>>1529774every time you post, *you're* announcing you're shitting yourself
>>1529816The frame geometry and the trail length of the forks of the klnd of bike you so-called """unracers""" seem to prefer can't even take corners at speed or handle any sort of technical descent because they don't want to corner, lean over too much. Then add your very-much-upright riding position, high handlebars, and handlebars that lack drops, and you actually have a bike that's *more* dangerous because the overall handling is impaired.
Meanwhile the race geometry bike I've been riding since January loves cornering and high speed technical descents, doesn't need to lean over anywhere near as much as the endurance geometry bikes I've had before, and to explode your complete misunderstanding of the subject, handles excellently at low speeds, too.
Seriously, bro, I think you're just latching on to a forced meme to justify the fact that all you can afford are cheap, endurance-geometry or cruiser/city bike geometry bikes -- and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with those kinds of bikes, but your attitude towards everyone else is cringeworthy, you're all just making cyclists of all types look that much more ridiculous to everyone else instead of promoting it.
The proper attitude to take would be:
>"Well, we don't have any interest in racing bikes, we like to 'just ride', but if you like racing then there's nothing wrong with that at all, we're all cyclists"and the reciprocal attitude would be:
>"We like to race and ride for performance, but we get it that it's not for everyone, and so long as you're riding, you're okay with us"Being divisive is just uncool. Being a hater just makes you look ridiculous and small-minded, close-minded person. Why would you want to be that way? A reasonable person wouldn't, and a person who wants to promote cycling to the rest of the world wouldn't, either, it'd just be interpreted as pointless infighting by non-cyclists.
