Good quality bikes

Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.


"This one is 400 grams lighter, this one has 9% extra cogs in back (but
only one chainring in front), this one might be a little more aero, this
one's components are made in Uzbekistan..."

Actually, buying something exotic usually is more expensive that buying
what Shimano sold last year or sells this year. You'll hardly get more
value for your money than by buying the second cheapest racing bike from
a large chain.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.

You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 30 May 2021 17:59:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

-- Jay Beattie.

Of course you can. And probably anything else, well if it is legal, to
bolster your ego. Goodness, some even have/had several wives.

And yes, I have, currently, two bikes. One in Bangkok and one here at
the "country house". After all it is a bit over 200 km from here to
Bangkok and at my age undertaking a 200 km ride to visit the grand
kids seems a bit excessive.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm questioning
multiple bikes that are near duplicates and used for the same type of
riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh Super Course.
In my view, that basic design is acceptable for many purposes, although
these days people would want much fancier components. I used it for slow
to fast recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road races,
some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping and commuting. Heck,
even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of riding we each
do, what type of bike would be best for each, and how much better each
type would be compared to a general purpose bike.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:59:21 p.m. UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.
What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

-- Jay Beattie.

+1

Some people just enjoy having different bicycles to ride whenever thy fancy a change of pace. Doesn't matter one whit if all their bikes are racing bikes. The IMPORTANT thing is that THEY ENJOY them.

Cheers

On 2021-05-31, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2021 8:59 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

Again, I'm not questioning multiple bikes per se. I'm questioning
multiple bikes that are near duplicates and used for the same type of
riding.

For many years, I had one bike, a "sport touring" Raleigh Super Course.
In my view, that basic design is acceptable for many purposes, although
these days people would want much fancier components. I used it for slow
to fast recreational riding, centuries, a couple low-level road races,
some time trials, some fairly long tours, shopping and commuting. Heck,
even some riding on forest trails.

I suppose we could discuss how many different types of riding we each
do, what type of bike would be best for each, and how much better each
type would be compared to a general purpose bike.


One bike?!!?

Wow, one might as well have only one Coleman stove...or lantern.
Unthinkable!

I think I have around 35 lanters--stop me before I restore again! and
something like 7 stoves (not all Coleman, but don't tell).

I have a Tour Easy recumbent and my good old 1980's Cannondale touring style
frame.
It also appears that my daughter has returned/abandoned the old Mountain
bike I gave her (Specialized Rock Combo, I think?)
Maybe I'll put a bafang on that.

ph in Aptos

jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.

What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds
doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM
in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our
meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if not
most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one
bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

-- Jay Beattie.





Ummm, I do sir. Can I have another?

I have only one bike but it’s a good one. Sadly, it would not serve well
to deliver mister Fagan’s papers. :-)
I had a touring bike but never rode it as I prefer the road bike. So I
gave that one to someone who would use it. I don’t ride in the snow so I
can get by with one.

That’s just me. Buy as many bikes as you like.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:59:21 p.m. UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 4:21:31 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/30/2021 11:04 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 26 May 2021 12:12:25 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:


I can understand owning different bikes with greatly different purposes,
e.g. a bike for loaded touring, a bike for trails in the woods, a bike
for getting groceries, a folding bike for traveling.

But I don't understand owning several bikes for "fast" riding,
especially if a person is too old or two slow to compete in actual races.

This isn't an either/or-situation. One of my sons owns und uses two
bikes for fast riding, both of the racing type. He doesn't compete in
actutal races and doesn't compete at all. For doing more than 100 km for
visiting us here, he needs a decent bike, though. A well maintained
and well equiped racing bike is a perfect fit for that purpose.

On the other hand, living in a large town means not having much choice
for parking a bicycle when riding around, so he uses a racing bike for
that purpose too, but a different one. It is an old racing bike,
somewhat worn, he bought it cheaply. Good enough for getting around,
light enough to carry it around, but expendable enough for taking the
risk of chaining it to a lamp post with a simple lock. A racing bike is
a perfect fit for that purpose, too.

I can understand that strategy. Those bikes are serving different
purposes and chosen accordingly: one is used for long fast rides where
he will never leave it alone, and the other is a much more expendable
"just getting around" or "beater" bike.

That's different than a person saying "Hmm. I'm going to do a quick
100km ride. Should I take the red one with Shimano, or the green one
with Campy, or the black one with SRAM?" At some point, too much
similarity equals useless duplication.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it seems strange to me.
You (and I) are undoubtedly too old to understand. After all we grew
up with only one bicycle and somehow "made do" with that one bike
whether we wanted to ride downtown to the "movies", deliver the
newspaper to earn a bit of money, or even in one case I knew about,
ride out in the pasture to herd the cows home for milking.

What we didn't realize was that we were "deprived" and had we had more
then one bicycle we would have grown up as better people. Had you been
the owner of a multitude of bicycles who knows how far you would have
gone. Even all the way to the top of the heap there in Washington
might have been possible.

You see, modern Americans really do need many bicycles. I mean, what
would the neighbors think... only one bike? Goodness, perhaps they've
lost their job?
--
Cheers,

John B.
What a load of sentimental nonsense. We're not a bunch of ten year-olds
doomed to our single balloon tire bike to deliver newspapers a three AM
in the driving snow, our fingers bleeding -- having to turn over our
meager collections to Mr. Fagan, the evil manager for Olde Tyme News.

We're adults, and we can buy as many bikes as we want, and many -- if
not most -- of us have more than one bike. IIRC, you have more than one
bike. Frank has more than one bike. Who here as only one bike?

-- Jay Beattie.

+1

Some people just enjoy having different bicycles to ride whenever thy
fancy a change of pace. Doesn't matter one whit if all their bikes are
racing bikes. The IMPORTANT thing is that THEY ENJOY them.

Cheers


+1