4 ms·

The first few sentences are silly. Biking and running are on opposite ends of the tinkering with gear spectrum.

by mieses 8y ago

tedmcory77 8y ago
Depends on the distance run; having crewed an expedition in Death Valley amongst other places I think there's something to say for the complexity that long distance running can bring.
flukus 8y ago
They don't have to be. Cheap department store ones should last a year or two for someone just riding on weekends, it's not a great long term investment but it's good for the cash strapped and many people will give up long before the bike does. It's only a ~2X price jump to something that will last 10 years (more with maintenance) and better suited to someone commuting every day or doing distance rides, way cheaper than a car or public transport. Sure you can spend thousands on a fancy carbon fiber machine and thousands more on accessories, but it's not a requirement. Even if you want to compete seriously, by the time it makes a noticeable difference manufacturers would be offering you bikes.
baddox 8y ago
Cycling tends to have more expensive gear, but have you ever heard runners geek out about shoes, socks, chafing remedies, mobile hydration solutions, “gels,” etc.? Definitely not opposite ends of the spectrum.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >but have you ever heard runners geek out about shoes, socks, chafing remedies, mobile hydration solutions, “gels,” etc. But pretty much all that is optional and the rate of performance return for investment is minuscule in running compared to biking. If you shop around you can get good enough running shoes for $50. After that you need shorts, underwear that won't chafe a couple shirts (and possibly a sports bra). For under $100 you can have everything you need to train for and complete a marathon.
  - baddox 8y ago
    Absolutely. You can get a bike for free as well. But not many people who are very interested in either sport do that.

The first few sentences are silly. Biking and running are on opposite ends of the tinkering with gear spectrum.

by mieses 8y ago

The first few sentences are silly. Biking and running are on opposite ends of the tinkering with gear spectrum.

Depends on the distance run; having crewed an expedition in Death Valley amongst other places I think there's something to say for the complexity that long distance running can bring.

flukus 8y ago

They don't have to be. Cheap department store ones should last a year or two for someone just riding on weekends, it's not a great long term investment but it's good for the cash strapped and many people will give up long before the bike does. It's only a ~2X price jump to something that will last 10 years (more with maintenance) and better suited to someone commuting every day or doing distance rides, way cheaper than a car or public transport. Sure you can spend thousands on a fancy carbon fiber machine and thousands more on accessories, but it's not a requirement. Even if you want to compete seriously, by the time it makes a noticeable difference manufacturers would be offering you bikes.

baddox 8y ago

Cycling tends to have more expensive gear, but have you ever heard runners geek out about shoes, socks, chafing remedies, mobile hydration solutions, “gels,” etc.? Definitely not opposite ends of the spectrum.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>but have you ever heard runners geek out about shoes, socks, chafing remedies, mobile hydration solutions, “gels,” etc. But pretty much all that is optional and the rate of performance return for investment is minuscule in running compared to biking. If you shop around you can get good enough running shoes for $50. After that you need shorts, underwear that won't chafe a couple shirts (and possibly a sports bra). For under $100 you can have everything you need to train for and complete a marathon.
- baddox 8y ago
  Absolutely. You can get a bike for free as well. But not many people who are very interested in either sport do that.