In article <
[email protected]>,
Michael Warner <
[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:14:38 -0700, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> Nothing.
>>
>> I'm most content with what I have (and it doesn't
>> include a cycloputer.)
>>
>> Don'cha just luv the simplicity of cycling?
>
> Some of us also seem to love the scope for inverted snobbery,
> too. Why not tell us that you ride centuries in street clothes
> from Kmart
Because I usually don't, because
a) there aren't any K-marts around here (Vancouver, Kanada)
b) I don't track my milage, although I've lately done some
out-&-backs to Maple Ridge and back; maybe that's close
to a century, or maybe it isn't. I don't know and I
don't particularly care. Screw a bunch o' numbers!
Actually when I head out that direction, I usually end
up at the pub formerly known as The Wild Duck Inn, at Pitt
Meadows, before turning back. I harbour a fascination with
that location 'cuz that's where at a young age I had my
teeth bashed in and jaw broken in a car collision, but that's
another story.
c) I've accumulated a bunch of cheap but functional cycling
garb purchased mostly from Mountain Equipment Co-Op -- some
old-school jerseys (with just the neck zipper,) various
house-brand plus Louis Garneau[TM] shorts, Andiamo[TM]
riding gonchies, etc. I still like riding in tee-shirts,
of which I have a plethora.
>> I find it a wonderment, that so much satisfaction
>> can be had for so little outlay.
>>
>> Riding is an investment.
>
> How can it be both an investment and involve little outlay?
Therein lies the wonderment.
> In fact,
> it's /not/ an investment, because if you stop doing it for a while,
> you'll lose your fitness and get fat. The benefit is strictly temporary.
Stop riding!!? Bite yer tongue
Besides, once a certain fitness level is attained, it
actually seems to take a longish while for it to
wear off.
Further besides, I don't ride for fitness, and
never have. I don't even ride strictly for
transportation. Mostly I ride because it's an
exhuberant self-expression that doesn't incur
too many dire repercussions. I ride to ride,
and my bikes are my simplist's "land canoes".
Further further besides, so much bought stuff
(tools, clothing, accessories & parts) are
transferable from bike to bike, and much of
that stuff only needs to be purchased once,
and then you have it at-hand forever.
Further further further besides, my current
stable consists of four or five & a half bikes,
none of which I paid money for. The Raleigh
Twenty was bequeathed to me, my main ride was
abandoned after the resolution of a local
bus drivers' strike/lockout, and the rest are
salvaged but usable discards that just needed
a little work.
I assure you, I'm not into inverted/reverse
snobbery. In the past I've enjoyed the thrill
of purchasing > $1000 brand-new bikes. I've
been entangled in the sticky web of clipless
pedal + shoe decisions. I used to have a
cycloputer, until I outgrew it.
Over the past decade it's been driven home like
a hammer'd nail into my brain, the difference
between what we /need/, and what we want.
I don't always get what I want, but I always
seem to end up with having a bike to ride.
I guess I'm predilected (and grateful for it.)
cheers,
Tom
--
-- ... and all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by ...
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca