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?
That's sort of the consensus, actually. There was a thread in General Cycling about how much a bike type depends on its build and how much on its function (i.e. what the rider does with it). With commuting bike, we figured, it's all function. If you commute on it - it's a commuter bike.
Does a commuter bike have to have the so called commuter bike gearing, have racks, panniers, etc?
No, it does not if your commuting situation doesn't require them. But a lot of the time they're nice to have (which is not to say commuting without them is impossible).
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?
N_C, no offence, but have you been talking to some imaginary friends? 'Cause I never heard any member of this forum ever express these ridiculous "purist" ideas or say anything that points anywhere in the direction. "Commuting" is one of the least purist and elitist forums on BF. Very strange thread...