Tom Adams wrote:
>
(cut)
> Likewise with superlight frames. As others have said, a bike used to be a substantial investment, and it had to last. 30 years ago, how many recreational riders owned fleets of bikes? My experience was that most folks owned a "good" bike, and maybe a rain/commuter bike. If they saved up to buy a fancy frame, they usually traded the componentry over from the "good" bike and sold the frame. I would speculate that the "modern" classic rendezvous member, with half a garage full of vintage bikes, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Indeed, perhaps we live in the "golden age" of lugged steel bike collecting, with desirable fine frames going on eBay often for under $100 dollars. It's their durability that lets them live long enough for us to collect them.(cut)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom, recreational riders don't own fleets of bikes, collectors do. And top tier racing bikes of today (Colnago C40 for example) approach $8000. I'd call that a substantial investment.
Bike collecting is not a recent phenomenon. It's just more visible with the advent of the internet and people networking. I don't feel that a bike's durability has anything to do with whether it is around to collect or not. The vast majority of bikes are barely ridden in their lifetimes. Caminade bikes ('30s french aluminum bikes with octagonal tubes and lugs held together with pinch bolts) were very fragile, but have survived to be collected in 21st century.
Chuck Schmidt
SoPas, SoCal