Originally Posted by
63rickert
At the top end even Cannondale gives some small attention to these issues. Lower down the line, where everyday riders do need and want comfort, the frames are all massively overbuilt. What you call "point of being harsh" would be what I call unrideable. But lots of customers bought the harsh/unrideable (pick one) bikes and bought them again. So why pay any attention? Marketing department rules. Customers are malleable, there are no standards.
There might be a third option for perception other than harsh or unrideable by the riders that bought the bikes and bought them again. Something other than "marketing rules" and that they're just malleable sheep without discerning ride standards. That third perception is that the bikes ride just fine and meet the comfort, performance and value needs and criteria of the rider. I had a CAAD 7, for instance, that is often criticized as harsh. I found it to be a fun, lively and comfortable bike after I got the cockpit and fit dialed in and used good tires on it. The same goes for my current steel, aluminum, carbon fiber and titanium bikes. The steel one is the harshest by far, but well within my comfort zone for the type and length of riding I do.