Maelochs

Since my life is not dictated by magazines I have no idea what this thread is about.

I only ride bikes because I like to. Sometimes I try to go fast, usually I go slow, sometimes I ride a long way without stopping, sometimes I stop every quarter-mile and take a bunch of pictures.

I do it all purely because I enjoy it.

As far as "back in the laid-back days" ... I recently adjusted my work schedule so i could rejoin my local gym ... or something like that ... and while I was signing up an older (than me) gentleman stopped to examine my bicycle (of course I ride to the gym--I ride everywhere I can ... like when I was a kid.) He had had heart issues, so had I, so we talked about that. He said that he was trying to get back into cycling but he just couldn't go fast like he used to before his heart issues.

He regaled me with stories from his racing days, talked about how he had done a local randonee in nearly some record-setting pace, went on about another gym member who actually held the record ... when I tried to tell him that to me, every mile on the bike, no matter slow or fast, was a gift and a joy ... he faded out. I tried to explain that I loved just being on the bike, and that bad heart or not, I was so glad I could still ride, and how much joy it brought me ... but he just didn't get it. If he couldn't go fast on a bike, just riding a bike wasn't worth it to him.

He was an old guy who used to be a young guy "Back in the day," when everyone was supposedly "laid-back."

Our myths are myths. The magazines have always peddled myths (pedaling myths, in this case.) There was never a "laid-back" era, and not only now are "Type A" personalities attracted to bikes (Eddie Mercxx and Cipolini were such laid-back guys, right?)

As for the mags ... already been said. They need ads because subscriptions don't cover the costs, and they can't afford to take up space with long articles because half the pages are ads. They can't afford to alienate advertisers, so their reviews are homogenized pap. And they aim at the wealthy rider because, duh ... who else spends the money on the stuff that's advertised?

But it's not like the bike mags were pure and holy back in the day---they Always aimed their ads at whoever they thought would buy the products ... again, duh. What's the point of an "ad"? It's just that back then, everyone was buying whatever baseline Schwinn was for sale, and not many people were buying exotic racing frames.

Now the people who were buying Schwinns (or the Sears or Montgomery Ward equivalent) are buying from Walmart, and a lot more riders are buying bikes better than the pros were riding 40 years ago ... and similar to what the pros ride now.

But ... laid back? That is and always has been a personal thing. Nowadays people are being fed the idea that "laid-back" equals "lazy" and everyone should work harder for less and buy more .... and if people want to believe that tripe, great. Not My Problem.

I am about as "laid-back" now as I ever have been. I was certainly a lot more amped up when I was 9 or 12 or 15 and riding heavy steel bikes while wearing jeans and sneakers. I enjoyed different things then, or the same things in different ways. But I have gotten More "laid back" as I have aged .... and now I almost always ride in spandex bibs (simply more comfortable) and a jersey (sweat dries faster or doesn't build up at all) and even my sandals have cleats on the bottom.

So again ... I really don't understand this thread. I guess I will go back and read it again.

A closing note: These Are the Good Old Days. If not, you are doing it wrong.