grahamlockett

"Shit sucks for us too!" (said the bike manufacturer). Wait a second, what do you mean it 'sucks' for you too. Do you mean it sucks because you're not constantly making profit, does it suck because your efforts to capitalize of a market that is saturated already with constantly purchasing is not purchasing more? neoliberal capitalism is the time when people become machinic in their constant drive for betterment, done through purchasing, amongst other things, and companies/industries are treated like their profit is a RIGHT! It's not. Let's please not forget that companies don't have 'feelings', they are profit seeking mechanism who have as the bottom line profit, constant profit. History has told us (again and again) that profit comes at the cost of exploitation, that is, in our case, exploitation of workers (making the bikes in Asia), shops (selling the bikes), and consumers (buying the bikes). The point here is that if we focus on how companies are doing solely w/r/t profit (and not what matters... community building, trails, etc...) we lose sight of the fact that their venture, by nature, is problematic. Biking is an activity, let's not let it get all caught up in the 'activity' of consumerism, where capital, and not us at the bottom, are the winners.

1st: Brandon SEMENUK 2nd: Brett RHEEDER 3rd: Conor MACFARLANE

Men: 1, Minaar 2. Gwinn 3. Brosnan Women: 1. Nicole 2. Atherton 3. Seagrave

Men: 1. Sam Hill 2. Martin Maes 3. Richie Rude Women: 1. Cecile Ravanel 2. Isabeau Courdurier 3. Anita Gehrig

Beauty, aesthetics, taste, I would like to suggest that these terms are typically reserved for entirely subjective matters - this, however, I think, and perhaps we can all agree, was something different.

MEN: 1: Gwin 2: Minnar 3: Hart WOMEN: 1:Hannah 2:Seagrave 3:Carpenter Good luck to all!!!!

Each can get what they want from this article, though, for me, I do not think it's about 'privilege', as a few people have suggested. Quite the opposite. I see this as a breath of fresh air that responds to the overwhelming surfeit of articles that constantly bombard us with how important minuscule details are, and weight, and 0.5 degree changes in angles, and so on - and that we must purchase whatever it is that corrects it. Does nobody else get tired feeling like PB is the third arm of the bike industry pushing stuff down our throats all the time, though in the form of reviews.This article I see stands against all that nonsense to remind us that flaws are fine, they can even be fun. It's the rational voice that PB rarely has to tell us that our non-10k+ rig is fine, or rather we are fine to still enjoy them when most of the articles we read suggest otherwise. To those who suggest that this article 'complains'.... is that not exactly what we are doing when we eat up all the articles that remind us of the constant state of inferiority of our bikes?

Pro mens: 1st) Loic Bruni 2nd) Danny Hart 3rd) Aaron Gwin Pro womens: 1st) Rachael Atherton 2nd) Tahnee Seagrave 3rd) Manon Carpenter