General Cycling Discussion - Now, I normally wouldn't agree with the car-free crowd, but...

I went on a trip this weekend. Took Amtrak from Philly to DC then a commuter train (VRE) from DC to Manassas.

The Amtrak ride was mostly through inner city / industrial areas and rural areas. Not a lot of suburbs. However the commuter train of course goes out into the suburbs.

The difference in scenery was AMAZING. In the inner city / industrial areas you saw some cars, parked in front of rowhouses, in the parking lot of warehouses, etc. Once we were out close to Manassas, it was like parking lots, car lots, mechanic shops, cars cars cars cars cars. Really made me notice how MANY of the darn things you see in the suburbs. And what a huge chunk of the economy must be devoted to making them, maintaining them, stocking parts, selling them, loaning money for them, etc.

I still won't say we should get rid of 'em, but it really surprised me how noticable the increase in cars-relative-to-other-scenery was as we came out into the suburbs.

Cars are a status symbol, plain and simple...

That's the sacrifice we make for the luxuries and demands that the world offers and requires

Cars are a status symbol, plain and simple...
Rich cars over 40k are.
My car is not a status symbol though i could own a status symbol car if i chose to.

Rich cars over 40k are.
My car is not a status symbol though i could own a status symbol car if i chose to.

Heh, the very idea of someone thinking of my 35-year-old rusted-out pickup as a status symbol...

But the gist is quite correct. People in general tend to buy the best/most car(s) they can afford.

Cars are a status symbol, plain and simple...

Depends on where you live, what you do and what kind of life you want to lead. For example, I live in Denver. my daughter goes to school in Durango, CO. If we want to visit her or if she wants to visit us, it's a 7 to 8 hour, 400 mile trip. Buses don't go from Denver to Durango and there hasn't been train service to Durango since the Denver and Rio Grande Southern pulled up tracks in the '50s. There is no way to get there in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost, except by car. I suppose I could ride my bike down there but that is a 2 week trip, minimum, through the most rugged of Colorado's mountains...and it would only be possible from June to August, possibly September.

Then there are the quality of life issues. I don't want to lead a life where I can only go, comfortably, 50 miles from home, if I go out on the plains. If I go into the mountains, cut that in about half (25 miles out and 25 miles back would be a hard day, especially around Denver). I like to range further afield than that. I also like to do other things than ride a bike all the time. I like to fish and hike and camp. Taking 2 weeks to accomplish that every few weeks would be difficult considering that I do have a job and a family. So a car is a necessary evil.

Don't get me wrong, I admire people who are willing to give up their cars. I just can't give up mine totally, so I do the next best thing...I use it as little as possible. Since 1988, I have ridden my bike to work and average of 110 workdays per year (that's the years I have records for). Considering that there are 260 workdays per year, that's an average of around 43% of the time riding to work. I don't know many people who have cyclocommuted to work that much for so long.

Who in God's name would think a 2003 Camry is a status symbol?

Cars are a status symbol, plain and simple...
and a $7000 litespeed/colnago/bmc isnt?

Depends on where you live, what you do and what kind of life you want to lead. For example, I live in Denver. my daughter goes to school in Durango, CO. If we want to visit her or if she wants to visit us, it's a 7 to 8 hour, 400 mile trip. Buses don't go from Denver to Durango and there hasn't been train service to Durango since the Denver and Rio Grande Southern pulled up tracks in the '50s. There is no way to get there in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost, except by car. I suppose I could ride my bike down there but that is a 2 week trip, minimum, through the most rugged of Colorado's mountains...and it would only be possible from June to August, possibly September.

Then there are the quality of life issues. I don't want to lead a life where I can only go, comfortably, 50 miles from home, if I go out on the plains. If I go into the mountains, cut that in about half (25 miles out and 25 miles back would be a hard day, especially around Denver). I like to range further afield than that. I also like to do other things than ride a bike all the time. I like to fish and hike and camp. Taking 2 weeks to accomplish that every few weeks would be difficult considering that I do have a job and a family. So a car is a necessary evil.

Don't get me wrong, I admire people who are willing to give up their cars. I just can't give up mine totally, so I do the next best thing...I use it as little as possible. Since 1988, I have ridden my bike to work and average of 110 workdays per year (that's the years I have records for). Considering that there are 260 workdays per year, that's an average of around 43% of the time riding to work. I don't know many people who have cyclocommuted to work that much for so long.

OK so in all of what you said... did you buy your particular vehicle because it was most efficient vehicle available, or because it looked cool?

If we were to stick to the issue of the need of some motor vehicles due to the immediacy of some transportation needs only... Then there would never need to be the umpteen styles of vehicles, and the annual "fashion show" of new cars... vehicles would only be presented new as they were actually improved not simply changed. And vehicles such as the Hummer (with poor milage, poor capacity and suitable for only off road) would never see the paved public streets.

Rich cars over 40k are.
My car is not a status symbol though i could own a status symbol car if i chose to.

In Thomas Stanley's "The Millionaire Next Door" Stanley did a study of the car buying habits of the very rich vs the not so rich. In one study Stanley focused on people selling their luxury cars and on who bought them. In one case, a 20 something box salesman sold his 3 year old BMW 5 series to a 50 something doctor. Stanley questioned both buyer and seller about why they bought new vs used and what they each thought the others motivation was for their choice. The doctor said he enjoyed driving BMWs but couldn't justify the cost of a new car when so many lightly used cars were available at a substancial discount to new. He saw nothing wrong with buying a three year old well maintained BMW. He believed the young salesman wasn't being smart with his money, but was thankful to him and the thousands like him for taking the beating on the car's massive depreciation. For his part, the box salesman said he wouldn't consider buying a used BMW, as he makes more than enough to buy new. He also said when asked why he thought the doctor was buying his used car, that he believed the doctor couldn't afford a new BMW. The fact was that the box salesman had practically no net worth where as the doctor was worth millions and could easily afford a new BMW. Of course the box salesman is very young and will eventually learn how money works.

People do look at cars as status symbols. As this example shows, it's a mistake to judge a person's financial status from the car they drive. The guy with the new BMW wasn't even worth a fraction of what the used BMW buyer was.

According to Stanley the car most owned by millionaires in this country is the Jeep Grand Cherokee. The jeep is a great vehicle, and in it's full up trim tips the scales at about $40,000. That won't turn any heads at the country club, but being easy on the wallet sure makes looking at the brokerage statement a lot more fun.

OK I totally didn't mean to start a car-vs-no-car debate. I was just rambling about the way things changed as I was riding along in the train.

Exactly my view on it.

Thing is there are some really huge reasons why so many use cars:

*Roadway infrastructure is designed so only cars can traverse them easily.
*The increasing popularity of shopping malls and the decline of the community shops
*people have grown soft, and think a mile is a huge distance, when in fact they walk at least 5mi a day in a bad day.
*peer pressure (what, you don't have a car...you must be a LOSER!)

Myself, I don't need a car...I can finally say I am fully capable of living without a car. However, I do want to be able to up and go to Georgia to see my friend's band play, go visit my dad in Ohio, and so on...so I will be getting either a car or a motorcycle soon enough....something good on gas, and cheap on insurance. After all, I will probably only use it about 10-12 days out of a year.

People at work have finally recognized I'm not some "DUI", and do this because I find it personally rewarding, mentally and physically. Actually...it benefits me as a geek too...I just got done doing some surgery on my frame with a dremel, to get a 700x25c to clear the welds around the brake bridge on the rear triangle :p

and a $7000 litespeed/colnago/bmc isnt?

Of course not... that is a necessity. :D

Actually a $6000 Merlin would do just fine... thanks.

*peer pressure (what, you don't have a car...you must be a LOSER!)


Of course the best response to that is to point to their beer gut and say, speaking of "losing".

That only works if they have a beer gut though.

There are some pretty skinny folks that drive as well....most of them are not fit though...just bony.

I take a slightly different track on my anti car sentiments. You remark about the looks of Inner Philly.
Yes, I think commuting is a miserable experience and buy into the argument that the geopolitical aspects of gas gluttony is ruining our planets' peacefulness and all that stuff.
But, first I had a urban planner course way back in school. Then I read "Asphalt Nation." My bigger belief is the car is pretty instrumental in making inner PHilly look like the way it presently does. Not only ruins our country-side by facilitating suburban sprawl, but has destroyed once proud cities.
that does not mean , I favor banning the car or expect to be totally car free.

every single block on all streets for hundreds of square miles in the NYC greater area has cars on them. when they are parked it's bumper to bumper as far as you can see. every day for several hours in the morning, afternoon, and night many major roads become gridlocked. it's absolutely out of control imo.

OK so in all of what you said... did you buy your particular vehicle because it was most efficient vehicle available, or because it looked cool?

If we were to stick to the issue of the need of some motor vehicles due to the immediacy of some transportation needs only... Then there would never need to be the umpteen styles of vehicles, and the annual "fashion show" of new cars... vehicles would only be presented new as they were actually improved not simply changed. And vehicles such as the Hummer (with poor milage, poor capacity and suitable for only off road) would never see the paved public streets.

I bought a vehicle that fits my present needs. My wife has a Subaru which we use for almost all of our trips in town and most of our trips of any distance. We bought my daughter a Ford Ranger 4x4 because of the type of driving that she was going to have to do: winter mountainous travel and for use around Durango if she wanted to get out of town plus it allows her to carry her household goods back of forth when she ends school for the year. And I have a 1999 Tahoe specifically purchased because we needed something for 4 people and camping gear or bicycle gear and because the '99 Tahoe was the last Tahoe model that is worthy for mild off-roading. The 2000 Tahoes have soft suspensions and are glorified station wagons.

In my defense, however, I bought the Tahoe in 2001 with 43,000 miles on it. It currently has 73,000 miles on it. Last summer, I put less than 48 gallons of gas in it from May to September. Not bad for a truck that get horrible gas mileage. Also to show how little I use it, I changed the oil back in May 2005. If I followed the 3 month plan for oil change, it should have been changed in July. I put 5000 miles on it since May of 2005 and had the oil changed last week.

The vehicle that I really use is highly efficient- my bicycle. So I suppose I could answer, yes, I did buy my vehicle because of its efficiency. The fact that I like the looks of all of them (my bikes, I can care less about the automobiles:D ) is just gravy.

Since 1988, I have ridden my bike to work and average of 110 workdays per year (that's the years I have records for). Considering that there are 260 workdays per year, that's an average of around 43% of the time riding to work. I don't know many people who have cyclocommuted to work that much for so long.

For some reason, I thought you were cyclcommuting more. That makes me feel better about only getting in 108 my first year. I've got in 46 for year 2 so far [Nov-Oct yr], and if just match last year, will have 130 by end of year. But I can understand the lower numbers. This has been a drier season, and it's amazing how life pressures and illness can cut this down.

Actual I think there are less than 240 workdays a year. 52 weeks x 5 days == 260, But subtract 10 days for holidays, that's 240. Subtract another 10 for vacation and it's only 230 days. You'll have to adjust those numbers for your company but you'll have higher than a 43% riding experience vs number of ride days available.

I read somewhere that in cities, the amount of real estate devoted to The Car is some huge percentage, like bigger than 50%. Roads, parking lots, garages, fuel stations etc.

Boy we are idiots.

Suburbs aren't full of cars because cars are a status symbol. Suburbs are full of cars because suburbs are designed for cars and you can't easily live there without one or more cars.

So the obvious question becomes....why do people live in suburbs?

The most important answer is because houses are cheaper there than downtown. But they're only cheaper because of hidden subsidies...underpriced property taxes, "free"ways, subsidized infrastructure like mail delivery, and off-loading of other societal costs like the burden on the economy at large from air pollution and environmental degradation.

If suburbanites were charged the full cost of the services they receive and damage they do, many would prefer or be forced to accept modest urban accomodation.

I take a slightly different track on my anti car sentiments. You remark about the looks of Inner Philly.
Yes, I think commuting is a miserable experience and buy into the argument that the geopolitical aspects of gas gluttony is ruining our planets' peacefulness and all that stuff.
But, first I had a urban planner course way back in school. Then I read "Asphalt Nation." My bigger belief is the car is pretty instrumental in making inner PHilly look like the way it presently does. Not only ruins our country-side by facilitating suburban sprawl, but has destroyed once proud cities.
that does not mean , I favor banning the car or expect to be totally car free.

I wasn't speaking about Philly in particular. DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, and Philly were all more-or-less similar.

I read somewhere that in cities, the amount of real estate devoted to The Car is some huge percentage, like bigger than 50%. Roads, parking lots, garages, fuel stations etc.

Boy we are idiots.

I'm not surprised, especially if that's an average (large and small cities). Look at any shopping center, the parking lot is more square feet than the building. It's only in very dense areas that you actually get parking garages.

BTW, this may be off topic, but I love travelling by train. For Toronto-Montreal, the plane ride may be under an hour, while the train is 4-5 hours, but it is so much better.

Compare: The air travel is stressful, and broken up (20 min on the highway in the cab, 10 min in security, 50 minutes fidgeting on unwelcoming seats to board, 45 min crammed in the plane, 10 min getting out of the airport, 20 minutes in the cab). So almost 3 hours of alternating boredom and tension, much of it on bad seats.

Compare that to the train: 20 minutes on the subway, 30 minutes waiting in the first class lounge to board, 4 hours of luxury seating with wireless internet and gourmet food, and 10 minutes walking from the station to the hotel. So five hours of mostly comfort and relaxation. And cheaper, too.

Which would you choose?

For some reason, I thought you were cyclcommuting more. That makes me feel better about only getting in 108 my first year. I've got in 46 for year 2 so far [Nov-Oct yr], and if just match last year, will have 130 by end of year. But I can understand the lower numbers. This has been a drier season, and it's amazing how life pressures and illness can cut this down.

Actual I think there are less than 240 workdays a year. 52 weeks x 5 days == 260, But subtract 10 days for holidays, that's 240. Subtract another 10 for vacation and it's only 230 days. You'll have to adjust those numbers for your company but you'll have higher than a 43% riding experience vs number of ride days available.


That's average for the last, nearly, 20 years. Some years I've done as little as 71 days, some years I've done as many as 156 but the average is - oops - 113. I don't discount for holidays (too many years to keep track of) or for vacation (ditto). A lot of my vacations have been riding vacations anyway so I just count the number of weekday rides. It's not as accurate but if I wanted accuracy I'd be a chemist! Oh! Wait...:D

Records for 20 years. You win the documentation prize. Impressive. I agree I don't track % of available days either, just days riden.

You are probably one of the most experienced posters. What are your most important lessons you have learned, that we could benefit from your wisdom and experiences?

Records for 20 years. You win the documentation prize. Impressive. I agree I don't track % of available days either, just days riden.

You are probably one of the most experienced posters. What are your most important lessons you have learned, that we could benefit from your wisdom and experiences?

Don't forget your underwear.

It's okay to drive to work in pissy weather. Colorado has too many good days to waste bicycling on a crappy weather day.

Bicycling to work isn't the only thing you should do. If you have a chance to go fishing, go fishing.

Mountain bikes should never have any tire on them except knobbies. If you want to pound pavement, get a road bike.

Even flat singletrack is way fun if you ride it really, really fast! If you can out do a roadie on a section of singletrack, bonus points.

Don't hit a curb at 35 mph because you are taking advantage of the wind. It hurts. A lot.

Don't hit a car. That hurts more.

Don't use pavement to remove part of your knee cap after hitting a car. It doesn't hurt so much because you've severed the nerve at on the inside of your knee. But you have a knee that is numb the rest of your life.

Keep riding. Everyone you work with will think you are the office crazy person but who cares about them anyway.

According to Stanley the car most owned by millionaires in this country is the Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Hmmm... I own a ZJ and I'm not a millionaire... What gives? Where's my millions. :D

BTW, you know what avid Jeep owners say about the name Jeep don't you?

... that it stands for Just Empty Every Pocket. ;)

Cooker. My phrase about how the US treats' its cities. Use, abuse, abandon.
INner city real estate is expensive, until it is abandoned. Then it is just wasted.
I think some of the differences between the useage of US and Canadian cities is how the two countries value mass transit and train useage. In Canada my phrase of use, abuse, abandon does not seem to apply.
US cities , what a waste of real estate; when so many need shelter. I blame it on the auto and lack of transit. Who would choose to commute 90 minutes to work in miserable traffic, if we could just live near work.

That was something else I saw. Abandoned steel mills surrounded by hundreds of tiny rowhouses. Back in the day, people actually used to live right next to work.

Of course, who wants to live a block from a steel mill....... That's probably one of the main reasons cities started sprawling, the undesirability of being that close to a noisy/messy industry combined with the sudden availability of cars... Doesn't make as much sense today, since most jobs are in office buildings and they aren't particularly noisy or messy, but once the trend started it's hard to reverse.

Records for 20 years. You win the documentation prize.

Drat, I only have 14 years.

Drat, I only have 14 years.

But do you know how many gallons of gas you've saved (2850 gal), the caloric equivalent (85495800 kcals) and, more importantly, the jelly donut equivalent (341983)?

I also have a rough idea of the number of showers (2714 as of 2005) I've taken, the amount of shampoo I've used (86 gallons), the number of bars of soap (108), the number of times I've changed my towel (194 @ 14 times use between changes) and the number of cans of shaving cream I've used (109).

I have also managed to keep from spewing 28 tons of carbon dioxide into the air.

And that's just for the time I have records for. I worked at the same place for 7 years before I kept records.

You could say that I'm kind of proud of all this. Especially considering that the lazy hosers I work with don't ride except one day each year on Bike-to-Work Day. And then everyone makes a big hullabaloo about the ones that rode 50 miles:mad: And this is coming from a group of people who research alternative energies!

You keep way too many records, man.

Beautiful structures. True artisans constructed structures , today would cost hundred of thousands of dollars to duplicate. COnstruction of first rate caliper. People with money have in some places set a trend to move back to neighborhoods once inhabitated by the likes of the Rockefellers and Melons.
Not all big cities are built about steel factories. I see that waste as unforgiveable.

Which structures are you talking about? The houses? Or the steel mills? Don't romanticize too much, the houses weren't always that great. Building codes have come a long way.

No, not all cities were built around steel mills, but most were built around industry of some sort. A lot of which has left the US and been replaced by commerce.

You could always have the type of renovations happening to our University District.
Nice old well maintained brick homes. Many of the residents have been living there for quite sometime and are elderly. Suddenly this area is hip to live in. Now folks with quite a large discretionary income are coming in and purchasing a lot (or two adjacent ones) and destroying the home(s). Then building these gargantuan beasts of a house on these small lots, some are almost mansions. This has the net effect of forcing out the original residents who can no longer afford their property tax that happens to be jumping through the roof.

Sorry, a bit of a tangent. It just makes me angry to see a nice old neighborhood turned into a playground for the rich.

Eggplant. I am familiar with cities I know. I have read about 'homesteading ' in Chicago. I do know Detroit. Thought to be a slum. Don't agree. Compared to Bronx it looks up to code.
Travel about Detroit on Grand Avenue area. Lots of deteoration,yes. . But, look carefully. Plenty of homes that could become mansions, with lots of work. Did not have to be that way. Why?
Look at how old homes are in Europe. Or even look at central Toronto. Did not have to happen.

Data Junkie. I agree with your point. There is decent housing in some central cities. With the recent decision by the Supreme COurt making it easier to confiscate property, your point is well taken.

OK cyclezealot, I'm not getting your point. What are we debating? It seems like you're disagreeing with me about something but I'm not sure what.

Then I read "Asphalt Nation." My bigger belief is the car is pretty instrumental in making inner PHilly look like the way it presently does.
I lived in Philadelphia for almost 30 years. Take my word for it; there are some other MAJOR sociological factors involved. Cars or no cars, inner city Philadelphia would look the same.

Eggplant. Not sure we are debating or trying to convince one another the car is king in our cities decline. Just sharing some viewpoints.
Like to bike. I choose to be totally honest; I think by sociological reasons .The strongest undercurrent in American life, past and present is Racism. That is what I think..And again I blame the car and our long history dating back before the car. The car just made escapism easier.
Before the car we escaped the decaying cities by taking the likes of Oklahoma away from Native Americans. The car just made it easier to eacape urban America after Americans fled the cities via trains, covered wagons or whatever. First it was the Irish followed by long lists of other newly arrived immigrants.
Other nations have done a better job at resolving racial tensions. America could have too.
THose are the sociological factors I believe play in America's evolvement of the suburbs.
Yes, the car is certainly not the only means of escape, but since it's recent effects followed up by freeways, I say that is reality.
My belief. That is if we want to develope a harmonous nation, with equality for all. Or do we prefer living in hostility.

After all, I will probably only use it about 10-12 days out of a year.


Rent a car, or go by bus.

I think by sociological reasons .The strongest undercurrent in American life, past and present is Racism. That is what I think..And again I blame the car and our long history dating back before the car. The car just made escapism easier...
My belief. That is if we want to develope a harmonous nation, with equality for all. Or do we prefer living in hostility.

Working backwards, equality for all is not the golden fleece. It wouldn't generate harmony. But I agree with part of your statement. The car made escapism esier, but it's not from racism. racism is discussed, argued, and whined about constantly, which means it's not that big of a deal any more. What people are escaping is what no one talks about any more. Racism is just a code word, what people are really trying to escape from via cars is the lower class and to distract people from the problem that the richer are getting richer faster than any other group. The middle class is evaporating very quickly.

The nice thing about biking is the range between a walmart bike and a litespeed is no more than 7k. Compare that with the difference between a cheap chevy and a maybach. Anyone who wants, can ride the most expensive bike and still save money over a moderately priced car. Classes don't matter with biking.

ore. What people are escaping is what no one talks about any more. Racism is just a code word, what people are really trying to escape from via cars is the lower class and to distract people from the problem that the richer are getting richer faster than any other group. The middle class is evaporating very quickly.

The nice thing about biking is the range between a walmart bike and a litespeed is no more than 7k. Compare that with the difference between a cheap chevy and a maybach. Anyone who wants, can ride the most expensive bike and still save money over a moderately priced car. Classes don't matter with biking.
So are we saying. A Huffy for the poor and a Litespeed for the rich is the great equalizer, so all can experience the joys of cycling. One difference. for the poor, the Huffy might be essential transportation while the Litespeed for the rich is just weekend jaunt.
Ethnic breakdown matters little. Should we have huge populations of downtroden. That is an explosive situation. We can live in our gated communities, but we have to come out some time. Maybe that is why we acquire Humvies. Is bullet proofing them a buyer option.
Just because the race of the who are down changes, does not change the nature of racism.

But do you know how many gallons of gas you've saved (2850 gal), the caloric equivalent (85495800 kcals) and, more importantly, the jelly donut equivalent (341983)?

I also have a rough idea of the number of showers (2714 as of 2005) I've taken, the amount of shampoo I've used (86 gallons), the number of bars of soap (108), the number of times I've changed my towel (194 @ 14 times use between changes) and the number of cans of shaving cream I've used (109).

Wow, I was thinking of starting to keep better records, but your post has convinced me that it's a sickness. I'm going to be happy that I'm just riding and not worry about all this crap.

86 gallons of shampoo?? I guess that's why I keep my hair buzzed; I use about a pea-sized drop twice a day. A 16 oz shampoo bottle lasts me a year. Counting the times I use my towel? I change it when it starts to talk back to me, or when it doesn't bend anymore :)

Car free people? Smug Alert! Smug Alert!

Eggplant. Not sure we are debating or trying to convince one another the car is king in our cities decline. Just sharing some viewpoints.
Like to bike. I choose to be totally honest; I think by sociological reasons .The strongest undercurrent in American life, past and present is Racism. That is what I think..And again I blame the car and our long history dating back before the car.
Please don't tell us that you are going to hold up French Society as the Model of social enlightenment. If so perhaps you'd like to discuss the status of Moslems from the former French colonies now serving as the "N-ers" of France. Maybe you can discuss the history of rampant Anti-Semitism tolerated in France.

Shoot, not just France has such current sociological problems, I understand the Netherlands is undergoing white flight emmigration due to their own problems with their former colonial subjects acting all kind of funny.

Uh, do I get an award for "Thread going off in the most random directions?" I started by commenting on sights I saw on my train ride, and we've now covered 86 gallons of shampoo and anti-semitism.

Check it out.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=186483

$10,000 to $350,000, 35 fold increase
$100 to $7000 70 fold increase

By comparison, bikes only scale at half the rate as cars. For the lower to mid class, it is still considerable.
Sadly, there ARE classes in the bicycle world. There is a place for bicycles AND a place for autos. The
problem is, most people don't know where to draw the line.

CE

Scale is off. A 10k car is a decent car. A $100 bike is a piece of junk. A $400 bike is comparible to a $10K car. So it's a 35x increase for cars and 17x for bikes. But even that is not precise. For example, a Litespeed blade is only 5400. Now if you add Zipps you can get it over 7k. But that was not my point. My point is the ability of anyone to purchase. If someone wants a blade bad enough they can buy it. Someone making $625 a month, can pay for a blade in 3-12 months. You can not say that about a maybach and other luxury cars. They are out of reach.

I'm not saying there aren't class considerations in bikes. What I'm saying is even the "poor" could buy a top class bike IF they wanted to. Most don't want to, but it is a possibility if willing to give up things like cell phones, cable, etc..

I'm not going to knock someone who wants to ride a class bike just for the joy of it. So someone draws the line at a 10k bike instead of a $400 bike. Where's the harm? Al is cheap, CF is moderate, Ti is expensive. The cycling community is very small. We should be rejoicing in every rider an welcome a diverse world of bikes and riders rather than knocking those who are in a group we could never picture ourselves being a part of.