Quantity or quality?

[Rich34]

When I got back into cycling I made the mistake (in my enthusiasm) of buying one or two bikes that I fancied but which actually, I'll never ride. In fairness it was only when I found better alternatives that they became "obsolete." I'm looking at thinning down the collection this summer. It's partly also to make some space in the garage. And we all know what happens when there's space in the garage... :twisted:

Hopefully once the collection is thinned out a bit, I'll be left with a few OMG bikes and a couple of others. Then again, they're all OMG bikes to me.

 

[roadking]

Quality always.

I have been lucky with my bicycles as I have always had something interesting...when I was younger always encourage to wait for what I wanted, was brought up with the mantra:"compromise is the handmaiden of mediocrity"! Rather have one thing of quality than any number oftat.

My first"best"bike (a 1976 Holdsworth Mistral that I still have) was expensive, but having a family friend working at Holdsworth meant a handsome staff discount!

Hence the lucky comment.

Rk.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Tricky, some of the highest quality, most beautifully built and finished bikes, are some of the worst riding. Therefore, several dozen of both workaday bikes and exotica is the only way to cover all bases.

But if you're skint, or strapped for storage space, then the Raleigh Activator I and II are the only bikes you'll ever really need, perhaps with a Raleigh Commando for road use.