Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekchips.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!eirik From: eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller) Newsgroups: net.bicycle Subject: Re: Cannondale frame quality Message-ID: <256@tekchips.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 11:51:45 EDT Article-I.D.: tekchips.256 Posted: Wed Oct 2 11:51:45 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 05:50:06 EDT References: <246@tekchips.UUCP> <4200027@uiucdcsp> Reply-To: eirik@tekchips.UUCP (Eirik Fuller) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 27 In article <4200027@uiucdcsp> leimkuhl@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > ... > >As for looks, well that may not be important to you, but for many people >it is one of the most important considerations. If you're going to log >2-3 hours per day for several years on the thing, you'd better like >the way it looks. Better looks translates into greater enthusiasm, which >means you're more willing to spend time on the bike, which means you train >better and you go faster. > >-Ben Leimkuhler Is there general agreement on this (who are the "many" people)? I don't need my vehicle to be a work of art to get enthused about riding it; usually the wind in my face, or getting where I'm going will do it for me. I spend most of my time on the road looking at my surroundings, not my bike; even in less scenic surroundings, this isn't such a bad idea, particularly for such mundane trivialities as obstacle avoidance. An extreme case in this vein: would you buy a gold-plated Colnago? (Don't laugh, I've seen pictures.) If someone gave me one, I'd do my best to unload it, because I certainly wouldn't ride it (I could trade it in for a few practical ones), and I don't have space or taste for such artwork indoors.