Good thread.
I think that the sport of cycling has grown and diversified. Along with that, bikes and components have become more specialised.
SO… in 1930, your average club cyclist may have had one bike. A steel touring-type bike (racing was for those deviant continentals) with bombproof wheels which would have coped with roads and the odd farm track on the Sunday outing.
But cycling infrastructure is better now. Sustrans, trail centres, better quality road surfaces, etc etc, mean there is more diversity of riding available. And as a result, it’s more fun being a cyclist in the 21st century, but you need more bikes! 🙂
MTB marketing doesn’t help, though. When I were a lad, you had one MTB and did everything on it. If you were rich, you had suspension forks, but that was pretty much it. If you took seriously everything they write in the mags, these days, you would need a 29er HT, a “marathon bike, a “trail” bike, and “enduro” bike, etc etc. This is what I think is a bit silly.
When I come to replace the mountain bike I had nicked last year, it’ll be an “all rounder” which will just about meet all my needs. A FS with 140-150mm forks. I couldn’t justify the expenditure of having a fleet of mountain bikes for every conceivable terrain.