Originally Posted by Polaris OBark

I think in the world of imaginary sock puppet sparing partners, I prefer the Feynman creations.

Originally Posted by beng1

Great thread. I agree 100% that most on this forum worship speed, high-end equipment and light weight as a yardstick for measuring all of cycling equipment and riders too.

I have always loved going fast on bikes since I was five years old, I think it is natural to want to go faster than walking if you are on a bicycle or a horse etc.. But most have lost their perspective on cycling and most other things. I believe it is the society based on predatory capitalism and it's consumerism, which always defines success as more, more more, and as excess. If a little speed is good more must be better, the more something costs must mean it is better, and the lighter a bike is, because it is a function of it's higher price and helps going up hills faster, it must be better too.

I only bought one new bike ever, early in 1997, my MTB, and I love it, but it will be my last new bike absolutely. I love my four road bikes too, three of them are from the 1970s and one is from 1985, and the initial purchase price of all four is $63.

Lately I have been a zone-2 rider, where you can still speak a sentence while riding, but it is a chore and you need a breath or two between your words or sentences. I would not be against entering a race in my area, but I am interested to see how fast I can go without leaving the zone 2 exertion level, which seems to be the best balance between physical fitness and exercise and speed.
Just as I am interested in zone-2 speed, I am also interested in how fast my old bikes can go, not in how fast I can go on carbon-fiber, multi-thousand dollar junk that they peddle to the public now. I like the bikes I grew up with since the 1960s, they are great bikes and all I will ever need.
99.999% of riders are not interested in racing and are not pros making money with their riding, so the common-sense thing for them to get out of their rides is fun and relaxation along with a bit of exercise.

Originally Posted by rydabent

A vast number of threads on this forum would make everyone think that speed is the holy grail of cycling. I contend it is not. I say that the vast majority of cyclist just ride for the enjoyment of the ride. We just like to be out in the open air, enjoy the sites, and or run errands. We dont ride high priced bikes, or dress in high priced kits. We dont care about form, position, cadence or any of that, we just enjoy the kind of riding we like.

Originally Posted by Polaris OBark

Just so everyone knows, this thread succeeded beyond any reasonable expectation.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

This thread has succeeded in accomplishing only one thing....and that one thing was to create more divisions and hostility between cyclists who ride for sport and speed and cyclists who just ride for pleasure, recreation and exercise...

Originally Posted by Jeff Neese

Perhaps there are individuals, but as a whole retrogrouches don't tell people they're wrong or call newer bikes garbage..

Originally Posted by GhostRider62

You think funny.

Speed is good.

So is capitalism.

Success is defined individually, on our own personal terms.

Just because my recumbent is much faster than Rydabents and faster than probably anyone's upright bike, does not make it an excess.

I am glad you like your old bikes. I still have mine but rarely ride them because the new ones are light years better and would not have been made without capitalism. You think funny

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

No, that's pretty much baked into the definition of a retro-grouch. Cyclists that prefer older (vintage) bikes, but don't constantly argue that modern bikes are crap, aren't labelled as retro-grouches.

Originally Posted by jfouellette

High end buyers are not stupid and gullible. They just see value in different things. They are also willing to be early adopters of technology for example which is very useful as a way to drive innovation. In many cases we would still have one speed bikes if it wasn’t for them.

Originally Posted by genejockey

The idea that new bikes are "junk" is so absurd.

Originally Posted by Polaris OBark

I think in the world of imaginary sock puppet sparing partners, I prefer the Feynman creations.

Originally Posted by Maelochs

He was a genius, but he could write stuff that even i could understand.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

This thread has succeeded in accomplishing only one thing....and that one thing was to create more divisions and hostility between cyclists who ride for sport and speed and cyclists who just ride for pleasure, recreation and exercise...

Originally Posted by genejockey

. Did older cyclists in the 60s rattle on and on about how these fancy derailleur things were junk?

Originally Posted by beng1

Just as I am interested in zone-2 speed, I am also interested in how fast my old bikes can go, not in how fast I can go on carbon-fiber, multi-thousand dollar junk that they peddle to the public now. I like the bikes I grew up with since the 1960s, they are great bikes and all I will ever need.
99.999% of riders are not interested in racing and are not pros making money with their riding, so the common-sense thing for them to get out of their rides is fun and relaxation along with a bit of exercise.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

I don't recall anybody ever saying that newer bikes are total junk. I've heard people say that they prefer older bikes and older tech but I never actually heard them say that anything newer is junk.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

Please point to a single post in this thread where anyone says it's wrong to ride for other reasons besides speed.

SPOILER ALERT-- there aren't any.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

I don't recall anybody ever saying that newer bikes are total junk. I've heard people say that they prefer older bikes and older tech but I never actually heard them say that anything newer is junk.

Originally Posted by beng1

[snip]
Just as I am interested in zone-2 speed, I am also interested in how fast my old bikes can go, not in how fast I can go on carbon-fiber, multi-thousand dollar junk that they peddle to the public now. I like the bikes I grew up with since the 1960s, they are great bikes and all I will ever need.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

Ooops. See, I bring receipts.

Originally Posted by wolfchild

No one actually said it's wrong, but the divisions and hostilities between the two groups are obvious. Just like hostilities between cyclists who prefer older and newer tech.

Originally Posted by livedarklions

As I recall, yes. There was just no social media to preserve it.

Originally Posted by genejockey

The idea that new bikes are "junk" is so absurd. Did older cyclists in the 60s rattle on and on about how these fancy derailleur things were junk and cycling tech hit its pinnacle with Cambio Corsa?

Originally Posted by beng1

99.999% of riders are not interested in racing and are not pros making money with their riding, so the common-sense thing for them to get out of their rides is fun and relaxation along with a bit of exercise. whatever they want, whether it's speed, or dawdling, or sightseeing, or pushing themselves to their limits

Originally Posted by wolfchild

No one actually said it's wrong, but the divisions and hostilities between the two groups are obvious. Just like hostilities between cyclists who prefer older and newer tech.