Is there somehting wrong with not going as fast as you can?

[jackb]

Why is that so many cyclists assume that the primary purpose of cycling is to go as fast as one can. I understand that racing is a feature of cycling, but why is it assumed that we are all interested in racing. I like to go fast for the fun of it, but the last thing on my mind when I ride is achieving the highest average speed I can get. This competitive view of cycling does much to destroy the pleasure of riding with others if the others have speed in the back of their minds. We are not all racers, yet the industry assumption is that we are andthat we need all the high tech gear to go faster. As crazy as this world is, I would advocate a decrease in speed rather than an increase. Things are much too fast already. What's wrong with just crusing along at a comfortable speed? One still gets a workout, but then again, the purpose of cylcing does not appear to be just getting a workout. It's fun to ride like it's fun to walk. When I walk I don't strive to walk as fast as I can.

[stapfam]

Why is that so many cyclists assume that the primary purpose of cycling is to go as fast as one can.

Don't think it is unless there is a reason. Sunday I did a 40 mile mile and pushed for the whole of the way. The reason for that though is that I am training for a ride that will take it out of me. My normal sunday rides will be over a 30 mile distance and will be taken at a far more leisurely pace. True I will not be dawdling- but it is at a far lower pace to enable me to enjoy the ride and the scenery.

[cyclintom]

You know Jack, there's nothing wrong with going your own speed but there is something wrong with worrying about what other people are doing.

If you can't ride with one group find another that goes your speed or if you want to improve a little faster than you'd normally want to go.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You know Jack, there's nothing wrong with going your own speed but there is something wrong with worrying about what other people are doing.

If you can't ride with one group find another that goes your speed or if you want to improve a little faster than you'd normally want to go.
Presumably the way for the OP to "improve" is to go faster? Is that it? Yep, the OP is on to something "wrong" that cyclintom, among others, doesn't understand.

[shokhead]

It seems every other day a new post on how fast can/have you gone. I've never had a thing for speed, i'm a cadence guy and ride by that.

[dbg]

Unless you race, fast is just for improving your overall conditioning. And there is some attraction to me to try riding in a pace line occasionally --just to check it out. Sorry if I blow past you sometimes. I'm just trying to improve my aerobic condition and health in general.

Long group rides are like parties where you mingle and converse. But some parties may not be for you. Find the ones that are.

[DnvrFox]

Why is that so many cyclists assume that the primary purpose of cycling is to go as fast as one can. I understand that racing is a feature of cycling, but why is it assumed that we are all interested in racing. I like to go fast for the fun of it, but the last thing on my mind when I ride is achieving the highest average speed I can get. This competitive view of cycling does much to destroy the pleasure of riding with others if the others have speed in the back of their minds. We are not all racers, yet the industry assumption is that we are andthat we need all the high tech gear to go faster. As crazy as this world is, I would advocate a decrease in speed rather than an increase. Things are much too fast already. What's wrong with just crusing along at a comfortable speed? One still gets a workout, but then again, the purpose of cylcing does not appear to be just getting a workout. It's fun to ride like it's fun to walk. When I walk I don't strive to walk as fast as I can.

To each his own!

I think it is great when bicyclists ride:

1. For fitness

2. For pleasure

3. To improve

4. For commuting

or for any other reason.

I won't criticize someone's riding for speed if they don't criticize my riding for pleasure. Or, vice versa!

And sometimes we can combine a lot of reasons together into one great ride! That is a REALLY great ride.:D

[NOS88]

Personally, I love going fast. I love roller coasters and motorcycles too. So, for me the holy grail is to find a way to go faster on a bike without having to increase effort! Since this isn't likely to happen, I focus more on fitness (I use a heart rate monitor to keep from riding too fast for my current fitness level) and enjoy the heck out of the times when I can fly within my fitness/workout targets. I also do at least one ride per week where I deliberately slow down and take time to see the sights (smell the roses at it were). These are usually longer rides than the rest of my weekly jaunts. I find that this slower pace refreshes me. I think a steady diet of it would not be of interest, however.

[BlazingPedals]

Even racers don't go as fast as they can all the time. Going fast is only important if going fast is important! (That sounds kinda zen!) We're all in this for different reasons, with different abilities, goals, and levels of commitment. Do the speed that makes you happy, and let others do the same.

[HAMMER MAN]

usually all I do is hammer, rather 20+ miles or 60+. and have one recovery day a week, real easy riding.
last two sundays I just kind of spun/pedaled around, no hurry what so ever, quite enjoyable

[webist]

On of the functions on my computer is average speed. Thus when I cycle through after a ride I note my average speed. When I note a new high average speed I am pleased as is so when I note a new higher distance measurement. I ride for elapsed time and for pleasure. Some of the pleasure I derive is from riding new routes, or climbing a long hill, or riding to a new destination. I derive occasional pleasure from hammering or sprinting to the next stop sign or going faster up a hill I regularly travel. I ride my own ride which usually differs somehow from my last ride and certainly differs from your ride.

[FarHorizon]

...We are not all racers, yet the industry assumption is that we are and that we need all the high tech gear to go faster...

+1 for industry stupidity regarding the assumption that ALL buyers want race bikes! There's nothing wrong with speed for those that want it (even I want to sprint sometimes), but the MAJORITY of riders are ill served by racing-geometry frames that are twitchy, harsh, and delicate.

Unfortunately, there's no end in sight for the current trends. The only market niches that buck the trends are doing well, though (Rivendell comes to mind).

Cheers!

[Digital Gee]

I love riding fast occasionally. However, my "fast" is laughably slow by many people's standards. If I hit a stretch of flatland with the right wind (or no wind) I can do 17 mph for a while. Down a hill, I've hit 25 mph (and got the weebie jeebies immediately). I cannot imagine myself EVER riding faster than that. Nor do I want to.

[Raketmensch]

There's nothing inherhently "wrong" with riding at any speed, fast or slow, as long as you're riding safely. What's right is what's right for you at that particular time.

Like some others here, I like speed. I enjoy downhill skiing for the same reason. I enjoy pushing myself, I enjoy competition, and I enjoy racing. For me, the competitive view that you try to go as fast as you can doesn't detract from the experience, it adds to it. So yeah, for me speed is what it's mostly about on a bike. You and I are just different.

My wife is not nearly as into speed as I am. We ride together a lot, and when we do it's about enjoying the day and having a good time. So I slow down and enjoy myself in a different way. Spending time with her is even more fun than going fast!

I don't really agree that the industry assumption is that all cyclists are interested in speed. Bike manufacturers are in business to make money, and there are a lot of riders out there who ride for enjoyment and moderate fitness, but who aren't speed freaks. So along with racing bikes, manufacturers also make lots of comfort bikes, commuter bikes, and so forth.

I ride a Trek bike, so I'll pick Trek as an example. You go to their web site (www.trekbikes.com), click on "Road", and you'll find the Madone as their high-end racing bike. Carbon, titanium, and thousands of dollars. But click on "Bike Path" instead and you'll find a whole bunch of fitness, hybrid, comfort, and even cool cruiser bikes. Comfortable bikes at reasonable prices. There's a market there, and they've got bikes to fill it.

That's the cool thing about cycling... there's something in it for just about everybody.

[shokhead]

+1 for industry stupidity regarding the assumption that ALL buyers want race bikes! There's nothing wrong with speed for those that want it (even I want to sprint sometimes), but the MAJORITY of riders are ill served by racing-geometry frames that are twitchy, harsh, and delicate.

Unfortunately, there's no end in sight for the current trends. The only market niches that buck the trends are doing well, though (Rivendell comes to mind).

Cheers!

More materials to choose from and more or less relaxed geometery and with just about any group level you want,theres lots to choose from.

[genec]

Nothing wrong with going as slow as you like... but the health benefits tend to be greater at the higher work load end of things.

Personally I love a nice relaxing slow ride too. My wife and I quite enjoy an easy ride down the the beach every now and then.

My commute is more dangerous if I focus on speed vice traffic.

But in order to do my heart and lungs the most good, I do have to work on speed from time to time. It's just the way things work.

[howsteepisit]

I don't know. I started wondering about this several years ago. I started to see article after article about setting a new PR (personal record) or PB (personal best) in Bicycling mag. And I realised, PR/PB really hold little interest for me. In fact I get generally grumpy about our socity(in the US) that seem to believe that everything should be faster and faster. The entire concept of 24/7 sucks.

Sorry to rant, but I think thats its all part of the same illness/view that is so prevalent here in America.


Go as slow as you want and smell some flowers, and take a look at the world that surround you.

[Dakota]

Why is that so many cyclists assume that the primary purpose of cycling is to go as fast as one can.

I think the primary purpose of cycling depends on the person doing the cycling. We all have our own reasons. I don't get upset with the slower riders of our group. They have no desire or no ability to go faster, and that's OK. Likewise, they don't get upset with the few of use that like to push ourselves to get fitter (faster) as that's OK too. We regroup regularly and usually do lunch afterwards. We're all happy just to be out in the fresh air and still be capable of riding.

Here in this part of Florida most riders I see are older and like riding at a liesurely pace, either alone or with others. I'm glad to see them on a bike, and always greet them with a nice "Howdy" as I blow by. I do wish more of them would wear helmets though, but that's their choice.

[lhbernhardt]

Seems to me that there is some question about context. I had read jackb's original message as deploring the general practice of a large number of cyclists of blowing past you while you're out cruising along in the city. So you quickly up the pace and sit on this guy's wheel, and little by little, the speed goes down until he's moving slower than you were originally, and it dawns on you that this guy wasn't just cruising along at his own high speed, he had only given in to his competitive instincts in order to prove to himself (erroneously, it turns out) that he could ride faster than you.
It's been my experience that people who ride bikes, males in particular, tend to be very competitive people. And the most competitive seem to be those who don't race. Racers usually do such hard sessions that they tend to ride very relaxed when just out riding. Non-racers seem to want to go hard all the time, just to see who they can drop, and I think this is the segment jackb is alluding to.
When I'm out on rest days, I'll often take the fixed gear bike, or I'll be out on the tandem with my girlfriend, so it doesn't matter who passes and how fast. On serious training days, I'll be out on the carbon fiber Trek where I can do some serious damage to overly-competitive pretenders, especially on the hills. My favorite trick is to drop the guy on a hill while riding very relaxed, then let the guy catch up on the descent, and then tell him I can't climb - I usually get dropped in the races - because I'm a trackie.
I once had a guy try to drop me on a hill. I spun up behind him until he blew up, and then he tried to tell me, "hey, pretty good for over 50, eh?" to which I replied that I was probably older than he was before I accelerated away. Yeah, I guess most guys on bikes are just too competitive.

- Luis

[mollusk]

Anybody that rides a bike starts off with a favorable impression to me. I don't care if they go faster or slow. Now if they are fast and sneer at the "Freds" or go slow and curse the "Roadies" my impression will change pretty quickly.

[salamibender]

I enjoy mixing it up, I also use a heart rate monitor and use cadence to shift. Once in a while I'll switch just to see the speed. As an instructor once said, " its not how fast you can go, it how long you can go fast". As far as a workout you workout in that target area to get the desired results. When I want to smell the roses I work the hills, and boy do I suck it all in.

[Louis]

This is one reason I tired of club riding.
I've ridden in fast pacelines with the wannabe racers, and it was fun for awhile. But I began to realize...cycling has become a microcosm of the very society I'm trying to escape.

If we like to ride as much as we say we do...why do we ride so fast? It just makes the ride end sooner. :o

[stercomm]

A lot of good discussion. My view is that one of the great things about participating in an individual type aerobic sport is the fact you can pretty much do as you please. One day you can hammer it out, another day you can spin the legs and enjoy the sights. I like at least one day a week to crank it up and see what speed I can sustain over the course of the ride, other days I might do some intervals and other days may be a nice even pace that keeps me well within my aerobic threshold. We all know that speed work will improve your overall fitness level. To quote the Isley Brother's "It's your thing, do what you got to do, I don't care who you sock it to".

[DnvrFox]

But I began to realize...cycling has become a microcosm of the very society I'm trying to escape.

+1

[FarHorizon]

More materials to choose from and more or less relaxed geometery and with just about any group level you want,theres lots to choose from.

Materials choice, yes - relaxed geometry (unless you're buying a "comfort" or "hybrid" 30-pound clunker), NO. Name me three mid-level, drop-bar bikes with 72/72 degree geometry. I don't think it can be done. Manufacturers now consider 73 and 74 degree head and seat tubes "relaxed." It just aint so!

[megaman]

If we like to ride as much as we say we do...why do we ride so fast? It just makes the ride end sooner. :o

Actually, I doesn't bother me how fast I ride. Some days are faster(or should I say slower) than others. But I usually have a set amount of time for riding. So if I'm going a little faster one day then I'll just cover more ground.

[TysonB]

JackB,

You asked if there is something wrong with not going as fast as you can.

I concur with others here that there are lots of good reasons for bicycling. Denver's early post really summed it up.

I would sum it up by saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with you not going as fast as YOU can. There is something very wrong with me not going as fast as I can.

Tyson
Cushing, Oklahoma

[GrannyGear]

Presumably the way for the OP to "improve" is to go faster? Is that it? Yep, the OP is on to something "wrong" that cyclintom, among others, doesn't understand.

Lighten up LTB.........we each ride our own bike, our own road, and for our own tastes. The only people who worry about faster riders are the insecure. We pray for their imminent recovery. Speed is relative...few people here care about anyone else's speed but, being human and goal oriented, there are days where sometimes we each can, if we choose to and if its acceptable to the motivation police, care about our personal goals--including the exhiliration of putting down whatever hammer we've got and relishing sweat, speed, and endorphins.

[cheeseflavor]

usually all I do is hammer, rather 20+ miles or 60+. and have one recovery day a week, real easy riding.
last two sundays I just kind of spun/pedaled around, no hurry what so ever, quite enjoyable

+1

Different days for different results. I like to go fast. I love to hammer. For me, it's something new. I can SEE and FEEL my improvement. Higher averages, faster climbs and longer distances are what I use to see how I've improved. Plus, it's just plain fun. I get a chance to work out a lot of aggresssion that would otherwise be channeled other places (or maybe inwards).

Linda and I have our days that we hammer, and others that we just take it easy (well, relatively easy).

As long as it's fun, and isn't that the point?

Steve

[Richard Cranium]

Many people become self conscious about their mediocre ability at cycling, so they presuppose that many or most of the people that put forth effort are somehow "not enjoying" life or 'don't get it'......

Of course, each of us have our own needs, wants and goals. And the original post makes a valid point of when and where our efforts "should" be focused. Yet, we all know cycling is recreation and there's no such a standard known as "normal effort" or "normal pace".

Much like this forum's theme, the comment's real meaning is - "I don't like anyone who tries more than me." ['cause I'm old] "And I really don't like anyone who is as old as me as still tries harder than me."

If your're enjoying your riding so much than why did you comment in the first place?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Many people become self conscious about their mediocre ability at cycling, so they presuppose that many or most of the people that put forth effort are somehow "not enjoying" life or 'don't get it'......

Of course, each of us have our own needs, wants and goals. And the original post makes a valid point of when and where our efforts "should" be focused. Yet, we all know cycling is recreation and there's no such a standard known as "normal effort" or "normal pace".

Much like this forum's theme, the comment's real meaning is - "I don't like anyone who tries more than me." ['cause I'm old] "And I really don't like anyone who is as old as me as still tries harder than me."

If your're enjoying your riding so much than why did you comment in the first place?
More evidence of the validity of the OP's concern addressed in his first posting.

"Mediocre ability"? Huh? Sez who? This derisive opinion followed by crystal ball psycho babble analysis- about "presuppose...somehow," and "the comment's real meaning...", followed by the final smarmy rhetorical question. The only comment missing is how mediocre cyclists can "improve" their mediocre ways through equipment and training like real cyclists.

Again another individual who can't see the problem of elitist attitude permeating the language of the postings, deriding those who can read what is written.

[cyclintom]

Presumably the way for the OP to "improve" is to go faster? Is that it? Yep, the OP is on to something "wrong" that cyclintom, among others, doesn't understand.
Maybe you'd like to relate your experience where you improve your cycling without riding longer and/or faster?

[DnvrFox]

Richard Cranium vs ILTB

This ought to make for some good reading!

[cyclintom]

+1 for industry stupidity regarding the assumption that ALL buyers want race bikes!
Hey FH - if you were running a manufacturing company with taxes so high that making a profit is difficult would you build what MOST people want or what a few people want?

There are custom bicycle makers in just about every major first world city. If you want something other than what the overwhelming majority wants then you can have it made custom for you though it is top line pricing (though in steel a good deal cheaper than top line racing bikes.)

Let's not pretend that Trek and Cannondale are stupid people who are accidently remaining in business instead of being knowledgeable businessmen operating on 40 years of experience.

[gear]

I really don't care how fast or slow other bike riders go. I also don't care about what products bike manufacturers produce. I ride as fast or slow as I want to on a given ride and all my bikes were custom made for me. I find people endlessly facinating but their actions don't reflect on me and I have always loved to see how things are made, but that doesn't mean I think companies are trying to make me happy when they design a product.

[GrannyGear]

Without getting into the psyche of the mainstream cycling industry, consider Surly, Rivendell, Heron, etc., all of whom eschew racing, not to mention many major manufacturers like Bianchi, Lemond, Specialized, etc who offer nonracing lines and models to appeal to enthusiasts who lack racing pretensions. These bikes and lines are not their major thrust, but then most marketed sports products stress what is sexiest. I'm no defender of the bike industry but the issue of utility vs. fantasy is not so black and white as those who like have an issue to grind would make it seem.

I think there may be other undercurrents here.....e.g. envy of youth vs. perceived and real limitations of age, dislike of being manipulated by marketers, etc.

[shokhead]

Materials choice, yes - relaxed geometry (unless you're buying a "comfort" or "hybrid" 30-pound clunker), NO. Name me three mid-level, drop-bar bikes with 72/72 degree geometry. I don't think it can be done. Manufacturers now consider 73 and 74 degree head and seat tubes "relaxed." It just aint so!

To many to name when we are comparing relaxed geometery to classic geometery.

[shokhead]

Presumably the way for the OP to "improve" is to go faster? Is that it? Yep, the OP is on to something "wrong" that cyclintom, among others, doesn't understand.

Its easy to understand. Ride the speed that you like,not what you think others think you should ride. Can i ride 35mph,yes. Do i need to,no. Do i want to,no. Do i,no.

[jackb]

Well, I thought I might stimulate a little discussion, and it looks like that has happened. But reading through the posts I see language that suggests the reason for my original post. For example, what is a "mediocre" cyclist? What does it mean to "improve" one's cylcling? Why the competitive and judgemental language? When I go for a walk there is no awareness of being a "good" walker or of "improving" my walkingOf course going fast or long is an option. I, too, like to go fast and long, but the idea of turning a non-competitive activity into a competitive one was the cause of my original post. I support anyone doing whatever they want to do, but the idea that we are automatically put on some sliding scale of competitiveness stirkes me as wrongheaded. As someone noted above, one of the reasons for cycling is to get away from what is wrong with our culture, and one of the things wrong is this incessant competitiveness that seems to permeate many recreational activities. Have you ever heard of fast packing, i.e. backpacking with the idea of doing it as fast as possible. A really strange idea! Perhaps we can start a new trend. Fast eating: You go to a fine restaurant and try and eat a good meal faster than anyone else. Or fast sex: you time yourself and compare your times to those of your friends.
The faster the better?

[GrannyGear]

Regarding frame angles............my relaxed Romulus is a much better ride for 60 miles or more and rough road. For riding in a group and "pushing" a bit, my 74/74 bike handles better. There is a utililtarian side to frame geometries. We don't all ride the same style, and as individuals we may well ride diffently on any given day. It would be simpler to have one bike, but I wouldn't want to. John E.'s comment on classic 73/73 comes close to the one bike does it all ideal. But, I doubt that jppe would give up his Trek full race...nor would Like to Bike easily relinquish whatever opposing bike he prefers. I agree its a pity that to get a quality 72/72 new bike, one has to go to a boutique maker like Rivendell.

Keep in mind the number of people who visit our section of BF and the number who visit "Road Cycling". Like it or not, we ourselves are a worthy but small niche in the world of cycling. If everyone rode Basso Gaps they'd be as happy as they are now on their upright boneshakers....until some guy claimed his Pinarello Prince was more radical and therefore "better". Bike manufacturers know this.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Keep in mind the number of people who visit our section of BF and the number who visit "Road Cycling".

Another thing to keep in mind that the few individuals who repeatedly refer to cyclists impoving themselves through speed, or the importance of road cycling performance (and expensive road cycling equipment) are posters on both forums and apparantly cannot distinguish between the two groups.


Like it or not, we ourselves are a worthy but small niche in the world of cycling..
Agreed

If everyone rode Basso Gaps they'd be as happy as they are now on their upright boneshakers....until some guy claimed his Pinarello Prince was more radical and therefore "better". Bike manufacturers know this. And some of our comrades buy into the "quest for the best" (as determined by the StyleMen/trendsetters/marketeers) hook, line and sinker. Which is fine by me, until they start spouting off about the rest of the world of cyclists (who may have different priorities) as being "mediocre" or in need of improvement. And even worse, write as if they are the supreme arbiters of what is real cycling.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Maybe you'd like to relate your experience where you improve your cycling without riding longer and/or faster?
Right after you point out in your cycling rule book the requirement/need/priority for any cyclist to "improving your cycling" by any dang metric at all.

[NOS88]

Why the competitive and judgemental language? When I go for a walk there is no awareness of being a "good" walker or of "improving" my walking. Of course going fast or long is an option. I, too, like to go fast and long, but the idea of turning a non-competitive activity into a competitive one was the cause of my original post.

I think it's important to remember that there are two kinds of competition, perhaps best illustrated in this manner.

Tennis - two people challenge one another and score points by forcing the other person to make an error. The person who does this best is the winner.

Golf - each person goes out and does his or her best and keeps track of their own score. They may or may not (in many cases, not all) compare scores.

By their very nature these two sports hold completely different potentials for the kinds of competition that are possible. Yes, in golf one can compete with the mind set of beating others, but it is not a required part of the game. In tennis it is a required part of the game.

I think cycling is more like golf than tennis. Unfortunately, there will be those who will want to make each ride an opportunity to see how they did against others. And, there will be those who approach cycling like it was tennis. They will sneer at others, attempt to belittle their accomplishments, etc.

Then there will be those of us who want to do our best each time out without any reflection on how others did. When I walk, I do care about how I did. Was the pace what I wanted? Did I walk as far as I wanted? This desire does not, IMHO, make my competitive urge bad. It makes me motivated to get as much out of an activity as I can. So, for me there is a positive competition and a negative competition. When I focus on improving, it's a positive competition. When I focus on beating another, it's a negative competition. In my life these days, I have very little time for negative competition.

I remember one ride last year when a cyclist was behind me by some distance. I thought to myself that I'd try to keep them from passing me for as long as possible. This would help me stay at the higher pace I had planned for myself, but was reluctant to do. Eventually, the other rider caught me, and she said, "Wow, you were really going fast. You gave me one heck of a ride to catch you." We talked for a few minutes, then she easily passed me and disappeared off ahead of me. Neither one of us was trying to make the other lose. We were both simply pushing ourselves to higher levels.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Richard Cranium vs ILTB

This ought to make for some good reading!
Oh, I don't know. I think Dick has already shot his load with his reference to "mediocre" riders not up to his standard. There is nothing more for him to say other than he either meant it or did not.

[cyclintom]

Right after you point out in your cycling rule book the requirement/need/priority for any cyclist to "improving your cycling" by any dang metric at all.
I've got you - "I can't keep up with three little old ladies on women's Rollfasts so I pretend that performance has nothing to do with effort."

Look, if you're one of those who can't keep up with others that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. It just means that you can't keep up with them.

If you WANT to improve your performance you MUST train harder and that means more mileage and more effort.

You don't NEED to improve your performance you know.

[NOS88]

[QUOTE=cyclintom]

If you WANT to improve your performance you MUST train harder and that means more mileage and more effort.[QUOTE]


I appreciate the sentiment, however, if you want to improve performance it means smarter miles and smarter effort. The more miles and more effort mantra can, even with pros, lead to less effectiveness.

[cyclintom]

Well, I thought I might stimulate a little discussion, and it looks like that has happened. But reading through the posts I see language that suggests the reason for my original post. For example, what is a "mediocre" cyclist? What does it mean to "improve" one's cylcling? Why the competitive and judgemental language? When I go for a walk there is no awareness of being a "good" walker or of "improving" my walkingOf course going fast or long is an option. I, too, like to go fast and long, but the idea of turning a non-competitive activity into a competitive one was the cause of my original post.
It appears to me as if you're the one being judgemental here Jack. Anyone that rides faster than you is racing? Anyone that rides further than you do is trying to put you down?

Last weekend I went on a ride with a Rivendell crowd. Heavy saddles, funny packs on the back of the heavy saddles, steel bikes and man they FLEW up the hills. I suppose that part of that might have been that they are 10 years or more younger than me.

You know, I didn't think they were racing me for even a minute. Not even when the fastest two rode back down Old La Honda Road to the last person and came back past me before the top.

Later on when I was going over the bridge I noted that I was easy spinning at 15-16 mph and they were all falling behind. Then on the straights to the bird center I was going along at 25 and noted that they were all falling behind so I slowed up to 20 mph and they still fell behind.

Was I racing them? Was this some form of competition that I was unaware of? Or was I riding at MY speed and they at theirs?

Exactly who is being judgemental here? Why do you believe that everyone else should slow down for you?

[jackb]

Clclintom,
I'm not being judgemental, nor am I conplaining about people who go faster than me. In fact, I go faster than many people myself. I was merely sparking a discussion on the philosophical/cultural aspects of cycling as it is practiced, at least in my neck of the woods. I have no difficulty with people cycling any way they please. Again, just trying to sitmulate a little discussion on behavior that I've noticed.

[Digital Gee]

Again, just trying to sitmulate a little discussion on behavior that I've noticed.

Well, you seem to have succeeded! :D Amazing how complicated internet communication can be, isn't it?

[Olebiker]

+1 for industry stupidity regarding the assumption that ALL buyers want race bikes! There's nothing wrong with speed for those that want it (even I want to sprint sometimes), but the MAJORITY of riders are ill served by racing-geometry frames that are twitchy, harsh, and delicate.

Unfortunately, there's no end in sight for the current trends. The only market niches that buck the trends are doing well, though (Rivendell comes to mind).

Cheers!

One of my friends that I have always had trouble keeping up with still rides an old Trek 520 touring bike. I have just about come to the conclusion that, when I buy a new bike, it will be a touring bike. I might keep a pair of lightweight wheels for club rides but also have a good sturdy pair for loaded touring.

I would love to have a Rivendell or one of its iterations, but that is a little too rich for me. I will probably end up with something like a Surley Long Haul Trucker.