There's an interesting rant over at The Recumbent Blog called "The Bicycle: Toy or Tool?
"In the U.S., bikes are marketed as fashion statements, requiring replacement every couple of years for fear of looking passé."
He goes on to make the "user-friendly" argument that Rivendell pioneered to promote their ergonomic bicycles. I bought into this a few years back and purchased a Rivendell. No regrets.
However, the notion that "carbon fiber and aluminum racing bikes with spindly wheels, splashy graphics, and pencil thin, high-pressure tires... are only marginally useful as anything other than toys" is simply untrue. Indeed, I ride with plenty of people who have used such bikes daily for years--for recreation, commuting and "credit card touring"--and certainly seem to enjoy themselves.
Perhaps what we are really dealing with here are conflicting marketing visions: your hype vs. my hype. Sheldon Brown liked to point out that every bike rider wants to think that his preference is not only best but perhaps the only way to go.
Bikes and accessories, reviews, touring, discussions, photos, open comments.
Hi Gordon,
ReplyDeleteI saw your trackback - thanks for responding to my article.
You said:
"Indeed, I ride with plenty of people who have used such bikes daily for years--for recreation, commuting and "credit card touring"--and certainly seem to enjoy themselves. "
I have no argument that many bikes being sold today are enjoyable - my complaint has to do with their limited utility.
I commuted on a lightweight racing bike for years and it was OK when I was racing-weight and super-fit in my 20's. I didn't mind the position, or carrying my stuff in a backpack, or repairing flats by the side of the road in the rain at least once a week all winter in Seattle.
But now that I'm approaching 50 I've gotten a little soft; I have little patience for the discomforts and annoyances associated with that kind of bike when I'm running errands or riding to work. I have to think many others are in the same boat (plenty of my friends and co-workers have told me so).
So to reiterate my original point, most bikes being marketed today make lousy replacements for automobiles (toy vs. tool). In my estimation, to effectively replace a car, a bike needs to reliably carry the rider over varied terrain (not just smooth roads) in varied weather conditions (not just sunny days) with varied loads (i.e., up to 6 bags of groceries or 4 gallons of house paint). To do all this reasonably well it needs durable wheels and tires with flotation, brazed-on racks, fenders, lights, and a seating position that is conducive to riding in street clothes. I'm just not seeing very many bikes that fit this description in my local bike shops.
Thanks for discussing this - it's a topic well worth debating.
Regards,
Alan
"I'm just not seeing very many bikes that fit this description in my local bike shops."
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's because they simply aren't as much fun to ride. Everyone I met in Holland had both a work bike for daily errands and a recreational or "fun" bike for ripping around on weekends. That wouldn't be a bad model for us. Anyway, it works better than an either or proposition.
The bike shops out here have both varieties, but yes, the emphasis is definitely on the sporty models. My problem with sneering at them, as I have done myself on this very page below, is that we get into a well worn generational battle, with us oldsters arguing for the sensible utility bike and the young people flipping us off as they blast off on their fixies. In other words, my thinking on this is evolving because I don't want to end up in an anti-fun position.
BTW, Alan, GREAT blog. See my link to The Recumbent Blog at the right.
Hi Gordon,
ReplyDeleteI'm all for fun - I'm sure you get that from my blog. But right now we have a unique opportunity where people are starting to look at alternatives to the SUV due to dependance on foreign oil, gas prices, global warming, etc. It would be my guess that at least some of these non-bike riders would consider a bike as an alternative if there was marketing to sell the message, and a good selection of sophisticated products to back it up. Yet, for the most part, what I see coming out of the industry is pretty much the same tired old story. I'd hate to see this golden opportunity pass by...
Alan
PS - Thanks for the kudos and keep up the good work on your blog as well.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteThe question is: will people actually do things that aren't fun? I guess we'll find out.
Meanwhile, we already have a wide selection of practical bikes for those who want to make the effort. In fact the Dutch "work" bikes I admired daily are now available here--at inflated prices (thanks to the exchange rate). But compared to the cost of a car, they're still dirt cheap. And you're right, the marketing of such bikes as alternative transportation could be stepped up a lot.
But I think we have to be careful not to look down our noses at riders on ultra light bikes, which may have no room at all for fenders or rack. The truth is these hotrods are much loved by their owners and look, they ARE bikes! The notion that say, a carbon fiber fork, can fail at any moment simply isn't born out by reality. Millions of riders are now using these forks and they aren't dropping like flies. Knocking the competition is little more than nasty reverse marketing by the steel bike makers.
So I say, if kids want to go fast, let 'em ride hotrods, I for one am happy to see ANY two digits on my speedo when I'm riding around. In fact, I avoid competitive riding groups, even when the competition is unspoken. But hey, I'm 66 and still running around town on a bike. As Shaw said, "Youth is wasted on the young."
I like to say, "Bikes work pretty well, even when they don't work all that well." In other words, if it gets you where you want/need to go, it A-OK with me. This applies to department store junk and high zoot carbon-ultra-anium.
ReplyDeleteI have to take issue, however, with the idea that practical bikes aren't fun. First, there are lots of kinds of fun other than the zipity-zoom kind. Second, people don't use cars because it's fun. It has more to do with advertising and the power of the auto and oil industries. I'd say riding any bike is a whole lot more fun than sitting in traffic.
"...people don't use cars because it's fun. It has more to do with advertising and the power of the auto and oil industries. I'd say riding any bike is a whole lot more fun than sitting in traffic."
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah, an Arcata City council meeting is also more fun than sitting in traffic, but only barely. Let's face it, David, we bike commuters could possibly be having less fun than the driver of a Porsche 911, or for that matter, a Specialized Roubaix, but we're pure at heart.