Originally Posted by robmcl
This sheds more light on the subject. These bikes are not as performance depraved and are more updated than you guys made them out to be. The argument I was hearing was that we needed a heavy as a tank bike with little or no gearing for maximum durability… but that’s OK because no practical commuter is going to ride more than a few miles on level ground anyway. Anything less is not utilitarian. Thus the discussions on commuter distance etc.
Enough said on this subject. The weather is supposed to be nice this weekend and I have a bike to go ride. You at least could give me credit for stirring up enough controversy to keep this thread alive as long as it has
.
You (and at least one other poster) are stirring up controversy by pontificating on a subject of which you have little/no knowledge or experience, and only based on what you "heard" or have chosen to hear.
I will shed some more light on the subject for you. Most of the commuting bicyclists I saw commuting in The Netherlands from 1986 -2002 were cycling on the "performance depraved" bicycles as portrayed in
http://www.gazelle.nl/nl/productcate...=2&idSegment=1
And not the more upscale ones offered on the other pages of the Gazelle website.
Note that Gazelle is a provider of high end commuting bicycles and there are many other providers, usually at lower prices, but most bicycles actually seen on the streets look very much like the basic Stad Cycles offered by Gazelle. Yes, they are heavy (by American "performance" standards). But the Dutch have figured out that cycling without significant hills reduces the need to worship the gear count and weight shaving tricks of the "performance enhanced" commuter. These are most definitely practical bikes for commuting any credible distance in comfort with reliability and minimal maintenance or tinkering.
Apparently there is at least one "practical commuter" in a flat place like Chicago who can't figure that out.