How important are aesthetics for you when buying a bike?

[XXtwindad]

For me, it's probably the paramount concern. I think of bikes as rolling works of functional art, and I'd be hard pressed to own a bike I didn't find visually appealing.

Over the past few years, for example, I've had the opportunity to pull the trigger on a couple of Moots frames. No matter how often their praises are sung (often) I just can't get past the really sloping top tubes. Similarly, I've kept my carbon footprint minimal, because I really prefer the simple elegance and symmetry of metal tubing. And, although I like the look of a chunky head tube on a disc frame, I've come around to really appreciating the aesthetics of classic 1 1/8 steerer on a road rim bike. Lastly, in addition to not needing the extra plush for the trails I ride, full suss MTBs always look a bit Frankensteinish to me in contrast to a sleek hardtail.

Anyone here discount aesthetics for functionality? Seems like I'm on solid footing with this crowd, but opposing viewpoints are always welcome.

[RobJ]

I couldn't agree with you more and share the same viewpoints, especially with the examples you referenced. I had a few Moots at different times and each time they went on the auction block because I couldn't handle the extreme sloping TT. I had one of the canti PX models that had a horizontal TT, so that made the cut. Same on MTB - hardtails and in fact I was looking at that Alliance posted here (that you commented on) with the idea of running fully rigid for the same reasons.

I just posted my new Zank, which is steel and I made the same decisions with a horizontal TT and everything proportioned. It has a segmented fork that I am now second guessing since it looks out of place with the larger HT.

Paint also plays into this in my mind. At least that you can change and pick up a bike knowing you can have it repainted. One other point - wheels. Certain bikes just have to have carbon wheels, either low or mid profile, and look out of place with a cheap set of alloys.

[coreyaugustus]

Maybe a different category of aesthetics than you're on about, but I can't do bikes with lots of branding on them. One or two logos is enough, thank you. I won't buy a new bike from a major brand these days because I don't want all the decals and advertising bits. I had a Bianchi Impulso for a while and it irked me to no end that they felt the need to paint "Ultra Thin Seat Stays" on the seat stays... [head explode].

I only do road bikes, but the shape of the bike is less important to me because I have an appreciation of the old school skinny-tube steel rides, the fat tube aluminum frames, the aero carbon bikes, and everything in between. They all serve a purpose and can be made to look cool, so long as you pick an aesthetic and stay in that lane. I.e. it looks silly to build out a bike with parts that weren't intended for it. Tri bars on road bikes of any sort, aero bars and deep dish carbon wheels on skinny tube steel frames, etc.

Just my .02. Otherwise, do to your bike as you wish/need. It's your bike and screw anybody who'd tell you what to do with it. Example: I was down at the local brewery last weekend and some guy came up and was admiring my bike. Friendly enthusiast chat, right? I got to proudly say I not only built up the bike but also welded the frame. Then he decides to say, "You should put a different group on there..." and all I can think is, "Dude, I didn't build this for you."

TL;DR, to each his own.

[Tickdoc]

For me? Looks>campy>stance>brand.

[colker]

For me, it's probably the paramount concern. I think of bikes as rolling works of functional art, and I'd be hard pressed to own a bike I didn't find visually appealing.

Over the past few years, for example, I've had the opportunity to pull the trigger on a couple of Moots frames. No matter how often their praises are sung (often) I just can't get past the really sloping top tubes. Similarly, I've kept my carbon footprint minimal, because I really prefer the simple elegance and symmetry of metal tubing. And, although I like the look of a chunky head tube on a disc frame, I've come around to really appreciating the aesthetics of classic 1 1/8 steerer on a road rim bike. Lastly, in addition to not needing the extra plush for the trails I ride, full suss MTBs always look a bit Frankensteinish to me in contrast to a sleek hardtail.

Anyone here discount aesthetics for functionality? Seems like I'm on solid footing with this crowd, but opposing viewpoints are always welcome.

An important element of feeling good on a bike is knowing it looks good. Travel places and arrive in style even if 3 sec. later due to aesthethic choices.

[charliedid]

63%

[old_fat_and_slow]

Aesthetics are the top priority for me. That's why I would never buy any of the new road bikes that are being offered right now. Sloping top tube/compact frame on a road bike is an immediate deal killer. So are swoopy loopy frame tubes, and fairing covered head tubes.

[robt57]

The more you are spending, the more it matter I'd say.

[mmendoza87]

As an industrial designer and someone that admires my bikes sitting still in the garage as much as riding them, aesthetics are 100% important to me. : )

More specifically, good proportions are what make the bike, to me. Gaps between tire/frame that are too big, awkward tube angles, or massive tubes combined with shallow wheels, and things like that are a turn off. The actual sculpting of the frame (when it comes to molded, carbon frames) is less important to me.

I do like a frame with an iconic profile. Ones where you just need to glance at it for a second and you instantly know what frame it is. My last 3 frames have been BMC for this reason.

[texbike]

Aesthetics are the top priority for me. That's why I would never buy any of the new road bikes that are being offered right now. Sloping top tube/compact frame on a road bike is an immediate deal killer. So are swoopy loopy frame tubes, and fairing covered head tubes.

^This. I would technically put aesthetics in 3rd place behind responsiveness/handling and comfort. However, I've had a number of bikes that were great from the first two criteria stated above, but had sloping top tubes or unattractive paint schemes. They've all moved on to new homes. Conversely, I've had a couple of absolutely beautiful bikes that either were slugs or rode like donkey carts (or both). They're no longer here either. Oh, and probably my all-time favorite bike (an older Vamoots) has a SLIGHTLY sloping top tube, but nothing bad at all. It looks great. I couldn't own one of the Moots models with the drastically sloping TTs. As nice as they are, they just don't look right to me.

Texbike

[thirdgenbird]

It’s pretty important to me, but I appreciate traditional aesthetics and well executed functional aesthetics. I think it can be harder to make the latter look good, but when it works, it works.

My yeti is built from parts many find ugly, but as a package, I think it works.
https://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1698001117&stc=1&d=1591155461

The tommasini is probably more universally appreciated, but making look good was easy.
https://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1698003044&stc=1&d=1593475261

[Coda1]

If everything else was equal then aesthetics would matter. Other then that I go for function and price over aesthetics. I'm riding a single bike for all uses right now so I've got a rear rack and rack pack on an old Trek 970 MTB. Parts have been broken and replaced. My shifters and brake levers don't match from one side to the other. Same with wheels and tires. Its got rust and missing paint. Despite all that it can still ride the local MTB trails and yet still do 35+ mile road rides to work or haul groceries home. I get some weird looks but it gets the job done. I am working on building up my dream bike right now. Dean Ti MTB frame with a Rohloff hub. This one will only look slightly less Frankenstein. I'm stuck with 26" rear because of the frame but will put a 29er on the front.

[BobbyJones]

If you’re reading this and participating in this forum, aesthetics are the priority when considering a bike.

The individual aesthetic tastes are what’s arguable.

[charliedid]

If you’re reading this and participating in this forum, aesthetics are the priority when considering a bike.

The individual aesthetic tastes are what’s arguable.

Thanks for clearing that up for us...

[BobbyJones]

Thanks for clearing that up for us...

You're so welcome!

[wgp]

^This. I would technically put aesthetics in 3rd place behind responsiveness/handling and comfort. However, I've had a number of bikes that were great from the first two criteria stated above, but had sloping top tubes or unattractive paint schemes ... Oh, and probably my all-time favorite bike (an older Vamoots) has a SLIGHTLY sloping top tube ... couldn't own one of the Moots models with the drastically sloping TTs. As nice as they are, they just don't look right to me.

Same for me! Sold my RSL and kept my older Vamoots (that has same geo as the RSL), and looked far and wide to find my Parlee Z1 to replace the Z3 - all because of their sloping TTs. When I bought those bikes, I thought I could get over it due to their ride, but whenever I saw them I felt a pang of discord over their appearance. All's right in my world with my three level top tube bikes ;-)

[R3awak3n]

if there were 2 bikes. there was an ugly bike that rode super well and then a good looking bike that rode ok then I would pick the ugly bike every single day. When you are ridding the bike, you can't look at it.

That said, it is possible to have a bike that not only rides well but also looks great so why not just have both? There are a lot of bikes that I would not buy because I think they are hideous, I know I can find a bike that will ride the exact same or similar and look great.

[reuben]

Looks/aesthetics count. But so do comfort and performance. That's why I think this will be my next frame. It should tick all of the boxes.

Cinelli Supercorsa, Bianco Perla

ETA: I like simple, understated, even minimalist stuff - a classy bike, nothing gaudy or ostentatious. A simple life. So most of the fancy graphics and paint nowadays is a turnoff for a curmudgeon like me.


https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-1hf4tfjzyx/images/stencil/original/attribute_rule_images/344_source_1498666826.jpg

[C40_guy]

I much prefer a horizontal top tube over sloping...and so I'm kinda stuck with my C50. From C60 onward, Colnago is (currently) only making sloping top tube carbon models in my size...

And I've already got a Master. :)

Not a bad place to be...and I'm currently selling bikes versus buying...

[Dino Suegiù]

I find the term "functional art" when related to bicycles a bothersome cliché, but regardless as far as I am concerned aesthetics are definitely equal to quality/condition and fit, and certainly rank above budget.

Aesthetics constitute an enormous aspect of the pleasure derived, and there is no reason at all to "discount for ugliness", certainly not for the sake of functionality (which is the presumed basis point of departure and not some elevated goal at the exclusion of other factors). There is no reason to sacrifice one's true desires for the sake of half-sating impulse; consideration and patience are aesthetic pleasures too.

[paredown]

If you’re reading this and participating in this forum, aesthetics are the priority when considering a bike.

The individual aesthetic tastes are what’s arguable.

De gustibus non est disputandum.:banana:

[Bob Ross]

Huh... weird question.

For me I think looks are moderately important...by which I mean they're more important than, say, taste, or sound, or smell (hmm, wait, maybe I should re-think smell) but less important than fit or performance or durability or reliability or customer service/support from the manufacturer.

But I also don't give a flaming fcuk what other people think a Good Looking Bike looks like, so it's a particularly idiosyncratic metric.

[gdw]

To me bikes are tools so looks are much less important than fit and performance.

[Coffee Rider]

At this point in my relationship with cycling in terms of having more than I need and basically considering myself a collector, I won't really consider getting anything that I find to not be visually appealing. I consider appearance to be an overall part of the subjective process by which you compare relatively similar things.

[Kirk007]

Interesting question: does it matter (to me) - absolutely. But tastes differ, both between individuals and even for the individual over time. When Chevy changed the body style in 1970 for the Camaro I hated it. But over time I can to appreciate the very different aesthetic (and would happily take a 69 or a 70 at this point).

And with bikes. Consider a steel frame: Some, as already expressed in this thread, do not like sloping top tubes, particulary on a lugged frame. I on the other hand have come to appreciate them. At 6' 3" with long legs and relatively short torso, I appreciate how a slope can be one factor used by a builder to get the bars where I want them relative to everything else. More importantly, I agree with what Tom Kellogg observed and wrote about on his website a long time ago - a sloped top tube can give a bike a ride characteristic not present on with a level top tube. I first experienced this on a custom Kirk that was built for travel with S & S couplers - getting a big frame into a S&S box required a 57 cm seat tube whereas I'm normally on a 62+. The solution was sloping the top tube and the bike rode great, particulary out of the saddle. So now I have a lugged steel frame with steel fork and sloping top tube from TK after giving him carte blanche to build a pure road bike for me. Some probably look at it and go *** happened to that poor thing. But I love it, the ride and the aesthetic. Consider also David Kirk's terraplane stays: I find the aesthetic quite challenging, but the performance result speaks for itself and it's one of David's signature elements, so if someday I get another bike from David it will be with terraplane stays. And then there's discs on road bikes, and on and on.

Bottom line, as long as the bike rides and looks the way you like, what Bob Ross said in his last comment.

[Mikej]

I’ve progressed. I recently saddled up an Edmonds SLR Dura Ace Disc with XXX aero wheels - awful looking bike. But damn, that thing flys like no other bike I’ve had. When I see a level top tube it it looks like it actually goes upwards to the seat tube. Everyone likes what they like. I am in the function crowd now.

[weisan]

Interesting question: does it matter (to me) - absolutely. But tastes differ, both between individuals and even for the individual over time. When Chevy changed the body style in 1970 for the Camaro I hated it. But over time I can to appreciate the very different aesthetic (and would happily take a 69 or a 70 at this point).

And with bikes. Consider a steel frame: Some, as already expressed in this thread, do not like sloping top tubes, particulary on a lugged frame. I on the other hand have come to appreciate them. At 6' 3" with long legs and relatively short torso, I appreciate how a slope can be one factor used by a builder to get the bars where I want them relative to everything else. More importantly, I agree with what Tom Kellogg observed and wrote about on his website a long time ago - a sloped top tube can give a bike a ride characteristic not present on with a level top tube. I first experienced this on a custom Kirk that was built for travel with S & S couplers - getting a big frame into a S&S box required a 57 cm seat tube whereas I'm normally on a 62+. The solution was sloping the top tube and the bike rode great, particulary out of the saddle. So now I have a lugged steel frame with steel fork and sloping top tube from TK after giving him carte blanche to build a pure road bike for me. Some probably look at it and go *** happened to that poor thing. But I love it, the ride and the aesthetic. Consider also David Kirk's terraplane stays: I find the aesthetic quite challenging, but the performance result speaks for itself and it's one of David's signature elements, so if someday I get another bike from David it will be with terraplane stays. And then there's discs on road bikes, and on and on.

Bottom line, as long as the bike rides and looks the way you like, what Bob Ross said in his last comment.

Kirk pal, you literally took the words of my mouth. :p

[mhespenheide]

It's important.

But fit and performance are more important. Price is also important, and price versus aesthetics is a tough call, depending on the variance in both factors.

But, as others have already pointed out, aesthetics vary from person to person and that's 100% okay. Like @Kirk007, I'm a taller guy (and started riding in the late 80's, so 90's mountain bike aesthetics are okay with me) and a sloping top tube is not only not a deal-breaker, I actively wish my Ti LeMond had a sloping top tube so that I could use more of an exposed seatpost to get a little more compliance.

Further, now that I own the bikes that I do, the niches that I'm looking to fill are filled. And, for the most part, I'm happy with the aesthetics of the bikes that I have. If I'm going to add another bike into one of those niches, the aesthetics better be superlative. On the other hand, I might soon be in the market to fill a new niche. In that case, I'd be willing to compromise on aesthetics depending on price.


I will confess to one thing: the font of the lettering matters to me. There are a couple of builders out there who, if I ever spring for a custom from them, I'm going to have to ask early in the process if they'd let me use a different font. I'm probably a little too picky in that regard. :rolleyes:

[XXtwindad]

It's important.

But fit and performance are more important. Price is also important, and price versus aesthetics is a tough call, depending on the variance in both factors.

But, as others have already pointed out, aesthetics vary from person to person and that's 100% okay. Like @Kirk007, I'm a taller guy (and started riding in the late 80's, so 90's mountain bike aesthetics are okay with me) and a sloping top tube is not only not a deal-breaker, I actively wish my Ti LeMond had a sloping top tube so that I could use more of an exposed seatpost to get a little more compliance.

Further, now that I own the bikes that I do, the niches that I'm looking to fill are filled. And, for the most part, I'm happy with the aesthetics of the bikes that I have. If I'm going to add another bike into one of those niches, the aesthetics better be superlative. On the other hand, I might soon be in the market to fill a new niche. In that case, I'd be willing to compromise on aesthetics depending on price.


I will confess to one thing: the font of the lettering matters to me. There are a couple of builders out there who, if I ever spring for a custom from them, I'm going to have to ask early in the process if they'd let me use a different font. I'm probably a little too picky in that regard. :rolleyes:

100% agree. I wonder if fonts are an afterthought to some builders. Some, however, (below) are classic.

Also, I wonder if you could ever own a bike with an oversized head tube? You’ve stated an aversion to that a few times.

[FlashUNC]

Ride what you think looks good. Who cares what anyone else thinks? They don't have to ride it, you do.

[wallymann]

its easy to buy a bike that performs. it's easy to buy a bike that fits. these 2 are a given and assumed (for me at least) when buying *any* bike.

arguably much harder to buy a bike that inspires one to ride.

[colker]

Looks/aesthetics count. But so do comfort and performance. That's why I think this will be my next frame. It should tick all of the boxes.

Cinelli Supercorsa, Bianco Perla

ETA: I like simple, understated, even minimalist stuff - a classy bike, nothing gaudy or ostentatious. A simple life. So most of the fancy graphics and paint nowadays is a turnoff for a curmudgeon like me.


https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-1hf4tfjzyx/images/stencil/original/attribute_rule_images/344_source_1498666826.jpg

Love these.. Cinelli always go against the ostentatious italian style. They(Ugo) were modernists in 1970s and still look ahead of the game when there is still so much gothic excess on bicycles. Ressurrected Steibel reminds me of cinelli´s sparse elegant industrial look. Dario Pegoretti took the idea to 11 w/ the oversized tubing while never straying from the line of the horizon. When we talk slopping x non slopping top tunes what´s at stake is that line: maybe the oldest symbol of harmony and balance.

[XXtwindad]

Love these.. Cinelli always go against the ostentatious italian style. They(Ugo) were modernists in 1970s and still look ahead of the game when there is still so much gothic excess on bicycles. Ressurrected Steibel reminds me of cinelli´s sparse elegant industrial look. Dario Pegoretti took the idea to 11 w/ the oversized tubing while never straying from the line of the horizon. When we talk slopping x non slopping top tunes what´s at stake is that line: maybe the oldest symbol of harmony and balance.

Great post. I really appreciate your artistic sensibilities.

[Jere]

Well at lest I hope if it looks like a **** house look at my pic

[charliedid]

I wouldn't buy one but I more than see the appeal. Sweet bike for sure...



Love these.. Cinelli always go against the ostentatious italian style. They(Ugo) were modernists in 1970s and still look ahead of the game when there is still so much gothic excess on bicycles. Ressurrected Steibel reminds me of cinelli´s sparse elegant industrial look. Dario Pegoretti took the idea to 11 w/ the oversized tubing while never straying from the line of the horizon. When we talk slopping x non slopping top tunes what´s at stake is that line: maybe the oldest symbol of harmony and balance.

[jamesdak]

The ride is most important to me but good looking bikes the ride great make things even better.

I'm pretty old fashioned and prefer steel bikes with a level top tube myself. Can't see anything attractive about all the black, fugly C.F. bikes running all around.

Some examples as I see it...

Classic beauty that rides well:

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/167931185.jpg

More Modern work of art that rides well:

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/170017073.jpg

Aesthetic mess that rides extremely well and is rocket fast:

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/169806289.jpg

Changes don't really help the looks:

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/168673020.jpg

Subdued and boring to look at but goes like stink:

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/164992518.jpg

Snoozer for looks and way to flexy feeling under me on anything but the smoothest roads:

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/162460303.jpg

Little touches can be quite beautiful also.

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/169109338.jpg

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/169339012.jpg

https://pbase.com/jhuddle/image/168701062.jpg

Anyway, these are the ramblings of an old biker geezer.

[jlwdm]

Aesthetics are important to me on pretty much everything I buy. I buy things I really like and keep them for a long time.

I would not buy a bike that looked great if it was not a perfect fit though. I have long legs for my height and I am tall so I have two custom bikes that I love. My third road bike, a CSI, was custom for someone else and fits me, but it is not a paint job I would have picked. It rides great but is relegated to trainer duty.

And of course all three bikes are Campagnolo.

Jeff

[Dino Suegiù]

Looks/aesthetics count. But so do comfort and performance. That's why I think this will be my next frame. It should tick all of the boxes.

Cinelli Supercorsa, Bianco Perla

ETA: I like simple, understated, even minimalist stuff - a classy bike, nothing gaudy or ostentatious. A simple life. So most of the fancy graphics and paint nowadays is a turnoff for a curmudgeon like me.

That is nice (maybe with a few too many little Cinelli "Winged C"s), but do not discount Casati (both their "classic steel" and "modern steel" framesets are sublime, very elegant and restrained, deeply and honestly beautiful), and likewise Stelbel. No fancy graphics anywhere, but pure class everywhere.

[Toeclips]

I take history into consideration
Even if it's not the greatest finish, if it has historical significance I'll consider buying a bike or frame based on that alone

Man I typed and erased typed and erased for half an hour just to say that...

[prototoast]

My wife is a real stickler for looks, and often gives me **** for using parts that aren't color coordinated. For her, looks are a top priority.

For me, I've got nothing against a good looking bike, but I tend to throw together whatever works from a performance standpoint first, and then maybe align the looks if I can. I regularly use mismatched wheels, mismatched tires, dirty bar tape, etc.

If I'm looking for a new bike, I want performance features first, and then if all of those are lined up, maybe I'll see if it looks good. I'd never cut it as an instagram model, but I do all right for myself as an economist.

[colker]

Ride what you think looks good. Who cares what anyone else thinks? They don't have to ride it, you do.

The op is about what matters most to each one of us: aesthethics or function. Not about how to impress others.

[reuben]

That is nice (maybe with a few too many little Cinelli "Winged C"s), but do not discount Casati (both their "classic steel" and "modern steel" framesets are sublime, very elegant and restrained, deeply and honestly beautiful), and likewise Stelbel. No fancy graphics anywhere, but pure class everywhere.

Man, that Casati Campionissimo is gorgeous. Comes in 4 different styles. Borderline too beautiful to ride.

https://www.ciclicasati.it/seel-historic

[Dino Suegiù]

Man, that Casati Campionissimo is gorgeous. Gotta wonder what it costs, and how I can possibly keep it clean.

https://www.ciclicasati.it/seel-historic

Casati list all their base prices including lug/finish variations (of course special custom orders cost more).

That Campionissimo in the link you posted, in "Linea Dorato" kit:
limited edition "DORATO", kit lugs Linea, Columbus SL, (with gold-plated rear and chain stays, lugs, fork crown, pantographed Casati stem, seatpost, and bottle cages)
color design "The 90's"
head tube Trademark 80 oro
colors: white with blue reflexes
frameset and stem/seatpost/cages only
is listed at €2,893.84 (€2,372.00 w/o VAT = US $2708.21). But...gold-plated lugs, etc, :eek:

The Campionissimo non-gold with "Linea" lugs, in Columbus SL, frameset only, is listed at €2.191,50 (€1,796.31 w/o VAT = US $2050.92).

[reuben]

There ain't nuthin wrong with the 80s version, either.

[Dino Suegiù]

There ain't nuthin wrong with the 80s version, either.

I really like the Cento: proprietary Columbus for Casati tubing, fillet-brazed.
Casati has always made beautiful framesets, and their f-b frames are really gorgeous.

[FlashUNC]

The op is about what matters most to each one of us: aesthethics or function. Not about how to impress others.

I'm sorry you missed my point. Let me rephrase.

Ride what you want to ride with the priorities you set up. If aesthetics trump function, great. If its vice versa, that's fine too.

Whatever inspires you to get out of the house and and makes you happy to ride is the important thing.

[colker]

I'm sorry you missed my point. Let me rephrase.

Ride what you want to ride with the priorities you set up. If aesthetics trump function, great. If its vice versa, that's fine too.

Whatever inspires you to get out of the house and and makes you happy to ride is the important thing.

Agree 100%.

[Bici-Sonora]

Maybe a different category of aesthetics than you're on about, but I can't do bikes with lots of branding on them. One or two logos is enough, thank you. I won't buy a new bike from a major brand these days because I don't want all the decals and advertising bits. I had a Bianchi Impulso for a while and it irked me to no end that they felt the need to paint "Ultra Thin Seat Stays" on the seat stays... [head explode].

I only do road bikes, but the shape of the bike is less important to me because I have an appreciation of the old school skinny-tube steel rides, the fat tube aluminum frames, the aero carbon bikes, and everything in between. They all serve a purpose and can be made to look cool, so long as you pick an aesthetic and stay in that lane. I.e. it looks silly to build out a bike with parts that weren't intended for it. Tri bars on road bikes of any sort, aero bars and deep dish carbon wheels on skinny tube steel frames, etc.

Just my .02. Otherwise, do to your bike as you wish/need. It's your bike and screw anybody who'd tell you what to do with it. Example: I was down at the local brewery last weekend and some guy came up and was admiring my bike. Friendly enthusiast chat, right? I got to proudly say I not only built up the bike but also welded the frame. Then he decides to say, "You should put a different group on there..." and all I can think is, "Dude, I didn't build this for you."

TL;DR, to each his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[54ny77]

pretty much the benchmark of the top tier of elegant aesthetic....and virtually unchanged for what, 30-40 years in that same design?

so nice. :cool:

Looks/aesthetics count. But so do comfort and performance. That's why I think this will be my next frame. It should tick all of the boxes.

Cinelli Supercorsa, Bianco Perla

ETA: I like simple, understated, even minimalist stuff - a classy bike, nothing gaudy or ostentatious. A simple life. So most of the fancy graphics and paint nowadays is a turnoff for a curmudgeon like me.


https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-1hf4tfjzyx/images/stencil/original/attribute_rule_images/344_source_1498666826.jpg

[mhespenheide]

If aesthetics trump function, great. If its vice versa, that's fine too.


Ah, but functionality can drive its own aesthetics: I love the look of a Bontrager Road Lite, even if it's not a Casati.

[R3awak3n]

Ah, but functionality can drive its own aesthetics: I love the look of a Bontrager Road Lite, even if it's not a Casati.

Bonty road lite is a great looking bike.

Classic doesnt automatically mean good looking and not only classic bikes are great looking.

[Toeclips]

I could live with the '30's Casati in blue red or gold

I'm sold when I see panels

Plus I like the seat stay caps

[reuben]

pretty much the benchmark of the top tier of elegant aesthetic....and virtually unchanged for what, 30-40 years in that same design?

so nice. :cool:

Hard to go wrong with a vintage Ciocc, either. It's probably available with internal routing for the rear brake cable.

https://live.staticflickr.com/614/20680626145_afbfe09f5c_b.jpg

[Hilltopperny]

Aesthetics are usually the initial draw for a bike when I am looking, but fit and function are always necessary.

Given the vanity that this forum has for bikes it is hard to not take it into account. We all have an eye for nice looking bikes, but our own vision of what that is.

I love how my current crop of bikes look, but I also put comfort over looks. As it pertains to saddles all of my bikes have a Berthoud on them regardless of whether it would be more aesthetically pleasing to put a more race oriented saddle. I even have them on my mountain bikes!

I tend to leave a bit of extra steerer on bikes. I end up selling most of my bikes after a season or two and figure it may help with resale or if I end up with some physical issues that require a higher stack height.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zmudshark]

I didn’t read the entire thread, but it is more important to look good, than to feel good.

Seriously though, I want my bikes to look good. I currently have two Cinelli’s and four De Rosa’s between two homes. I have a De Rosa for sale, only because I don’t ride enough anymore.

[Asudef]

Aesthetics have a large influence on ownership for me but thats because of my background in design. Anything well designed is beautiful in itself. Not boring per se but quality and well thought out design creates an aesthetic of its own.
Example, this Rene Herse from the 50s with such clean functional elements. (https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-650b-ancestor-rene-herse-randonneur/)

As much as I can appreciate fancy hand filed lugs, I don't really need to own a showpiece that looks like an ornate piece of Victorian armor. Same with logos, I don't even consider framebuilders that can't design an attractive logo, especially if its on such a visual element of the whole bike. Same could be said about loud obnoxious logo riddled kits.

I also have a soft spot for well used patina'd things over shiny and new. Has way more character and life than something that looks like it was never used as it was intended.

This still tops one of the most beautiful bikes for me. Only thing I'd change is the seatpost and possibly the saddle.
https://live.staticflickr.com/3093/2779885392_1b24113cb7_h.jpg

[vincenz]

Let’s be honest, for bikes of comparable geometry and material, they more or less all ride all the same.

Any differences are really splitting hairs and you might as well be choosing design and paint. Aesthetics are more important than performance for mid level components and beyond. Unless you are a pro, a superbike will not make you a better rider.

[DHallerman]

It’s pretty important to me, but I appreciate traditional aesthetics and well executed functional aesthetics. I think it can be harder to make the latter look good, but when it works, it works.

My yeti is built from parts many find ugly, but as a package, I think it works.
https://forums.thepaceline.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=1698001117&stc=1&d=1591155461


That Yeti is a very handsome bike! You’re right, it comes together well.

(the art of building up our own bikes)

[DHallerman]

More importantly, I agree with what Tom Kellogg observed and wrote about on his website a long time ago - a sloped top tube can give a bike a ride characteristic not present on with a level top tube.

Fascinating. I did not know that. But it kinda explains why I get a distinctive pleasure from riding my Burley Fox Hollow, the only sloping top tube bike among all my steel and titanium bikes.

What I love about the Fox Hollow is how I feel I can corner better with it than many of my other, trad horizontal top tube bikes. I also enjoy standing with the Burley more, somehow, than on most of the others.

Perhaps that’s due to the unique ride characteristics TK mentioned.

Dave! who love the Fox Hollow so much that he’s building up a second one in red this summer

[thirdgenbird]

That Yeti is a very handsome bike! You’re right, it comes together well.

(the art of building up our own bikes)

Thank you!

[many_styles]

Very.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adrien]

Critical.

A bike has to look like you want to ride it when you walk past it.

I'm big, and need a 59-61 top tube to be comfortable. Many production bikes, especially carbon, just don't look right in that size. It's worse if they're compact; I don't want a bike that looks oddly like the Enterprise when it stretches to go into warp.

When I chose the builders for my bikes, I chose folks who could make big bikes look right.

[bicycletricycle]

very important

[oldguy00]

Quality and looks are kind of equal importance to me.

I've seen some wicked -looking- Asian copies/knockoffs, but I wouldn't trust them.
I've seen some very high quality bikes that look horrible (hello Lemond Washoe.....), and thus would never buy....

[XXtwindad]

Here is an example of a bike that has garnered a lot of praise. Apologies to the (assumedly) happy owners here, but I just can't get past the looks.

[oldguy00]

Here is an example of a bike that has garnered a lot of praise. Apologies to the (assumedly) happy owners here, but I just can't get past the looks.

Too funny, that is one of the bikes I'd actually love to own! Not as attracted to the road version, but love this Exploro model.

[colker]

Here is an example of a bike that has garnered a lot of praise. Apologies to the (assumedly) happy owners here, but I just can't get past the looks.

Yes. That looks bad from head to toe. Every single part looks bad.

[Kirk007]

So as a reminder of how much I do obsess over aesthetics, a repair/repaint of this frame arrived and I'm descending deep into internal debate over cockpit and component choices. Black is easy, silver is classic, but complicates life when I'm already sitting on dura Ace 9100/9000 gruppo and all my wheels are black rims.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/b78f23a47efba6f26dd5b577d12c17e6.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/769afe262d605d6bd59a7e8d48fbd18d.jpg

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[XXtwindad]

So as a reminder of how much I do obsess over aesthetics, a repair/repaint of this frame arrived and I'm descending deep into internal debate over cockpit and component choices. Black is easy, silver is classic, but complicates life when I'm already sitting on dura Ace 9100/9000 gruppo and all my wheels are black rims.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/b78f23a47efba6f26dd5b577d12c17e6.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/769afe262d605d6bd59a7e8d48fbd18d.jpg

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Classy! That frame requires a tuxedo to ride :)

[colker]

So as a reminder of how much I do obsess over aesthetics, a repair/repaint of this frame arrived and I'm descending deep into internal debate over cockpit and component choices. Black is easy, silver is classic, but complicates life when I'm already sitting on dura Ace 9100/9000 gruppo and all my wheels are black rims.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/b78f23a47efba6f26dd5b577d12c17e6.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/769afe262d605d6bd59a7e8d48fbd18d.jpg

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Black all over w/ silver headset.... make it a Phil headset.

[Coffee Rider]

Black all over w/ silver headset.... make it a Phil headset.

I'd vote for a new Campy group if Kirk007 can swing it in time for the rebuild. My thought is that he already has so much of himself (and money) invested in this, it should be what he really wants. The Campy thing might be more my projection for how I think the bike would best be.

[tv_vt]

Love the ride and fit of my Hampsten Gran Paradiso, but have to admit, it's lacking visual inspiration to me lately. Have been thinking of how to either pimp the looks or possibly paint it, maybe just a partial paint with rear stays left unpainted.

I will say it's elegantly understated, and some will say it's perfect as is.

[jpw]

When not riding the bike how it looks is important. When riding the bike how it feels is important. If look correlates to (good) feel then look is important.

What I can't abide is a fork that's wider at the shoulders (viewed from the side) than the diameter of the bottom of the head tube/ set.

[charliedid]

Here is an example of a bike that has garnered a lot of praise. Apologies to the (assumedly) happy owners here, but I just can't get past the looks.

You should maybe talk with a professional...it's likely online but maybe someone is out there who can help. :help: :) :p

[colker]

You should maybe talk with a professional...it's likely online but maybe someone is out there who can help. :help: :) :p

What´s your point? Maybe stating it instead of making it personal would help.
Everyone who does not agree w/ your taste should go see a professional? Which professional?

[charliedid]

What´s your point? Maybe stating it instead of making it personal would help.
Everyone who does not agree w/ your taste should go see a professional? Which professional?

Dude,

Spending time worrying about the aesthetics of a bike you don't and won't ever own is an utter waste of time.

Clear?

Sorry I forgot the (smiley face)

[XXtwindad]

You should maybe talk with a professional...it's likely online but maybe someone is out there who can help. :help: :) :p

Haha. Sound advice.

“Doctor there’s this bike...with a really janky looking configuration. I just can’t get past it.”

“I see. Have you thought about how all this relates to your relationship with your Mother?”

[reuben]

Haha. Sound advice.

“Doctor there’s this bike...with a really janky looking configuration. I just can’t get past it.”

“I see. Have you thought about how all this relates to your relationship with your Mother?”

:D

"And it's got a rear derailleur that looks like a Transformer or Alien."

"Have you considered swimming?"

[Bici-Sonora]

So as a reminder of how much I do obsess over aesthetics, a repair/repaint of this frame arrived and I'm descending deep into internal debate over cockpit and component choices. Black is easy, silver is classic, but complicates life when I'm already sitting on dura Ace 9100/9000 gruppo and all my wheels are black rims.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/b78f23a47efba6f26dd5b577d12c17e6.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200721/769afe262d605d6bd59a7e8d48fbd18d.jpg

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


I love that icy metallic [emoji3587] silver blue. Of course, my blog is called, “the beautiful bicycle” and beautiful bikes are the only sort that interest me. Plus one for:
1. Minimal branding
2. Good proportions for the size
3. Well designed logos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomato coupe]

What´s your point? Maybe stating it instead of making it personal would help.
Everyone who does not agree w/ your taste should go see a professional? Which professional?

Good Lord man, get a sense of humor.

[charliedid]

Haha. Sound advice.

“Doctor there’s this bike...with a really janky looking configuration. I just can’t get past it.”

“I see. Have you thought about how all this relates to your relationship with your Mother?”

My Mother loved blue bikes and to this day I can't bring myself to buy one!:)

[colker]

good lord man, get a sense of humor.

lol at history here-;)( i really lol)

[colker]

Cycling like every wheel sport out there is very aesthethic conscious. Long before Adidas made everyone chase logos on sports apparel cycling had bikes, components and clothing to obssess.

[Hellgate]

Bicycling is the "beautiful sport."