Is everybody soft now?

desweller

<shrug> A bicycle is a tool. An aid to travel. I see no distinction between having gears and selecting the right gears for the kind of riding that you want to do.

If you're that insecure that you must brag about how tough you are, run barefoot up the Alps instead.

southdownswolf

Back when I were a nipper, the hills were much steeper and longer. I only had 14" wheels and a fixed gear. Never stopped me from riding up.

southdownswolf

But..... Yes I do believe that in general we are not as "hard" as we used to be. It's not just the food and compact chainset though, the prevalence of cars has changed us into a country of wimps. Need to pop to the shop half a mile away? Better get in the car. Impossible to walk or cycle, I did see a drop of rain 10 minutes ago after all.

Jules Winnfield

junglist_matty wrote:

I don't have a compact, can I join the hard man club please!? :roll:

Yet your chainset on your Canyon features 3 chainrings!

Mikey23

when i were a nipper all we could afford were bikes made of cardboard and the wheels were concrete. we had to cycle 150 miles to school and home again everyday. times was hard but we were happy

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I don't think the OP point is coming across... nobody is saying that the old way was a better way and we should all ride 42 x 21 up the hills, what he is pointing out is that these days people are put off going for a ride if they don't have the compact crankset, the sport nutrition, 2 litres of electrolytes and the lightest bike they can assemble... I have been on rides where people deliberately avoided one route because they didn't have their "climbing wheels" or their 29 teeth sprocket, which is frankly pathetic

Do you really think that is what he meant? Maybe this needs to be posted in the beginners section to see if it does have any element of truth but I can't say I can ever recall a beginner getting put off going for a ride because he doesn't have a compact etc etc.

In my club, he'd get some respect for getting up the climbs in a standard and no one would even notice or care whether or not he had any sports nutrition. As for bikes, there's no snobbery about that in my club - people understand that some people haven't got a big budget for cycling.

It sounds like a good thing - if people around you are putting you off riding for those sorts of reasons, then look elsewhere for riding company. Who wants to spend a day riding with people like that?

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

It sounds like a good thing - if people around you are putting you off riding for those sorts of reasons, then look elsewhere for riding company. Who wants to spend a day riding with people like that?

I don't think you got what I was trying to say... never mind... :roll:

BillyMansell

madasahattersley wrote:

Lets not forget the likes of Tommy Godwin riding an average of 328km per day, every day for a year on a 15kg bike with 4 gears and on roads that any modern cyclist would cringe at the sight of.

I referenced Godwin earlier to point out to the OP how soft those riders from the 70s could be considered, but then Godwin could also be considered soft compared to riders from the start of the 20th century if people want to play such a silly game. The difference between Godwin and this character is despite Godwin's achievement he never saw it as reason to feel superior to future generations but allowed it to inspire them, which it undoubtedly does to this day.

The OP is looking at his past achievements through rose tinted spectacles. I guarantee he was soft when he started out cycling for sport and I guarantee as new to the sport he desired the latest equipment but such truths will sit uncomfortably with his rewriting of history.

LegendLust

Let's be honest. The whole Human race is getting soft.

Especially round the middle

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

It sounds like a good thing - if people around you are putting you off riding for those sorts of reasons, then look elsewhere for riding company. Who wants to spend a day riding with people like that?

I don't think you got what I was trying to say... never mind... :roll:

Well, instead of resorting to the rolleyes smiley, why don't you make it a bit clearer? I mean, if it isn't worth clarifying, then it wasn't worth saying in the first place now was it?

FECES

Aluminium. It maybe cheap but if its good enough to hold beer its good enough to make a bike out of.

If you were to bang a lump of titanium into a lump of carbon fire (of equal mass) which lump would suffer most damage?

peat

Mikey23 wrote:

when i were a nipper all we could afford were bikes made of cardboard and the wheels were concrete. we had to cycle 150 miles to school and home again everyday. times was hard but we were happy

LUXURY!

fatsmoker

Peat wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

when i were a nipper all we could afford were bikes made of cardboard and the wheels were concrete. we had to cycle 150 miles to school and home again everyday. times was hard but we were happy

LUXURY!

I couldn't afford a seat - had to sit on the seat post, but I was still happy :shock:

markhewitt1978

You had a seat post, luxury! We couldn't afford a seat post, or pedals

milese

Cut the guy some slack, whilst I dont agree with the old school gearing, I do agree with the feed station comments.

The reality of this is simple that sportive organisers must do something to justify the extortionate entry fees.

If the event just provided a route with some guidance to carry food and stop at one of the many petrol stations or cafe's along the route then why would anyone spend £30 to enter it.

I did 103 miles a couple of weeks ago with 2 bottles of squash and the food I could fit in my jersey pockets. Admittedly this isnt big or clever but does emphasise (for me) that for non competitive events most of the nutricianal advice that poors out of 'the machine' is marketing and money making.

Banana's, malt loaf, cereal bars and high juice squash is where it is at.

cookeeemonster

Milese wrote:

Cut the guy some slack, whilst I dont agree with the old school gearing, I do agree with the feed station comments.

The reality of this is simple that sportive organisers must do something to justify the extortionate entry fees.

If the event just provided a route with some guidance to carry food and stop at one of the many petrol stations or cafe's along the route then why would anyone spend £30 to enter it.

I did 103 miles a couple of weeks ago with 2 bottles of squash and the food I could fit in my jersey pockets. Admittedly this isnt big or clever but does emphasise (for me) that for non competitive events most of the nutricianal advice that poors out of 'the machine' is marketing and money making.

Banana's, malt loaf, cereal bars and high juice squash is where it is at.

but...sportives are not endurance events for hardened cyclists - they're an easy, effortless (relatively) and fun way for a mass of people to do a long cycle ride without having to plan or worry too much...the hard ones can ignore the pit stops or more likely only do club rides/audaxes and so on, the more casual rider not bothered by all that does the sportive (and maybe the harder stuff later)

I did agree with some of the stuff the OP said in his original post...but thought he was also being a bit d*ckish about it too. I think other people felt that as well.

markhewitt1978

Which is why sportives are so popular now; that ordinary cyclists can do them, and you don't have to be the Chuck Norris of cycling to get through it.

upperoilcan

madasahattersley wrote:

Just MTFU get out there and ride. All you 'need' is air in your tyres and fire in your belly

But what about some" lightweight" black racing socks ?

antsmithmk

Bottled it this morning, its been tipping down since 10 and I really don't want to be ill for Xmas. Managed a 60 min turbo session following the GCN workout on YouTube with the gym full of babes!