Tom Dalton wrote " When you wrote that, "...the NAHBS bikes aren't out of reach for many of us, and we should appreciate them for what they are: attainable, rideable, works of art," did you really mean it? Sure, many people who really need a super expensive bike to pursue their passion for racing, or touring find a way to get one, but who is buying super expensive utility bikes, and fashion bikes? Rich guys who are running out of stuff to spend money on.
Sorry, but those pics just drove home for me that steel is nearly dead as a material for serious bicycles. "
I'm a bit puzzled by all this, if someone wants a bike that can be ridden to the store and loaded with a weeks groceries for the ride home, AND also wants something that looks good, does that mean that they're not a serious rider or that the bike used is somehow "not serious" ? Certainly it wouldn't be for racing, and likely not for a porteur to ride all day delivering packages, but for someone to do errands on, it may be perfect. To ignore or trivialize its looks as "not serious" ignores one of the things that makes any product desirable.
To use an analogy, what sort of car do you drive? Were its looks any concern whatsoever? I'd doubt most people would rate the looks of their car last on the list of things they wanted. (unless you're driving a K-car or something similar) I have a minivan, so I can haul stuff. BUT I'd love to have a high end sports car to admire as it sits in the driveway. I sure wouldn't try to fit a stack of boards or several bike frames into a Lamborghini.
Steve Birmingham
Lowell, Ma
USA