Comments on: Budnitz Bicycles Nostalgia is Death

By: Andrew Oakland

Andrew Oakland — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:54:07 +0000

I don’t understand why any of those Budnitz bikes needs two bottle cage mounts.

By: CmonFeat

CmonFeat — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:16:19 +0000

I’m guessing the “backlash” he’s referring to is the backlash he’s receiving from people within the cycling community. In general, it’s coming from people who think a $5k, Ti, city bike is an absurd waste of money.

I’m blown away that he would put himself in the same category as Rivendel or Vanilla. Just because your at (or above) their price point, does not make what you do worthwhile.

Get over yourself dude, the backlash isn’t due to nostalgia or elitism, it’s because you’re trying to take advantage new cyclists with money to burn.

By: Mason

Mason — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:47:24 +0000

I’ve never experienced cyclist backlash from any urban cyclist. A little backlash from some Freds, maybe, but not from anybody riding for transportation or fun.
Budnitz seems to be making a name and career out of, in essence, being a troll. I remember him starting out by decrying how conservative bicycle designers are being in their shapes– an argument akin to decrying how conservative luthiers are with violin design or toolmakers are with hammer design. The bicycle has arrived at it’s current geometries through a century-plus of failures. For somebody to brag about changing it up for the sake of it is akin to making a hammer with a square handle.
For further reading– I recommend Bike Snob’s recent Budnitz review.

By: Pink Robe

Pink Robe — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:33:22 +0000

Odd. Everyone I know wants to get as many people into cycling as possible, all the time. We donate parts, loan bikes, hand out blinkies, help plot routes from home to work and back. For every elitist there are 10 enablers…

By: Rudy

Rudy — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:26:22 +0000

…and the way to fight this nostalgia is to convince the masses to buy $5000 city bikes.

By: S. Molnar

S. Molnar — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:38:19 +0000

I’m no expert, but this looks like a straw man argument to me. I’m not sure when Manhattan had its first bike path (help, anyone?), but there was one in Brooklyn in 1894. It would have been used exclusively by fixed-gear riders, not single-speeds; I don’t know what a punk show is, but I’m guessing they were not popular in NYC in 1894. You can argue whether the original cyclists predated the penny-farthing, but however you define them, they are certainly all dead now, so who can blame them for feeling angry and left out?