Seems like most of those categories could be covered by a Clem (or a Platypus) with racks if one stretches the definition of "mixte"' and "beater". Of course there is no right number and we all do this mental gymnastic to convince ourselves that we "need" the amount of bikes we have (or +1). These conversations help me to know there are others out there with similar compulsions as myself. (Full disclosure, a 93 XO-1, a 93 XO-2, an 89 MB-1 Clydesdale, a Clem L, a Jones SWB spaceframe, a Brompton, & considering adding a single speed since I have everything but the frame sitting in my parts bin)
And I agree with you, John (I've also spent the better part of the last 10 years working for an NGO in sub-Saharan Africa and get lots of guilty feelings about what luxuries I have - not just bikes, but good shoes & clothes, vacation time, expendable income, roads, healthcare, etc...). I agree that hoarding isn't necessarily something to glamorize. But there are worse things than bikes, and I think the majority of the guys in the group are into bikes not just for the kick you get out of riding them, but also the fact that it's a fairly healthy and idealistic do-gooder pastime (if not totally altruistic, it's at least better than racing monster trucks). Bikes won't save the world, but they are a step in the right direction. And now I will poke you with the soft cushions! -john On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 4:42:19 AM UTC+2 Joe Bernard wrote: > I believe Grant's premise for the article was "how many bicycles do I need > to cover all the stuff l can do on bicycles", it wasn't an arbitrary number > of bikes I need. Obviously nobody needs more than one, it was a discussion > geared towards people reading a bike magazine and having the cash to own 2 > or 7 or 9. > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:33:55 PM UTC-7 John Rinker wrote: > >> At the risk of taking this discussion in an unintended direction and >> opening a can of worms that, in my mind, has been opened for quite some >> time now, I find this question of how many bikes one ‘needs’ to be an >> interesting one to consider from a variety of perspectives. (Full >> disclosure: there are currently 7 bicycles in my shop- 3 of mine, 2 >> belonging to my wife, and one is my daughter’s. There are also two very >> nice frames). >> >> Considering this question from the perspective of our current resource >> crisis - you know, the one in which there are too many humans desiring too >> many things that our planet has too few resources to sustain- helps me to >> greatly appreciate the bicycles I do ride, but also causes me question if >> my ownership of any more than one bike contributes to the imbalance of >> desires vs. resources. Anyone else bothered by this? >> >> Another perspective through which I look at this question of ‘how many >> bikes does one need’ comes from my many years of living in developing >> countries in Africa and Asia where the ownership of a single bicycle can >> have significant ramifications for a family in terms of economics and >> education. In many of these places, that there would be one bicycle for a >> family of 7 (or more) would be considered a luxury. And so, to ask myself >> how many bicycles I *need *causes me to cringe slightly and immediately >> takes my mind down the road of resource distribution and equity. >> >> Finally, as an educator, I’ve always made it a point to help my students >> understand the difference between *needs* and *desires, *and the >> implications of each on our habits of consumption. Of course, in the >> context of this group and this particular thread, I’m well aware that we >> all agree that we are speaking about our desires rather than our needs, but >> still, it’s another perspective from which to come at this question. >> >> I’m sure there are other perspectives that might make this consideration >> interesting and, of course, remind us all how fortunate we are to own and >> ride so many lovely bicycles. >> >> I know, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition! (Monty Python anybody?) >> >> Cheers, John >> >> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 5:53:28 PM UTC-7 Ian A wrote: >> >>> The problem is, there is always justification for another bicycle, like >>> the relatively new bikepacking designs (Jones Bikes for example) which also >>> do a very good job of displacing conventional touring bikes. Or a foldable >>> Brompton, just because. Then there is sentimentality, like my beloved >>> Marinoni which has taken and continues to take me on so many touring >>> adventures, but which I would not be shopping for if looking today as I >>> want ever more tire clearance from a frame. Then there is the poor, abused >>> commuter which gets ridden so much and so often, it becomes an old friend >>> and thus impossible to give up. Then there is the lightweight randonneur >>> and the back up randonneur. The back rando doesn't seem to ever get ridden, >>> but what if something happened to the primary rando? N+1 is real. N-1 is >>> pure fantasy. >>> >>> Willet: Ecuador has some made taxes on imports of most products, but >>> Pasto in Colombia is only 50 miles from the Ecuador border. You could very >>> gradually bring your bikes in one at a time! >>> >>> IanA Alberta Canada >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:45:16 AM UTC-6 Tom Palmer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I recall an article by Grant about the number of bike a person needs >>>> with justification. I think it was 7. >>>> Any idea which reader it was in? >>>> Thanks! >>>> Tom Palmer >>>> Twin Lake, MI >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/93190d08-126a-4be2-a486-762e8f1c82ean%40googlegroups.com.
