Originally Posted by
seypat
But why exactly is it more fun? Is it because the new technology allows you to cover a certain distance or ride in less time? What makes the new bike more "fun?" Surely, and I mean nothing by the question, you can put it in detail.
It's hard to explain why, but it's true (for me). I do think lighter bikes and integrated shifting perform better but that's only part of it.
If I could afford a $15K bike with Campy EPS I would buy one. Do I "need" it? Of course not. A Next Powerclimber would get me to work just fine and I could do 50 miles on the weekend on a Huffy Aerowind... but would it be as much fun? No. And FUN is what cycling is all about to me. I have to be practical in everything else I do in life so I let loose a little bit when it comes to bikes (and cars but those cost more...).
Do I need to drive a new mod'd turbo Legacy GT when the base model would get me to work in the same time and would have no trouble doing 65 on the highway? No, but I enjoy driving more when I'm in a new, fancy car with gadgets and bells and whistles.
It's not about vanity. Like I mentioned in another thread, hardly anybody has ever noticed my bikes or has any clue what Campagnolo is or who Eddy Merckx was. If I wanted to have people look at me I would be riding a bike plastered with decals of one of the big name brands that people recognize.
I like new, nice things but I also appreciate old, nice things--that's why I hang out here and not in the Road Cycling forum where it seems to all be about weight, performance and vanity.