This is a rider's perspective on the aspects of cycling I have experienced. Cycling can be both recreation and transportation, often at the very same time. That has seemed to be its greatest strength.
Cycling is deceptively accessible.
I was lured into racing soon after I got my first road bike in 1975.
That summer I hung out with a racing crowd that was also a
mechanically-inclined crowd, so I linked the two things from the start.
Coincidentally, it made cycling even more accessible, because I didn’t
have to pay anyone to work on my bike.
At the time, you could buy the bike that won the Tour de France for
about $300, and for an extra $600 they’d throw in the guy who rode it.
But $300 was a lot of money for a bike.
We all heard the legends, about the European racer whose off-season job
was digging graves or cleaning chimneys. We met our own working-class
heroes. And our training ground began at the end of the driveway. It
was right there. We could ride around the block or across the
continent.
Componentry advances have upped the ante considerably. Things just
didn’t wear out as fast in the – dare I say it – old days. Shifting
wasn’t as slick. We had to limp along with five or six speeds in the
back. We had to feel around for the right gear like a violinist
finding the right note. You thought about it before you shifted
gears. It might make the difference between success or failure in
launching an attack. Some people clearly were better at it, just as
some people have the talent to play the aforementioned violin. But the
rest of us fiddling hacks could still improve our chops by practicing.
And chains and clusters just seemed to go and go and go, because our
standards of precision were lower. We were much more likely to blame
ourselves for a missed shift.
Real advances were welcome. The slant parallelogram derailleur improved
shifting even with friction shifters. Aero brake levers cleaned up
the cable jungle above the bars. The difference was slight enough that
everyone remained competitive, or at least as competitive as they had
been already.
The rider still wins the race. But riders demand more of the bike because they can.
Bike racing needs more divisions. Perhaps price categories as well as
rider categories. Perhaps material divisions. As fun as it is to
stomp past the carbon fiber steeds on an old steel frame, it takes its
toll as time goes by. And people of lesser means deserve the choice to
buy quality with fewer doodads instead of just cheesier doodads.
I say this as a person of lesser means. When I read or hear of the
exploits of people with large amounts of disposable income, I know
better than to become enthralled by the gaudy trinkets and bragworthy
races or tours. It’s just pushing the pedals after all, whether it’s
Tuscany or Tulsa.
Maybe what evolves is what’s really for the best. The few who want to
keep it simple have cultivated the skills that go with it. For us
there are an appropriate few choices in new gear we have to assemble
and maintain ourselves. We don’t have to keep beating a dwindling
stock of vintage bikes to death on the long, hard road. The
fundamentals have never really changed.