>How could making something more useful for > general riding (with little or no impact on its performance in > competition) imply that it is a wall-hanger or casual rider?
>But the notion a practical bike is lessor for its practicality is one that is >lost on >me. hmm . .. I didn't read it that way. maybe it could have been stated more eloquently, but the point was that Mr. Sachs builds his signature 'cross bike with one intent - to race cx. water bottles and fenders have no place in cx, and to have these features would imply that the bike can be, or might be used for other purposes. The omission of these features speaks to Mr. Sachs passion and dedication to cx. serious cx racing is not about being practical or versatile - it's about riding as hard as you possibly can for 45-60mins without throwing up or having to think about what a pain it's going to be to remount my honjos. adding fenders and bottle cages *would* make it a more casual rider kind of bike - so what? this doesn't make other practically designed bikes "lessor." Did someone actually say that? Kind of like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it? in any event, let's not get too defensive about our practically designed bicycles. there's nothing wrong with having a bike that does only one thing and does it really well and saying that it's better for it's given purpose than other bikes designed with versatility in mind. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
