In the spirit of debate, I must respond to my teammates statement as I do believe she has misconstrued the facts.
While the formula of bikes one should have is N+1, the only viable argument to that equation would be S-1 where “S” is the number of bikes owned that would result in a separation with ones partner. (A counter argument being that your partner is probably not the one for you anyways.)
SYB claims that the formula N+1 implies that one is concerned with lavish or ludicrous upgrades which does not necessarily pertain to the speed of the rider. This is all good and true but distracts our dear readers from the point at hand. Adding to the number of bikes that one has does not mean believing in a mentality of getting new bikes to get faster or better at riding. The formula represents the mentality of most bike nerds I know….there is always room for more bikes.
The number of bikes should not be based on speed since there are many a bike nerd who may not even be keen on bicycle racing or in fact even going fast. Does this mean their formula should be altered based on their type of bicycle? I SAY NAY! Vote N+1 for your bicycle formula of choice in 2012!
-Bangable!
N+1
The problem with the N+1 formula as relates to speed, is that one has to keep N chains lubed, 2N tires inflated, and fix the various other problems associated with the fit, performance, and maintenance of N bikes, which dramatically reduces time available for riding for large values of N.
Game. Set. Match. S Y B. You can’t rebut a rebut.
All I hear is BUTTS! Doug, in reference to your comment…isn’t that just more time you get to spend with your bikes????
More time, less riding. Quit voting for yourself!