> On another point, I do recall that Bicycling magazine was once more
> philosophical and appreciative of the art of bicycle frame and part
> manufacture. As the bikes have become more functional, but less
> artistic and shapely, so has the magazine become more crass. The
> articles from the 70's and 80's included musings about the sheer
> beauty of this or that stem shape or frame detailing. Now that the
> bikes are industrial and not pretty, the writing has become
> functional window dressing in support of the way the industry has
> moved. I may be wrong, but do any of the contributing staff ever
> question the value of 10 cog freehubs or robot weld displays?
Bicycling was more sympathetic to the CR cause when their staff was comprised of folks who had ridden clips-n-straps, shifted friction, glued a tubular, etc. Now, we have folks who are refugees from automotive magazines and the like.
They don't have time to wax poetic over the shape of a stem because they're busy writing capsule reviews of products that come from their major advertisers.
What fries me is that Bicycling knows they're bad, and they don't care. Their readership turns over frequently enough that they can recycle the same articles over and over and fill in the rest with reviews of Shimano/Campy's we'll-add-one-more-cog-this-year offerings.
If you want a decent, general-interest cycling publication, I heartily recommend England's Cycling-Plus. US sub's are 38 pounds, and it's worth every cent.
--mc (former cyclo-journalist-hack)
===== Mark Chandler / JustRidingAlong@yahoo.com Superior, Colorado
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com