>>977406>Rec and commuter riders *should* be who they build for, it's 9x% of their customer base.Know what the majority of recreational and commute riders want?
>The CHEAPEST bicycle possible, not the BEST bicycle possibleIf what you say was actually true? We'd MAYBE have 3-speed internally-geared hubs, nothing but steel frame bikes, with flat handlebars, steel single-wall rims, etc. The whole bike would weigh 30 pounds, and it would still cost $1000, because they'd sell so few of them that there would never be enough mass production to bring the price-point down; basically, bicycle design would not have changed in at least 50 years, because there would be no reason to change it.
Professional competition on the other hand is similar to warfare, each side in the conflict seeking and advantage over the enemies they're fighting, which is what pushes technological advances in bicycle technology. Multiple gears in the back and chainrings in the front weren't invented to make commuters lives easier, they were invented to make climbing hills faster and easier for bike racers. Titanium frames, aluminum frames, carbon-fiber frames? The new hyrdoformed aluminum frames? Recreational and commute riders couldn't care less. But these all made the bike lighter and stiffer, giving pro racers and advantage -- until the competition got them, too. 8-cog, 9-cog, 10-cog, 11-cog cassettes? Racers. Brifters? Racers. Electronic shifting? Racers. CF wheelsets? Racers. Anything that was innovated to make the bike overall lighter? Racers. Expensive, high-performance tires? Racers.
EVERYTHING THAT WAS INNOVATED BEYOND A FIXED-GEAR BIKE WAS DRIVEN BY PRO RACING.
Then they turned around and re-invented fixed-gear track bikes, too.
You want to whine about this-that-the other being 'unnecesary'? Then be a fixie-fag, and STFU and enjoy blowing your knees out on hills, and be sure to complain really loudly about 'lycra-clad Freds' when some guy in full kit blows past you on a 15% hill.
