"Expensive for a commuting bike", it's a phrase I've often heard, and I *sort* of understand the desire to keep a "special" bike all lovely and clean.
But... surely the commuting bike (assuming one commutes most working days) is the most important one in many ways, surely it is the one you will ride, rain or shine, happy or sad, your travelling companion through the best and worst that life chucks at you.
Surely your commuting bike should be the nicest bike you can afford?
But wait, I hear you cry... "the good parts will be wasted".., but no, surely they are more wasted if they sit unused as an art object to only enjoy on a few select days of the year? Surely to have them wear out through constant use, while you enjoy the pleasure of using good quality parts is the opposite of waste?
It's why my LHT has been built with what some would call wildly overspecced parts for a commuter, it's why I've ridden it for well over a thousand miles of mainly hideous Edinburgh roads so far and just oiled the chain now and again and changed brake pads. (ok, I'll admit it, I wiped the worst of the mud off with a rag recently). It's wy I anticipate thousands more miles on it.
It still is lovely, it's ride just gets better and it brightens my mornings in a way a BSO simply couldnt.
(As does the Dahon folder which I spent more than I could afford on. Don't regret it for an instant! ("was right about that saddle though"))
Don't waste your "best" bikes years sat in a garage/on a plinth waiting for the "right" time to ride it. Make your everyday bike your best bike and ride it as often as possible I say.
So that's my point. I think the thread title is wrong, what we should say is "it's not very expensive for a commuting bike"
But what do you ladies and gents think...?
posts
