"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6e31m6F545nsU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> erness.wild@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>> Bicycle types: BMX, Mountain, Street, etc
>>
>> How abouta new category: "Highway"
>> because:
>> The fastest bicycle in the world is the Varna Diablo re***bent which
>> broke the official world speed record on October 6, 2001 achieving the
>> incredible speed of 80.55 mph
>> Highway bicycles would be: Cannondale, Speedmachine, Trek, Rans, etc.
>> Get rid of the name re***bent.
>
> Half right IMHO.
> I think a lot of the problem is that keen cyclists see most bikes as
> functional types: you have a city bike for the city, a touring bike for
> touring, a racing bike for racing etc. And that leaves as a "re***bent"
> as, well, something you lie back on? It's divorced from what the bike
> actually /does/, which could be city, touring, racing etc.
>
> I think it would help if "re***bent" was seen as an adjective rather
> than a plain noun. I ride a re***bent tourer. It's very different from
> a re***bent racer. You'd not get most cyclists confusing a tourer and a
> racer, but they lump re***bents all together regardless of functional
> design.
>
The only people confused by any of this are the noobs (feel free to decide
which type of noob)..
I have a cycling buddy who has a RANS Stratus XP and a Catrike 700 which
he
has both configured for touring (they don't need to be). He also has a
Velocraft VK2 that he considers a good metric century road bike even
though
he just completed the 1-day STP on it. Of course, he had a Trek Project
One, two other Treks (one is for off-road use).
Now, which ones are re***bents and which are not?
BTW, which could be good for racing (just pure racing, not anything
"official")?
Bottom line: the word re***bent really has little to do with the
marketing.
Re***bents are just such rare things and most people are willing to blaze
trails.
|
