Originally Posted by N_C
With all this hype on having or thinking a person needs an actual commuter bike, why not just say any bike can be a commuter bike? Does a commuter bike have to have the so called commuter bike gearing, have racks, panniers, etc?
Why can't a commuter bike be a recumbent with a rack & panniers, or not? Why can't it be a TREK Madone or full suspension Fuel? Why can't it be a Specialized Stump Jumper? Why can't it be a any bike a person wants to commute on? Or do the purists not like anyone commuting on anything except a commuter bike & think you're not a true commuter unless you do so? Then again why should anyone care what a purist thinks of us?
My "commuter bike" bike is my recumbent, the only bike I own,
. It is a SWB VisionR40 with over seat steering. The only thing I did to it to make it easier to commute was added a rear rack & saddle bags to carry my cloths, lunch, etc. Sorry to disappoint you purists, but this is my commuter bike. Don't like, well tough ****!
Sure, why not? Whatever works for commuting, that's a commuter bike
Flat bars or drop bars, internal gears or derailer or fixed, thin tires or fat tires, 26" or 700C, steel or aluminum, recumbent or upright... if you can use it to commute safely and effectively, it's a good commuter bike.
There are some bikes that do seem pretty unlikely to be practical as commuting bikes though. A high-end race bike will likely have twitchy handling and aggressive riding position, which many wouldn't find comfortable in stop-and-go city traffic or after a hard day of work. Plus, thin tires, no granny gear, no place to mount racks and fenders, and possibly high-maintenance wheels. Likewise a downhill MTB would be too heavy, with power-sapping suspension, wrong gearing, very upright riding position...