The point is, looking good is a practical reason for it. Furthermore you don't seem to feel there is a practical reason for that tube not to be there on that bike, but you do seem to feel its existence should be justified by some non aesthetic motivation/rational. That seems sort of arbitrary and unfair to me. Like placing a burden of proof where it does not belong. "Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need." is pretty much a tautology and as such is basically meaningless. Do you intend to suggest that aesthetics are by definition not practical? If yes I disagree. Lets see, "practical", i.e. good in actual (real world) practice/use as opposed to say hypothetical, theoretical, or even measurable but insignificant. I don't think practical is a synonym for structural. Nor are aesthetic and practical antonyms. Saying aesthetics are not a practical concern implies nobody looks at the thing in question, or just nobody cares what it looks like. The appearance of my bikes is a practical concern for me (i.e. I care what they look like). YMMV. Saying some feature is aesthetic but impractical would normally imply that the feature (though it looks nice) causes some discomfort, or inconvenience, or impairs some core function, when the thing is actually used. I don't see the practical down side of the rainbow tube on the bike in the blug, unless one doesn't like the look of it. (Well maybe it might get in the way of getting that tall hydroflask in or out of the cage on the down tube.) So I don't think it would be right to call that tube "impractical". If it's not impractical, it would seem odd to charge it with lacking a practical reason for being. qed ish
ted, who when asked about the reasoning behind the extra top tube on his 52 bombadil replied "it's a gratuitous excuse for more fancy lug work", or something like that. On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:11:07 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: > > Improving aesthetics meets an aesthetic need. > > Sure, another 12 oz won't make a practical difference on a heavy bike, but > the point is, there's not practical reason for it, with the qualifications > already described. It's like adding a 12 oz mascot made of chromed steel to > a specially braced front fender: aesthetics only. One can wear a 1 lb > weight around one's waist; no practical difference, but there's certainly > no structural reason for doing so. > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:09 AM ted <ted....@comcast.net <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> Unless nobody ever looks at it, I'd argue that improving aesthetics >> **is** a practical purpose. >> I also suspect that in many situations an extra 1/2 lb in the total bike >> + rider + stuff (e.g. bags, tools, spares, cloths, water, food, etc) weight >> is imperceptible, and therefore not a practical (as opposed to theoretical) >> detriment. >> >> > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Patrick Moore > Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/f75597ef-dfae-4d8b-8760-5a846447048fo%40googlegroups.com.
