Similar thoughts cross my mind every time I'm passed by a cyclist with a $2,500 bike wearing technicolor corporate spandex.
As someone riding an ancient bike in a grubby, flapping getup, I sometimes wonder who's having more fun.
Similar thoughts cross my mind every time I'm passed by a cyclist with a $2,500 bike wearing technicolor corporate spandex.
As someone riding an ancient bike in a grubby, flapping getup, I sometimes wonder who's having more fun.
However, for strength training, I’ve made two small purchases (a belt and deadlift straps). They’ve been both fun and a way to help me in the process. I spent a total of around 40 dollars, so it isn’t quite comparable, but my point is that I can provide one anecdatum that exercise equipment for a hobby can be fun.
I like my cycling tunic/jersey thing because it gets really good airflow, but I've gone on long rides in just a plain old t-shirt, too.
I've heard a lot of stories of people going through quite a few different saddles until they finally find one that "works", but in the meantime they've also been spending a lot of time riding and have toughened up their posterior. So was it the saddle or the adaptation that solved the issue?
I'll wear padded shorts and lycra for a looong ride (2-6 hours) as it's just more comfortable, but plain tights under short and a cotton tshirt is fine for the 30min commute.
I myself ride some pretty wierd, definitely not race spec bikes and I love every minute of it. I never considered racing or "winning at bikes" to be important to me.
The mistake some people make is in thinking they can get both forms of sport out of the same machine. This is impossible; no machine will stand the double strain. "
Jerome K. Jerome, Three Men On A Bummel, 1914[1]
(The very-much underrated sequel to Three Men in a Boat -- probably because of the title! -- in which the three men take a trip across Germany on 1 bike and 1 tandem).
Training and racing was immensely satisfying for the few moments when I would beat a personal best or place well, but it wasn't necessarily fun. The time, suffering and monetary cost of bike racing even on at the amateur-with-no-hope-of-going-pro level is crazy. The most fun I've had cycling was doing leisurely rides with friends or even just around the neighborhood with my partner.
I say this without judgment. I ride a custom recumbent, so it's not like I have anything against spending money on the hobby. But I do wonder what the drive is that seems to affect so many people the same way.
"How are you?"
Even if it isn't something one does without being prompted, frame of mind is such an important part of performance. Anything that can lower perceived effort is worth taking seriously.
So you people need to stop being judgy. I won't judge someone because they ride a crappy looking bike in crappy clothes so don't judge someone for riding a fancy looking bike in lycra (which btw is very comfortable athletic wear, you should try it). Everyone is having fun in their own way, they have their own motivations for doing some of the same things. Just because I put a lot of effort (and money) into my biking it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, it's my favorite part of going to work.
I don't think I ever smile when riding a bike, either my mind wanders if it's "easy" or I am concentrated because I don't want to hurt myself.
On my commute (by bike) I even sometimes actively think about hard problems at work, apparently I look very grim because only a month ago a ~10 year old was shouting "come on, smile" at me when I was passing him. Or maybe I was just imagining it because it's so funny :P
What I'm saying is.. I know a ton of people who don't smile while riding a bike. Or doing anything except when talking to other people or reading something funny.
To each his own, but I can't imagine getting much enjoyment out of road cycling.
Now mountain biking seems to me much more interesting.
And my friends and I don't compete to go the fastest, we try to 'clean' difficult trails. To clean a section means to ride it without putting a foot down or stopping.
You need to watch your line, and traction becomes your most precious resource on climbs. Apply too much power when your back tire is over a root and you'll blow the climb. You have to keep a constant awareness of where the contact patch of your back wheel is at all times. You can't just mash up the climb and 'win.'
It's like the difference between saying: "I'll ride this trail faster than you" and "I'll ride this trail 'better' than you."
I myself ride a pair of $2500 mountain bikes, but they are a mix of ghetto old components (one frame is 20yrs old with gripshift!) and high end parts (Chris King rear hubs).
I put the money where it makes the most difference.
Also, re lycra, I've been known to ride wearing a mechanic's jumpsuit when the stinging nettles are bad, but I do sometimes wear the lycra stuff too.
When I was very young, and about a third my current weight, I rode my bike from Montreal to Vancouver with a bunch of friends.
They all had the latest $500+ touring cycles. I had a brown $99 generic bike from Toys R Us.
We all got there at the same time. And since my bike was far less engineered and precise than theirs, mine broke less often and could be repaired much easier.
Apparently it was a pretty common issue with the series of bikes.
Your friends were unusually unlucky in their choice of bike, or you was unusually lucky.
Compared to the cheaper bikes I used to ride, the difference is night and day.
You don't have to go crazy, but you should spend enough to get good quality.
After the trip, I got into serious long-distance cycling for a few years, and bought a real road bike. You're right, it was night and day.
So often I see people on bikes with the saddle set so low that they can't get any power from their legs.
They must all think, wow: "biking sucks."
Your seat should be set high enough that your leg almost straightens at the bottom of the stroke.
I unsure got to a bike shop and ask them to help you.
I would definitely not recommend people ride across the country on a BSO (bike shaped object, often found in department stores).
The "extra" money into more expensive bikes may partially be marketing/name brand but most of it either goes into making things lighter or stronger (and sometimes both). A real touring spec bike will tend to be on the heavier side (at least, compared to race bikes) but be much stronger than a typical bike. They really are pretty robust. I don't know if your friends were just unlucky and you were lucky, but it might just be sample size, as you'd really want to measure this over much longer times/distances.
I have friends who pretty much always ride cheap bikes due to losing them semi-regularly in the city. The main differences between them and more medium-price bikes seem to be: poor brakes and clunky shifters, and occasional catastrophic failure of components (i.e. not repairable without replacement). Oh, and they tend to be heavy.