Patrick: My earlier post was not directed to Sachs, but rather the journalist. Specifically the quote that more pratical bikes are used to 'meander' around the block.
I like Sachs' bikes a good deal. Not as much as I do the old Masis, Colnagnos and Bassos, but think he is a great builder with justly deserved reputation. Jounalist pandering to their readers and advertisers - and this is just one of many examples I have seen in my day - is my issue. Part of the problem, I guess, is that I have been a bike commuter for so long. As the '08 NAHBS made clear, practical bikes have turned the corner in the US. A few years back if you were not a part of the spandex crowd, most people put you on a Breezer by the beach in their mind, no matter what your approach to riding was. On Dec 10, 3:16 pm, Patrick in VT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
