Originally Posted by
atnyc
Yes, aesthetics!
Practicality be damned.
Yes, $150 specialty rack may sound rich. But it beats $2000 dedicated touring bike! Not to mention the satisfaction of not giving in to the marketing of “aesthetics”!
There was a time that I prefer specific bike for specific use, “the best” bike for that purpose. But those days were gone. So are the bikes. These days, bikes are so capable I don’t get why we need many of them any more.
Before you go too far, there is a vast difference between a short wheel base race (or raceable) bike and a touring bike. One is built for fast riding and performance while the other is made for carrying lots of stuff all day with maximum stability…a different kind of “performance”. I’ve taken a loaded short wheel base bike down a high speed hill and dreaded it. The bike developed shimmies and was difficult to control. I’ve also taken a loaded touring down many more hills at far higher rates of speed without the drama.
There is also the heel clipping problem when you put panniers on a rack on a short bike.
Originally Posted by
Trakhak
The aesthetics in question would be those of their customers, non Cannondale's. They clearly figure that adding rack drillings to the carbon frame would turn off the majority of potential purchasers, or at least more than would be gained.
Is it? Would adding rack mounts to a bike really turn off people or would people who don’t want to use them just not use them? They put the rack mounts on the aluminum version which doesn’t seem to turn people off all that much.