Originally Posted by tjspiel

But that's the problem. Road bikes were originally intended for the road, not just racing. Back in the 70's a road bike is what people got for everything, so the idea that a road bike is too flimsy for commuting doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't have to ride in an aero position on a road bike. You have multiple positions. Gearing for road bikes have plenty snap at an intersection but not so much for going over rocks up a hill. Who drops down to their lowest gear for intersections?

I think the SUV analogy is a good one. For some people an SUV makes a lot of sense, but there are plenty of other people who bought SUVs that don't need really need the increased utility and they live with the lost efficiency. There are of course sportier SUVs and smaller SUVs and cars that have some SUV like features. The prevalence of the SUV is a fashion trend.

In the case of mountain bikes, they became all the rage in the 80's and 90's to the point that you have to go out of your way not to buy one. This is why so many people commute with MTBs, not their inherent suitability for commuting.

Again, the question was why so many people commute with them. Some postulate that its because they're ideal commuters. I disagree. I don't disagree that they can be good commuters or better than road bikes for certain types of commutes.