Very true,
Most of the week I ride/train on my classic steel bikes, which I bought cheap then built up. One for wet days, one for training. I use the good bike for Hammerfests and racing. What has surprised me is when some of my white collar riding friends bring their expensive CF bikes to a ride and I check the weight...they're not really that much lighter than a properly sorted classic bike.

I have to remember that this is mainly an American forum and though our cultures are similar there are some subtle Aussie diversities that are misunderstood...... hence umd considering me being a wanker..... mentally.
I've been berated on here in the past because some guys just don't get the Aussie sense of humor or stirring.

No, no, no...I'm not saying that AT ALL!! I think some of you guys are misunderstanding my comments.
I simply saying that in the past, over here in OZ, many competitive cyclists came from trades jobs
Probably because it was considered a sport for the lower classes, now it's considered a universal sport.
Anybody, no matter what their background, if they have the talent, commitment and tenacity can be a good rider,
I never said they couldn't be.

it's biking, not the marine corps or boot camp. it's not as badass as you make it sound to be.
who goes to a sports psychologist...?? maybe you're just joking, oops

At last.

lame

Yes ... there are definitely some cultural differences between Americans and Aussies. I think Canadians are probably culturally closer to Aussies than Americans are, but I've noticed a lot of differences since I've been here. It's both amusing and a little bit frustrating sometimes. My coworkers will have conversations sometimes that I barely understand ... I'll come home and ask Rowan what it was all about.

Here in Australia we get exposed to some American culture because of television ... through the handful of American shows that are shown here. But I don't think Americans are exposed to Aussie culture as much.

I once called Pcad, 'MATE" and he didn't know what I meant.
Some guys here get irate too quickly, they take the Aussie friendly dig as a personal attack on their manhood or riding abilities. They wouldn't last long here in Oz 'cos once we know our stirring is working we tend to persist, but there's no malice attached, it's like saying, "You're ok... we like you, we're going to tease the hell out of you"... a bit weird, I know.
On the other hand, I could make the mistake of thinking that ALL Americans are brash, loud, ego driven and generally pains in the ass........ but I don't.

I know ... I thought that was funny, and a little bit surprising. I thought it was common knowledge that Aussies use "mate" instead of "buddy" or whatever.

What I find a bit funny here is when men call me "mate". I'm used to a man calling another man "mate", but it sounds a little bit odd to me when one calls me "mate" because I think of that term as a male term. But I'm getting used to it.

This is the 41, you'll find a lot of easily bruised egos so tread lightly.


I ride with a group that spends most of the time at a meet up for a ride busting each other's chops so a lot of us have thick skins besides friendly banter is a lot of fun.

It's the "new" golf.

Yep, its scary.

Totally agree with the OP. I'm a laborer and know exactly what he's talking about.

This forum IMO is made better for having contributions from people from all over (not only different geographical locations, but different backgrounds).

Look guys, if I have offended anybody's precious sensibilities I apologize.
Sorry if this thread is lame or beneath certain exalted members high unattainable standards.

And yes, the friendly banter is one of the reasons I will ride with a group.
Sometimes a "mate" will greet me with the most vehement abusive #%#@# verbal attack, then when he senses my shock, adds, "How ya been Steve?" in the most dulcet tones of fellowship.

Thank you.

I can see this paradigm being true, based on my experiences. I don't know that it's generally true, but it jives with what I've seen, anyway.

When I got my first real road bike, during high school in '86, a new Lotus Odyssey (or was it Excelle?), it was certainly true that the wealthy kids in my town didn't seem to ride much. My ride buddies during those years turned out to be from pretty middle-class families; children of teachers, engineers, and social workers, all with modest incomes. We were looked upon as weirdos for riding to school, for example. Sure, a couple of us got cars when we got our licenses, but I wonder to what extent being able to afford a car made cycling more or less to appealing to kids in our age grade.

At the university, as I started to hang out at the bike shops and get more immersed in cycling culture--early '90s at this point--I noticed that the other folks who came to the shops and who were obviously cyclists, weren't wealthy folks, either. Lots of educated types, thoughtful, geeky types, but perhaps not rich. It's hard to know, of course, but that was the feeling.

Throughout this time, I was visiting Italy often, and during the university years started taking my bikes with me to ride the hills around my family home there. I became somewhat familiar with the Italian cycling scene through friends I was making there, including a young guy who was a pro rider. I learned that professional cycling in Italy was seen as a job, like a vocational position, suited to kids who weren't going to college or who didn't have a family business to take over. The wealthy kids from Milano and Firenze, whom I also counted among my friends, spent their time with cars and scooters.

So, with that background, like Stevegor, what I see around me today is, in fact, cycling as a more "universal sport" (to borrow his phrase), taken up by a wider range of socioeconomic classes. But, that could just be the perspective from my little corner of the world.

It is common knowledge in the US, and that the term would cause any confusion is amusing. Sometimes people just have funny holes in their knowledge.

I disagree. Golf has expensive equipment, AND expensive greens fees every time you play. Cycling doesn't cost much once you have your equipment, and it's always free to ride!

More importantly, golf isn't a vehicle for societal change for the better, (you could argue it's for the worse, with the effects on the environment, not to mention hiking up home prices) while cycling is. More people on bikes, rich snobs included, is good for everyone who rides. And for people who don't ride at all, actually.

I would agree that cycling has changed through the years. And I would agree that it was painted as blue collar in the old days. The European lore, movies like Breaking Away, etc., tried to reinforce that stereotype. But as much as things change they always seem to remain the same. We’ve always had a range of folks from different walks of life enjoying the sport on their terms.
Cycling in the states really increased in popularity over the past 30 years. Which in turn brought significant increases in choice, technology and cost. More folks simply have more options than we ever had in the past. And each has a different motivation for choosing this or that.
The reason I enjoy cycling is because I get out of it what I put into it. What I do for a living or my income doesn’t improve my fitness. It’s the motor that counts and where I spend my time. Yes, my bike is now much better than ever but it doesn’t bother me in the least that a new rider with deep pockets shows up with all new gear. I get to enjoy looking at it and am happy for the owner.
One thing that does concern me is the escalating cost. It has gone beyond my willingness to spend. And I think it could easily discourage many new folks from entering the sport. Maybe my hindsight isn’t so clear anymore but I seem to remember more “affordability” in this sport many years ago.
I still see the same cross section of folks, just more of them. It’s better for the industry and better for me because I have better training rides. And believe me, I’ve had my butt kicked by folks who had better fitness than me on a given day. But I never remember asking them what they did for a living after I got dropped!

In the U.S. during the early 1970s "Bike Boom", a very race-worthy Peugeot PX-10 or Gitane Tour de France could be purchased for around $250. That was still a lot of money back then, but still well within reach of those who got bit by the cycling bug and were ready to graduate from their entry-level 10-speeds. You didn't have to be wealthy to race - although more money helped buy extra wheels and tires, put gas in the van (to get to races), pay entry fees and bought beer after the race (for celebrating or drowning sorrows).

$250 in 1972 dollars = $900 in current dollars (according to an inflation calculator I just consulted).

Given the ability to shop a nationwide supply of used bikes via Craigslist or eBay, I think bikes don't have to be any more expensive now than they were then.

BTW, this thread seems to have a very myopic view of what cycling is -- there are all kinds of cyclists out there riding all kinds of bikes, in all kinds of social classes. Something like 80% of all bikes sold in the USA in any given year are sold for *less* than $500 new; most are sold in discount markets. Most of those riders don't show up in any of the statistics quoted and/or invented above. (My statistic may not be 100% accurate; I just recall it from looking it up a couple of years ago; the US bike industry trade group puts this out).

Maybe you guys are talking *only* about the kind of bicycles that are purchased in specialty shops, not the real mass of cyclists, who buy cheap bikes at Wal-Mart, Target, and sporting goods stores. Lots of folks who can't afford cars use X-Mart mountain bikes to get to their jobs every day.

I grew up in the 70s and was in college in the 80s. Perhaps there is a difference in cultures between here and Australia but the bikers I remember were pretty white collar even then. The kids of the blue collar guys were playing football and baseball, when they grew up they took a keg to their softball games. The guys at the 10K running races and bike criteriums were pretty vanilla middle class.

I've read that cycling supposedly is the new Golf (225 Magazine, November 2009) because deals that were once made on the golf course are now increasingly being made on the road.

Do not, and do not ever apologize to 99ers my friend.

I think cycling has definitely become the new golf and I think the vendors have realised this and price their products accordingly. I did 2 builds recently. One in the end of 2008 and one in the beginning of 2010. The same components were more than double the price in many cases. That is not costs pushing up prices, that is pricing to market willingness to pay.

This is a stupid concept. People coming into the sport have to start sometime. To suggest that anyone who did it on or after 99 is less of a cyclist is nothing short of moronic.