Originally Posted by
lukewall
Depends on who you ask. Among fixie kids, of course you won't find many that like the langster or many of the entry level AL frames out on the market. Aside from the capo, the rest of those frames are exactly what fixie kids don't want: sloping top tubes, road geo, aluminum, cable stops. They spout off stuff like "steel is real" and act like all they want to ride are "real track bikes" when they have no idea about how geo and fit affect ride quality or why track geo would be "better" on the street. I hate to break it to them but track geo isn't any better for urban riding than road geo or a full rigid MTB. They're into aesthetics and bikes like the Langster don't make the cut, it has nothing to do with performance.
So you have people riding around on the street in what amounts to FG TT bikes, then posting on BF about how they have too much weight on their hands but they want to ride steep angled bikes on the street. They can't even get their bike fit worked out so they're in a comfortable posture to put out a lot of mileage and make an informed decision about the ride characteristics of a frame. Should I take their opinion seriously when it comes to the performance characteristics of a bike?
You're getting way way way off tangent here. It doesn't matter whether the prevailing opinion is one you should take seriously. The question isn't whether you or I think a certain bike is or is not suited to street riding. The question is "why does it seem like a majority of people do not like the langster?" which I think I answered.
My personal preference is for practical geometry in steel such as an IRO or the bike I do actually ride (MASI) but that's not what we're discussing here. Your assessment that people only want steel bikes in "real track" geometry is fairly off IMO as well given the popularity of frames like the Surly Steamroller, Kona Paddywagon (sloping top tube interestingly enough, but not disliked like the langster...), IRO Mark V, MASI fixed and the like. Those bikes get fairly positive reception among the fixed community and IMO the difference comes down to material.
Put simply, for someone looking at buying a Mark V what incentive do they have for buying an equivalent frame in aluminum if it isn't going to be super light (ie, basically the langster)? It's less crash and dent resistant and the ride is harsher, I (and I suspect a lot of other people) don't really see the benefit. Most people get an aluminum frame for reasons of lightness, extreme stiffness (perceived or actual) or a certain aesthetic. The langster offers none of these.
And don't take this the wrong way, it's not that the langster is a bad bike. It's just that personally I think an equivalent bike made of steel is a much more attractive choice if you aren't going to be trying to make an ultra stiff ultra light aluminum ride.