<
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> Kovie wrote:
>> I'm getting kind of tired of explaining/defending my reasons for wanting
>> a
>> hydration pack--although I'm beginning to suspect that some if not most
>> of
>> the "why on earth would a roadie want a hydration pack" responses I've
>> been
>> getting are of the troll, snark and "I love to spew forth my philisophy
>> of
>> riding, life and all things me"--but here goes, one (hopefully) last
>> time.
>
> Admittedly, the "MULE" was just too much of a setup to resist, but if
> you were to conduct a poll, a majority of experienced road cyclists
> would not go regularly on their longest bike rides wearing a backpack
> (nor do I think they would use a camelbak).
Here you go again, positing a hypothetical conjecture and then, figuring
that because you assume it that it's therefore true, concluding that we have
a QED. Such blatantly faulty reasoning isn't likely to win you many
converts. Either conduct said poll and come back with the results (and it
better be comprehensive or else it's going to be literally worse than
useless), or stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Anecdotal
"evidence" and personal opinion does not constitute a meaningful poll. If
you had limited your reasoning to something along the lines of "in my
experience", "where I live" or "from what I and my friends have
seen"..."road cyclists very rarely use hydration packs", then I might have
taken you more seriously. But by speaking so definitively and
authoritatively, you're just setting yourself up for embarrassment. And for
what it's worth, here in not so hot and not so sunny Seattle, I see an awful
lot of road cyclists wearing backpacks of all sizes and varieties, hydration
and not. But perhaps they don't qualify as "real" roadies in your book?
> I think we all understand your reasons for wanting a backpack; however,
> explaining them over and over again is not going to convince me or most
> other cyclists that they are right.
I agree, I'm wasting my time explaining what I thought I made pretty clear
the first time.
> Backpacks have been around for a
> long time, even longer than bicycles (by a couple hundred thousand
> years, probably)
Proof? Evidence? Examples? I honestly hope you're not a trial lawyer, for
your clients' sake, or a historian, for your readers' and students' sake.
> but at some point it became apparent that they are
> not the best way to carry stuff when alternatives are available. So
> human beings got pack animals and panniers and saddlebags.
Really, when was that? I suppose the millions of backpack users out there
are living in denial. They should all throw them out and get burros and
llamas.
> (You don't see horsemen and women with backpacks, either.)
Wtf are you talking about?!?
>> HOWEVER, there will be times when I will either be commuting fairly short
>> distances and need to haul spare clothes and a few other items,
>
> Not even mentioned in your OP.
I didn't realize I was making a legal brief or defending my thesis here.
Next time I make a post, I'll be sure to supply footnotes and references.
And btw, I was pretty clear in both the OP and followup posts what I wanted
to use a pack for.
> A backpack might be reasonable for a short occasional commute.
Glad you approve. What happened to my dromedary?
> Ironically, a Camelbak seems like a lot of hassle for a short commute.
If you say so.
>> or going out
>> for a ride, but want to take a light book, or camera, or a sandwich, or a
>> shell or fleece jersey if it might rain or cool down later on, etc. Since
>> I
>> don't plan on doing either on a regular basis, I don't see the need to
>> fit a
>> rack and panniers on my bike, and think a light, compact backpack is the
>> answer for MY needs, not the needs of others in this ng.
>
> It is an answer, but not the best answer; however, if that's what you
> want to use, just say that's what you're going to do.
"Best" is a matter of opinion, except, I suppose, in your view of reality.
And I thought I did make this perfectly clear.
> The problem comes
> when you try to convince me that you have chosen the best solution. As
> someone else pointed out, a rack and panniers are not the only way to
> hitch occasional luggage to a bicycle.
When and how have I tried to convince you that my solution was the "best"
one, for me or anyone else? I was simply trying to indicate that it was, for
now, my preferred solution--for me, not anyone else. You really do need to
read a good book on basic logic. Didn't you take geometry in high school?
Helps understand how bikes work, btw.
>> Now, it doesn't
>> necessarily have to be a hydration pack, but if I'm getting a pack, it
>> might
>> as well be a hydration pack, since they're not that much more expensive,
>> I
>> like the idea of being able to drink hands-free, and I can always use it
>> for
>> non-cycling activities such as hiking or trekking around town (which, of
>> course, a rack and panniers would be useless for).
>>
>> I might, of course, find that carrying water and stuff on my bike takes
>> away
>> from the pleasure of riding. But given the MANY road cyclists I see out
>> here
>> riding with packs, I suspect for occasional use, I'll be ok with it.
>
> Maybe you should ask them how far they are riding. The majority of
> people who do regular (not the same as frequent) long rides with gear
> don't use backpacks. The funny thing here is that you are talking about
> making an investment in new equipment; I would expect that people who
> use backpacks _generally_ are using what they already have to get the
> job done.
Again with conjecture posing as fact. Seriously, you really do need to learn
how to reason.
>> It might violate purists' notion of what road cycling is all about,
>
> This has nothing to do with purism, it has to do with pragmatism. My
> personal experience is that backpacks on long bike rides are
> uncomfortable, hot, and contribute to general fatigue.
>
If you limited your responses to something along these lines, then we could
have saved all this silly back and forth bickering over nothing (of which
I'll readily admit I've been fool enough to engage in).
Incidentally, you might want to apply for a job with the Bush
administration. They're always looking for people who are good at mangling
basic logic. I hear they even have reserved spots for employee llamas.
--
Kovie
[email protected]zen
) -- but hopefully it's a moot benefit for a road rider.
