Recent blogs have tended to focus around people and places, or races and how to get ready for them, but a big part of racing 'cross is... well, having a bike. And in this respect people seem to be in two distinct camps; those to whom the bike is simply a tool to allow them to do the job of racing, a kind of necessary evil, and those to whom the bike is a big reason WHY they do the job of racing.

When I was a racer (and still to this day...) I fell firmly into the latter camp. From the moment I fell into cycling, the bike was a huge part of the allure. As a kid I'd stare into the bike shop window as I passed every day on my ride to school and later, work. I'd scour the magazines, look what the Pro's were using, I'd be constantly taking my bike apart, cleaning it, trying to make it smoother, faster. And I could never get my head around that other group; they seemed perfectly happy hopping on any bike in any condition, just as long as it got them to a start line it didn't seem to matter if it was dirty, too small or the handlebar tape was torn, and that was so far removed from my world that I didn't hang around with those people too much in case something rubbed off and I became like them; I mean, imagine racing with dirty 'bar tape?

So to me, bikes matter. A lot. I've got enough carbon fibre in my garage to equip a small team, and when someone recently asked me at Interbike how my 'cross bike rode I had to come clean and tell them I'd no idea as I'd never ridden it. "OK not raced it, but how does it ride when you train on it?" No idea. Never even sat on it; but it looks freakin' awesome and now I've had it over a year and it's had its photo taken and been pride of place on a show booth at Vegas I'm going to replace the Red group with a Force group and see how it actually does ride. And then I'm going to hang the Red group on another piece of carbon fibre, and that bike is going to inspire me to get in shape for a Gran Fondo in the Dolomites on my birthday next year.

And bike companies matter to me. It meant a lot more than I think they'll ever realise when SRAM decided to test the Red group using 'cross teams, riders and events before unleashing it on an unsuspecting road audience. SRAM knew what a handful had known for a while, that 'cross and the right equipment go hand in hand, and it's a hard testing environment. I've never liked Shimano, something about their attitude doesn't agree with me, and I've been a lifelong Campagnolo fan and user, but because SRAM have developed a relationship with 'cross then I might have bought my last Record component. Just not sure how I'll feel riding an Italian Fondo on anything other than a Italian equipped bike, but I'll soon find out.

It also matters hugely to me that Zipp have a specific cyclocross wheel. Sure, Mavic and the rest might have a wheel that in their brochure is recommended for "rough roads, training and cyclocross", but Zipp, who know only too well that the cost of developing such a high tech bit of kit will probably be barely recouped by sales in such a small sector of the market, seem to care enough to have actually thought what a 'cross riders' specific needs are in a wheel, then gone out and done it. They also give a bunch out to the kind of teams and riders who are good at that whole feedback thing so in turn the product gets tweaked and gets even better.

But I'm rambling here, there is a point to all this talk of bikes, and how it relates to 'cross.
Two friends got in touch last week, both had bike issues they wanted to vent their feelings to me about. "Friend A" was a top-flight Elite racer 25 years ago and recently came back to the sport as a Vet after 18 years out, and is shell shocked by the way bike technology has moved on. Back then you built a bike, you cleaned it after each race, and it pretty much lasted the season. Campag bearings needed an annual clean and grease, cables and the headset were changed when the frame went for a respray; maybe a bent toeclip if you didn't get your foot in first time, but that was it. So Friend A started back on a 2nd hand aluminium framed, SRAM Rival grouped, basic 'cross bike but  was never that happy and struggled in muddy races on one bike so after a first season back bought a matching pair of again used, but nicer bikes. But this season has been a catalogue of disaster from a mechanical standpoint. Every weekend there has been something... bent this, broken that, juddering this, rattling the other. These won't fit into that bike, how do I adjust that bit to make it work like the other bit on that bike, how does this stick onto that... and I realised that if you have been living in a bike-vacuum for 18 years that nothing, pretty much nothing at all, is like it was back then apart from basic bike shape.

Now "Friend B" had another dilemma. Friend B had new bikes supplied from a supportive team but despite being new and shiny, they weren't quite up to the job in hand; the question is, where do you draw the line between gratefully accepting free gear from a sponsor who requires something back for their investment, whether that be results, media exposure, TV airtime, product feedback or even just a warm fuzzy feeling that they are helping out a hard-up athlete, and compromising performance because the bike is in some way not up to the job.

I think these two friends fit into my category of bike rider; they must do otherwise Friend A would be quite happy having two bikes that at least fit, and wouldn't be too concerned about the strange noises and feelings that are being transmitted through the tubes. As long as nothing breaks that stops the rider dead in their tracks, they should be happy enough doing the job and living the experiences that racing provides. And Friend B shouldn't give a monkeys about an obscure head angle or few extra grams on the rims, they were free for goodness sake, and really, what difference do those irrelevant facts make to a race performance, that is all about training, right?

But the reality is that bikes, to a number of people, really do matter as much as the race. Once that feeling is in your blood then even an 18 year break won't ease the frustration of having something beneath you that doesn't feel quite right, and no matter how much you're getting paid to ride a particular new shiny bit of gear, if it doesn't do it for you, and whether actually or just in your imagination it affects your performance, then a pretty hard decision has to be made.

But for Friend B in particular, where is that line that marks the equipment versus performance dilemma? It's not easy. There are no rules so it's down to the rider to decide if they could go faster if they had bike or part A instead of bike or part B, and of course everyone has an opinion. "As long as it fits it doesn't matter how much it weighs"; "spend money on the lightest wheels you can find, they'll make more difference than an expensive frame"; "If you use a Force group and not Red then you'll never win a race". The reality is good riders win races on some pretty crappy bikes, and plenty more finish down the field on some amazing works of carbon and titanium art, so at the end of the day it's down to the individual where that line is drawn, which means I was absolutely no help at all to my friends when they called for some advice!

@simonburney