Originally Posted by
FamilyMan007
Sorry if I am being unduly sensitive, but I am not sure how what I wrote deserved to trigger the above response.
To refresh, my final comment was "Thought = will 'flat-bar-road-bikes' become such a significant feature that they deserve their own separate forum as they seem to have as much in common with road bikes as with 'traditional' hybrids (however one would define that term)?'
That thought (which followed a relatively harmless comment encouraging someone to think about the type of riding one was likely to do, and then to buy a bike which puts a smile on ones face) was in response to my review of the CAAD8 link where I noticed that the frame was identical to the road bike version.
It seems, badger1, that you are understandably upset by the treatment which 'flat-bars' received at the road-bike forum.
You seem to have interpreted my comment as a 'reverse snobbery' to push you out of this forum. However, I would appreciate if you re-read my post and try to interpret it in a different light:
~ My reference to 'they' was to a type a bike which apart from flat handlebars is identical to road bikes;
~ My comment 'will .. become' is future oriented, not a suggestion that any action is called for immediately;
~ My comment 'deserve' was meant in a reward rather than a punishment context -- after all there are a lot of separate forums so why not consider one dedicated to flat-bar 'road' bikes IF that is where the market goes?
As a practical matter, my post also acknowledged the challenge of definition. It certainly does not worry me if there is no such end result. However, in my day in business one tried not to call ideas 'silly', rather build on them to come get to a better solution.
Perhaps it is time I spent less time on this forum and more time putting a smile on my face. It is a lovely day and I am going for a ride.
Enjoy.
Oh dear, FM007 ... you've got the wrong end of the stick there! My reflections in that post were indeed prompted by issues raised in yours, but just to be clear I was not at all suggesting that you were proposing some sort of definition of 'hybrid' that would be exclusionary, and I certainly was not suggesting you/your post as an example of the 'reverse snobbery' I was referring to. It was not an example of that. Apologies if you read my musings that way.
I was referring to many, many posts on this board (in many threads) that suggest directly or indirectly that there is a specifiable set of defining characteristics for 'hybrid' bicycles and those who ride them, and that bicycles (and indeed cyclists!) who deviate from the paradigm so constructed are somehow not to be recognized as riding 'hybrids'. In other words, there is a kind of 'reverse snobbery' on this board at times that is just as off-putting as the 'roadie snobbery' allegedly found on the 41. If you hang around here long enough, you'll see pretty clearly what I mean!