How many is enough? too many? not enough? necessary? Unlike Pondero, I do not want to minimalistically whittle myself down to a magical ONE. While he lives out in the country away from the urban commuter blight and urban-park-rendered-mountain-bike trails I have to take advantage of, I live squarely in the metro area. He needs a country bike for his country. I at least need some kind of city commuter.
Specious ramblings aside, what is the optimum number in the stable? PJ has two bikes, nice ones, his AHH road bike and a Fargo, his fat-tire cum tourer. Those take care of two, or three, or what I consider the basic needs for an avid cyclist:
- Road machine- obvious in a way, preferably something that can carry a bit of luggage for a 200k brevet. No slimmed-down crabon unless you have designs on slithering into the skinsuit. A la I/Grant, I'm a firm believer that 75% of the folks buying super-sleek road machines would be better off with something more generous, hearty and malleable.
- Fat-tire- meaning mtbike or even modern fat tire bike. A trail bike. Something robust for trails. If you like to get your jams out, then the bouncier and fatter the better, i.e. suspension
- City/Commuter- Can be a beater, a dandy, a tourer, a fixie, a something that you can grab and commute without reservations. For me, for a long time, that was my dyno-wheeled LHT. I've sold numerous bikes. This is the first one for which I have remorse. Shouldn't have sold it. And I mention dyno wheel b/c a city/commuter should have dynolights. No discussion. You grab it, you go. No limitations.
Things get interesting after this. The fundamental needs are met, IMHO. Road. Trail. Everything else and in between. Finished.
Unless we're talking boutique. And there is always time to talk boutique.