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.