Originally Posted by
elTwitcho
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.
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.
So, why exactly do the majority of people dislike the langster? And by majority of people, I'm sure you're referring to urban fg riders. Is it because of the ride quality of AL is "harsh"? If that's the case, why are people still willing to pay a premium for aluminum track frames like Pista Concepts, Cinelli Vigorellis, TK2s, and frames of the like to ride on the street? It never had anything to do with performance, ride quality, or practical logic; it has always had to do with aesthetics. Fixie sheep are just afraid to be on a bike that the FG community doesn't consider "cool".
And as far as frame material is concerned, I doubt many of the fixie riders that don't put in a lot of miles can tell the difference between a well fitted steel frame/steel fork and an alloy frame/carbon fork of same geometry and components. So for them to choose steel over aluminum has more to do with perception and outside influence than their own experience on the saddle.
From my experience, i put just short of 5000 commuting/training miles on a steel Rush Hour(before converting it to track only status) and just over 500 training miles on a cheap alloy CityFixed frame/full carbon fork and have yet to experience this alloy harshness you're talking about. The ride is about the same on both bikes, a bit less harsh on the hands on the alloy/carbon frame.