Again, that's a textbook slippery slope. The wikipedia page on slippery slopes might be useful here, in particular example #4 --
Originally Posted by crhilton
That is *exactly* how you've phrased it, twice now. You seem to be arguing from the position of "take 2 lbs, multiply it by a bunch, and it's a lot of weight" and he simply said that a step-through frame adds about two lbs (to give the same strength, anyways.)
Originally Posted by wikipedia
See, I disagree. I think step through frames are a great thing for people who want them. Everyone else would be wise to go with whatever they want, be it a top tube ... or a recumbent, or whatever.
I think step through frames are a great thing for people who need them. Everyone else would be wise to go with the top tube.
Why would somebody mention it? We weren't giving lists of why step-through frames are inferior or unsuitable.
And, since no one else has mentioned it, they're also harder to put on racks. Which is probably a more common use in America than being unable to step over a top tube.
Yes, but his logic wasn't simply "it's just 2 lbs". It was more that a step-through frame wasn't an expensive design trade-off -- it only "costs" 2 lbs. And he was absolutely right. It is only *one* decision, not a road map to the dark side.
It's not slippery slope because I'm simply applying the logic to the design of a bike instead of to one simple decision and explaining how you get the whole way there. Slippery slope involves a chain of decisions. I'm not saying adding a step through to every frame will lead to decisions that make a 40lb bike. I'm saying the logic of "it's just 2lbs" when applied to all design decisions on a bike will lead to a bike that's too heavy to ride well for anything but beach cruising.
Does the rider want a step-through frame? I doubt they care what you declare them to need.
So applying it to step through is not a good decision. Clearly more must go into it. Such as "does the rider need a step through frame?"