John Dunn wrote:
> Tom wrote: "It's like with vintage racing Ferraris, there
> are the guys who garage them and there are the guys who take them
> to vintage races and get all self righteous about how Enzo
> intended these cars to be raced. "
> Isn't that what Enzo *intended*? Can you debate that?
Yeah, I debate that.
> Isn't that what the makers of your "collectible" bikes intended?
> That they be ridden??
I have never heard a builder voice that opinion, and I *have* heard builders voice the opposite opinion - that it's silly to ride obsolete equipment if you can afford "better" (newer).
I don't know this Enzo, but is (was?) he not a businessman? Unless you know
his feelings for sure, don't go putting words in his mouth because he might
well be of the opinion that old cars should be thrown away so new ones can
be made and sold.
> It sounds like you are the self-righteous one is this
> discussion. Garaging your Ferrari defeats the very purpose
> of their production.
Unless the very purpose was making a profit, which seems likely.
> They just sit there with no soul.
No air pollution, no maiming pedestrians and cyclists, yeah I like the sound of that! I think a car has less soul the more you drive it. But we digress...
John, do you believe that a bike can *ever* get so fragile and valuable that it'd be a shame to ride it? Or at least that it should be ridden only gently on short rides on nice days? If you agree it's possible, then you and Tom differ only in degree. If you think it's never the case, then while you may still be right, you are out of step with most people here on CR. Yeah, I know, it isn't a popularity contest.
Personally, I ride all my bikes and am not likely to buy or build any museum pieces, but I'm glad there are preservationists out there, keeping some nice old bikes unbent for me and future generations to look at.