Bmblbzzz wrote:"Better by your set of criteria is not necessarily the point."
This should be borne in mind every time we comment on someone's choice of technology.
Criteria for specifying one's bicycle certainly vary with the cycling style involved and with the priorities of the bike user. However, there are surely some basic or fundamental criteria that will apply in all cases. The obvious basic requirement of all is that the bike should be a bike and not a bike-shaped-object (BSO) as sometimes found in supermarkets.
If this is so (that there is a set of fundamental criteria applying to all bikes; perhaps wider sets applying to all bike types) then it would be interesting to know what they are so one could pay attention to getting them in any bike one acquires - whatever other bells, whistles, go-faster stripes and gizmo might be wanted on top.
So, who would care to start of list of (a) fundamental functional requirements of all bikes and (b) fundamantal functional requirements of specialist bikes, such as tourer, commuter, racer ......
Here's a starter:
(a) Replaceable bearings, gear parts, brake parts; et al, so the whole thing doesn't have to be binned when worn.
(b) Tyres that are suitable for all the kinds of surfaces the rider plans to cycle over.
Moreover, as this thread indicates, there might be things that are spurious to all bike types; or to some varieties of bike types. Some have suggested (perhaps) that electronic gearing is spurious, for example - although there is an argument it serves convenience or the cack-handed.
But are there (c) other bike things pushed by marketing that really are spurious - have no functional purpose for cycl;ing at all except fashionability? And might even detract from cycling.
(c) power meters; anodised aluminium bolts on stressed parts.