboudit and allow you to tether the rear half of the bike, still using the Mini on the front wheel.

All this assumes the post that the chain goes around has something solid at the top so it can't all be lifted up and over...

Ground anchors that work... ?

Closely followed by one entitled "How good is your concrete slab"?

Good point. Most people don't realise that the concrete is the weak point, at least it should be compared with any decent anchor. Brick is weaker still and block more so, as a rule. Hence, it is important to have at least a 3-bolt fixing on any good anchor, and spread out. The worse the substrate, the larger the fixing area required to get a good anchoring effect. You can compensate for virtually any grade of substrate, but anything fixing to a small area or using just one or two bolts can't be any good IMHO.

One of these+ small bag of cement:
http://www.reliancemarine.com/Product/17745/Stainless-Steel-Eye-Bolt-16mm/View.aspx?gclid=CMK-wtm72bcCFdShtAodJx8AQQ

Beware that this is likely to be too small to use with any decent chain as it quotes "Eye i/d: 34mm".

Beware also that any home-grown solution that doesn't have a formal approval will probably not satisfy the requirements of your insurance.

Perhaps there should be another thread: "Ground anchors that work" ?
:-)

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/accessories/locks/product/review-torc-ground-anchor-39860

The Torc ground anchor is our product. FYI We asked the BikeRadar/C+ guys to replace the photo on that review as there's no way you should fit any kind of ground anchor to block paving - the blocks just lift up - Doh!