I've been reading, as I'm sure some of you are aware, about Klunking recently and discovering the roots of our sport. While I'm busy trying to fight off the urge to re-mortgage the house to get something that used to cost $20, I've been thinking. Why the hell WOULD I want something that old and, fundamentally, that less able than even my Zaskar should be (excluding my utter lack of skill)? Ultimatley - because it's fun.
I think I've finally reaslised that's what it's always been about for me; ever since I had my first hand me down bike as a nipper I've loved two wheels and the fun that you can have on them.
My brother popped past the other day on his "didn't like to ask how many thousand pound" Benotto carbon road bike the other day. Not my cup of tea (although it's v. pretty) because I've never been in to road bikes really, but he loves it and takes great pleasure from riding it so - cool.
The pretty much unique thing about bikes, as I'm sure has been pointed out before, is that they are almost wholly dependant on the rider. A terrible driver in a Ferrari would blast a good driver in a banger EVERY time, whereas a terrible rider on a £8K full suspension bike would be blasted by a good rider on a BSO every time (and yes, I do agree with LGF that analogies are relatively limited).
It's all so dependant on how you want to ride, where you want to ride and how able you are to ride it that it's almost irrelevant to talk about relative differences in kit, imo.
You've got 20mm more suspension travel? Does that make a difference if you happen to be cruising and enjoying the landscape you're riding through on a sunny day?
Ultimately, as long as it's got two wheels and you can have a blast and enjoy it who cares, old or new?
