arnuld said:
So what will qualify for a bike designed with comfort as primary criteria. Road bikes are for speed and efficiency, FS MTB for mountains, Hard-Tails for flat terrains. What for the comfort ?
A comfort bike is probably meant to cover shorter distances in greater... well, comfort. So probably quite upright, to put the weight on a well padded or sprung saddle, easy gearing and low maintenance. The sort of thing traditionally ridden by english vicars probably counts these days - the Pashley types mentioned by g00se. Cruisers have the same principles but tend to be more 'stylish', copying the look of 50's American bikes, with ballon tyres, maybe apehanger bars and a more pedal forward position.
First thing I said was WTF ??
I wonder how they reach up to sit on them, on their own. They seem like a wastage of time to me.
Well, if you think having fun is a waste of time, then you're right. Once you know how to mount, and have the knack (I don't, I'm a coward), it's easy. Watch my youtube video here to see it done. A quick scoot, then climb up once you have momentum. Same as the old penny farthing type.
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W03_wrJL5U
That is my late boyfriend, who built that bike out of an old bedframe for a tallbike gathering, it was the tallest one there. Two of the others had just been ridden round Britain by a pair of brothers:
http://www.tallbiketourbritain.com/index.htm
It's funny, how some people assume a bike has to have a serious point. I used to promote cycling for a job and among all our 'sensible' tryout bikes, commuters and road bikes and MTB's and recumbents, we had micro bikes and mini penny farthings, and there was always someone who asked "and what's the point of that one...." and who was bemused when we just said "it's for fun...". The people who 'got it' were the ones riding the silly stuff and laughing their heads off....