There
must be a lot of bicycle racers out there, huh? If you look at the latest issue
of Bicycling, it’s pretty convincing that bicycles are for racing. In the buyer’s
guide issue, there are 14 bikes listed as entry-level road bikes. Of those,
there were only five that I would call non-race bikes, and two of those had
carbon-fiber frames
The
articles are all about training for fast rides, riding fast for training, or
fast training for rides. The featured bikes are all racing bikes. Carbon
fiber frames, close clearances because that’s what makes bikes look fast, not a
fender to be found, but fenders were mentioned is one of the short reviews.
Racing
has to be the prime purpose of riding a bicycle, if that’s the ink devoted to
it, right?
Wrong.
Bicycle
Retailer and Industry News, the biggest trade magazine in the sport, annually
devotes an issue to statistics. They had numbers of people own bikes, number of
people who ride now and then, numbers of numbers and more. The one that I liked
is this: 5.29 million people in the US ride their bike at least 110 days in a
year. These are “serious bicyclists.”
The big
racing organizations provided these: USA Triathlon has 150,000 members, and USA
Cycling just under 71,000 current licenses, for a total of 221,000 “serious
competitors.”
Which
means that more than 5 million serious bicyclists are NOT serious competitors.
So tell
me, why is almost every recreational bicycle in the $1,000 - $2,500 price range
a racing bicycle?
Why
can’t we find fun-to-ride road bikes with clearance for 700x28 tires and
fenders?
Sure,
there are a few, but they are hidden behind all of the flashy carbon fiber race
bikes so specialized and fragile that they cannot take full fenders and that
can break if you fall wrong.
Earle, old friend. We should be in more-personal contact than this. But let me respond to your post in a way that I find relevant. I have not aged well - now over 62, I am diabetic, weigh more than 300 pounds, experiencing progressively deteriorating eyesight, and would be classified on most financial scales as "poor." Riding a bike again (it's been too many years) would give me a pleasant and physically beneficial (some might say potentially life-saving) form of exercise and gprovide me an important alternative means of transportation. But few bikes are built for occasional-use (or perhaps daily short-distance-use) 300+ pounders, and fewer still at poverty-accessible prices. I hope you'll address these issues in your future posts.
ReplyDeleteYour old fat friend from Newark, CA.