Cycling as a whole; losing the plot...?

[Tangled Metal]

Does anyone else operate the bike buying policy of one in = one out? Basically in our house we are allowed one bike each. Except the youngsters who still have their old pedal bike and balance bike. Oh and my ancient road bike that due to stupid sentimentality reasons I can't sell even though it's only a 7 speed mid range Raleigh bike from nearly 30 years ago that isn't roadworthy. Oh and the freebie bso I got given. But the bso has been stashed at family house and I have never used it. Not mine really.

Sorry I digressed. My point is how many on here lamenting the simplicity that's lost in modern bikes and cycling actually keep it simple with one bike? I suspect in not buying into the 12 sprocket cassette and full MAMILs paraphernalia most complainants will have several bikes or at least the component parts of several bikes. I would contend that this means they are as guilty of MAMILdom tendencies as MAMILS themselves. IMHO that's as much about losing the plot. One bike, ride it. Simplicity!

Come on Bruce, you're a bike collector who's never happier with another component to add to your collection.

[barrym]

I operate a one in one out policy on most things. I have a box for computer bits and when it gets full something old has to go. More a FIFO I suppose. Applies to tools, clothing, footwear. I am very minimalistic in possessions. It has its disadvantages, but satisfies my OCD tendencies.

I used to apply it to motorbikes too in an unhealthy (and expensive) quest for the perfect machine.

[Samuel D]

My point is how many on here lamenting the simplicity that's lost in modern bikes and cycling actually keep it simple with one bike? I suspect in not buying into the 12 sprocket cassette and full MAMILs paraphernalia most complainants will have several bikes or at least the component parts of several bikes. I would contend that this means they are as guilty of MAMILdom tendencies as MAMILS themselves.

I disagree with this contention, but for the record, I have one bicycle.

[amediasatex]

actually keep it simple with one bike?

No, that would require too many compromises I'm not willing to make. A typical week of cycling for me includes:

5x daily commute, 2 panniers as need to carry a few things as haul stuff around between charities as well as work clothes etc.
1x weekly shopping run, 4 panniers and/or trailer
2x midweek road training rides, one solo steady (15-17mph avg.), one group faster (16-19mph avg.)
1x leading beginners road ride

..then one of the below depending what is on at the time.

1x social MTB ride
1x MTB race
1x Audax
1x long road club run

Then there's the occasional events like a short tour, trips to the tip, longer MTB exploring rides, or the longer 12/24hr MTB races.

If you can find me one bike that will do all of those satisfactorily then I'll buy two of them! (so I have a spare )

If all your riding is similar and you can adapt the bike to be suitable for all uses then it makes sense to only have the one, but one of the great things about cycling is that it is so varied, and while a bike might just about get by for some things occasionally if your regular riding is varied and regular then that level of adaptability isn't really possible. I certainly can't use the same bike for a 24hr MTB race AND fast club rides, and neither of them would likely be suitable for touring or a full shopping run, there's crossover areas for sure, especially if you're willing to accept some big compromises, but at a certain point the 'simplicity' of one bike starts to make things harder, not easier.

Oh, my wife rides too...commute, road and MTB so we're never going to be a 2 bike household.

[Brucey]

I don't have just one bike for similar reasons. But arguably the main reason you can't have one bike for all purposes is that your expectations for each purpose are framed by the bikes other people are riding rather than exclusively by the task in hand per se.

You could maybe ride all those routes on (say) a touring bike, if you could accept that you are not easily going to keep up with folk on more specialised equipment....?

just a thought....

cheers

[amediasatex]

just a thought....

And a valid one, you're absolutely right, I could ride the fast club run route on a tourer, I could even take a tourer on the MTB rides, but in both cases I'd find myself riding alone within a few minutes, and in the case of the offroad routes, making things a lot lot harder for myself and (for me) less enjoyable and in some cases making what would be a fun and challenging MTB ride into a laborious walk with bike. It'd probably have a big impact on my race results as well

So yes as much about the experience of that ride as it is about actually physically being able to 'do' the ride.

[bigjim]

Brandt managed to ride his one bike on all different surfaces and conditions. Kept up with everybody, led the pack and said he rides for the pleasure of being out in nature rather than racing. Probably one of the few though.

[amediasatex]

Yes, but there's a big difference in the definition of riding different surfaces.
A bit of gravel, forest tracks and some moorland path is 'off-road', and doable on any bike, but that's wildly different to a proper MTB ride., and even if you can actually ride a road bike or tourer on some of those routes you wouldn't be leading the pack, even if you were JB

[bigjim]

Yes, but there's a big difference in the definition of riding different surfaces.
A bit of gravel on a forest track is 'off-road', and doable on any bike, but that's wildly different to a proper MTB ride.

Agreed. If it's a case of jumping over rocks and so call technical trails, fair enough. But I see that as a completely specialised form of cycling. Tried it once and the inate coward within me decided "never again".

[amediasatex]

If it's a case of jumping over rocks and so call technical trails

Some of the most technical trails out there are often just old moorland and mountain bridlepaths, in some cases extremely rocky, steep, slippery and technical and often much harder to ride than the constructed rocky areas of MTB trail centres. The difference being that those trails are designed to be ridden on bikes, a lot of the bridlepaths are barely 'constructed' let alone with passage by bike as a consideration!

On the same note though, I think a great many people would be surprised what is capable on a sturdy road/path bike or tourer with some 30mm tyres. You're right that a full on MTB is a specialised tool and a great many people use them for riding routes well below the capability of the bike.

I took a friend of mine for an overnight camping trip last year, mixed surface, including quite a few miles of trails we would normally ride on our MTBs, I assured him his (30mm tyre'd) road bike would be more than capable if we just took things a bit slower, he was very sceptical but pleasantly surprised in the end

[Vorpal]

We've had various threads on here about similar topics in the past. I don't think cycling is losing the plot. Every hobby, every form of transport, every form of sport attract some adherents who want access to the newest, latest, greatest gizmos. Humans are inventive animals, and if there weren't companies thinking up new stuff to sell us, there'd be mroe people who forever took fettling that much further.

Also, there are companies to sell us stuff, and that's how they make money and how their employees make a living. Convincing us that we need the latest, greatest gizmo for whatever reason, from 'cool' to an edge on the competition.

Where I do think there is a problem is where people who are new to cycling are put off of it because they buy something that isn't suitable. Either because they bought the cheapest thing at Tesco, someone in a shop sold them an MTB when a town bike would have been better, or they are sold something that is *way* overgeared or isn't set up correctly for them.

There is alot of ignorance out there, both amongst people selling bikes and those buying them. There are consequently many bikes sitting idle or going to the tip, and potential cyclists being put off.

The roots of this problem are in consumerism, which isn't easy to fix.

p.s. I have a tourer, hybrid, road bike, MTB, tandem, and folding bike. I like and use all of them, and none have 11 speed cassettes or electronic shifting. They all have indexed shifting and alloy wheels. Frames and brake systems vary.

[Brucey]

it is good to have more choice of course. But as I earlier commented, this does not come without a cost, or at the expense of something.

I think a recent casualty is 'the touring bike'. Easily the most versatile kind of bike, it has been supplanted by myriad different hybrids, 'adventure bikes' and gawd-knows what, each one a shade different from a touring bike and a shade better at one thing, at the expense of another. These variants appear to be modern and trendy etc but they are, overall, not such useful or capable bikes as a traditional touring bike IMHO.

I took a look at the Raleigh website recently. 'Touring bikes' are not even a category any more. I discovered that they still make a Raleigh Royal touring bike, (their dealers advertise them) but I couldn't find it on the Raleigh website....

cheers

[bigjim]

Typical Jobst Brandt.

[bigjim]

I ride with two CTC clubs. There are a variety of riders on new and old bikes. Hybrids, road bikes and tourers. Off and on road, but generally not technical trails, though they sometimes can get a bit rough. The people with only one bike always ride a touring machine. They also seem to be some the fittest as well for some reason.

[mig]

^^ maybe they're on it the most as it suits them so well...? one of the thrusts of the thread methinks.

nb. that brandst bloke needs to "slam that stem " on that head tube.....er...dude.