I was going to ask whether or not looks matter to you when you’re considering a new bike, but that’s an idiotic question. Of course looks matter. It’s the very reason industrial designers exist. It’s why Italy spends 60 percent of its gross domestic product feverishly inventing new ways to make espresso machines look like sexy space ships.
Despite the age-old pearl of wisdom, “Beauty is only skin deep,” I can guarantee you that right now, somewhere on earth, someone is looking at another person’s rear end and deciding that those glutes are the perfect foundation upon which to build a lifetime of happiness. Consider the bevy of modern dating apps based on the very premise that aesthetics are what truly count. To swipe left or to swipe right? The calculus behind that decision rarely boils down to your potential date’s knowledge of astrophysics or their commitment to social justice.
Looks, for better or for worse, matter. I’m not saying they
should. I’m just saying they
do. Arguing against this is a lot like arguing against the existence of gravity here on earth.
The better question, then, is this: Just
how much do looks matter to you when you’re purchasing your next bike?
I spent some time this week reviewing Pinkbike’s pantheon of 2017 bike reviews. In at least half of the comment sections, you could find numerous references to the bike’s looks. Social scientists commonly refer to this as the “Looks like a Session” phenomenon.
Few of us want to think we’re shallow enough to let the mere shape of a frame sway our decisions. No, that’s not us! We are all about those suspension curves and leverage ratios or the perfect geometry and just the right amount of anti-squat….
But let’s be fair—wanting your next bike to both ride well and look good doesn’t make you a horribly shallow person. Who wants to spend three grand (or more) on a bike that rides great, but looks like a teal-colored turd on wheels? Just how much emphasis we place on a bike’s aesthetics…that’s the question.
So, how much do looks figure into your decision making process when you are daydreaming about which bike you’d buy?
laugh more, live longer
Answer number 4 is most popular - really guys? Get a grip
Here we struggle for it because there is not much public land and the hikers don't like mtb so they keep us down as much as they can.
Honestly £15k of complete shite
Sam has a lot of bikes to sell
Altitude Powerplay...
I sure hope you're not a Mustang fan. This is all I could think about after reading your comment @swartzie
www.autoevolution.com/news/ferrari-ff-hauling-a-pair-of-bikes-on-the-highway-is-another-kind-of-hybrid-118129.html
Ditto that. Corolla needs some lovin but I spent it on anodized Hope stuff instead!
Ferrari just like pagani create the performance first, agree, and then use top level designer to make it as nice as possible which is very different from poor design, a chair it's a chair it has to be confortable yet there is a lot that can be done to make it looks cool.
Look at this; this is how a proper car design looks like.
s.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/cb4a33b18ad9e09910cf58dffadefc5d/202984729/lead1-2017-porsche-911-carrera-first-drive-1.jpg
It may not be the fastest car in the world (who cares, it's not that anyone's going to drive that Pagani at 300+ km/h speeds) but it's just beautiful, there's not a single unnecessary line, curve or shape on it.
Since you like porsche there you go a similar but incompetent design images.car.bauercdn.com/pagefiles/12536/1040x0/14_shanghai_cc_cj.jpg?scale=down
Buy a bike and ride it. Performance. As if Geometrons and Poles weren’t already bwing spotted on buy/sells, huh guess how smart and well thought out choice were these dudes making.
What I'm saying is, that Ferraris could look nicer, but it would probably make them slower, which most owners would never notice anyway.
I once drove a 458 Italia. Would I notice if it had nicer rear lights? Certainly. Would I notice if it was 10 % slower? Not a f...ing chance.
There definitely are some unnecessary lines unless it looks like this s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/centaur-wp/theengineer/prod/content/uploads/2013/07/05155100/TE_Cambridge_solar_car.jpg
Psychologists please weigh in...
However, more research is needed to come to a conclusion on your supposition @PinkyScar
3.bp.blogspot.com/-z-GMvpEjM2k/TjB9f7ORxUI/AAAAAAAACGE/ymCOdGC2eSg/s1600/Goo+Gone.jpg
Please allow me to correct for you.
I can guarantee you that right now, somewhere on earth, someone is looking at another person’s rear end and deciding that those glutes are the perfect foundation upon which to build short-lived stint of escapades that will be [somewhat] missed when you actually meet the woman that is worth marrying, then you remember back to what you had to deal with when the escapades were done and very happy that you decided to look elsewhere for happiness.
Not from personal experience or anything ;-).
Of course it helps if the other person understands that too.
Great username by the way
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction
So it looks like you're wrong, sorry!
Jung is a fantastic way to deal with trying to understand human behavior. I love the archetypes, the shadow and the anima. I do not treat him literally, definitely not his dream analysis stuff.
So no, no therapy for me... and try to drag my wife to a single session with any psychologist. Sooo in an interesting twist of a story, who works harder on ones self in this relationship? What a defense mechanism.
BTW I need to start smoking weed and taking psychodelics. Wifey is leaving with kids in March, I'll cook some DMT. Mhwaaa. Can't wait.
While we're on the weed subject, I'm not into psychedelics but was always intrigued by psilocybin. If you give it a try, I'd be interested in the results.
Have you tried meditation? Sam Harris has a nice approach, free of any pranic nonsense:
youtu.be/tw7XBKhZJh4
I know nothing of your wife or relationship, but if she won't even go to therapy...
Regardless, I suspect the answer is NO
I've heard about ayahuasca, but never heard about DMT before, so looked it up. It's an intriguing subject but wouldn't like to try myself, too much risk IMHO.
since it makes you puke and crap your pants, while the ayahuasca tourism has encouraged the growth of pseudo shamanism so you have no clue what you are getting. It sounds all cool and spiritual but if you watch a few documentaries it’s quite hyped up and romanticized.
DMT on the other hand has a rather high success rate to take people places and come back fresh.
Romantic and idealised approach to trips may be appealing, but then you get a bad trip and/or some brain damage and fun is over. I prefer to have a beer and/or listen to some music.
I did try DMT once in the 80s however. A little terrifying because you never know 'how high' you're going to get. I was with some experienced older hippies who knew what was up, which was good. I don't know what the current stuff is like but there was no poopin or hurlin. We smoked it sprinkled on a bowl of weed.
You need to be sitting down. No way could you stand up at the dose we were given. It comes on immediately and is over soon, which is good. My experience was akin to an blazing electric Aztec curtain dropping infront of my eyes - all surroundings were obscured and I was swimming in impossibly complex visuals. I could hear - my friend had the wherewithall to let out a 'fvvvvvvvvvvvvvck". It was def worh it but had i done it again it might have been easier to ride the wave. As an experienced LSD user in my teens, I was always able to employ the 'it's only a drug' mantra when things got heavy and can ride it out. I think I could see again within 15 minutes. we listened to The Shah Sleeps in Lee Harvey's Grave a few times afterwards, and we skated to the beach and drank beers. Psychedelic Mysticism is for hippies. Skateboarding is more enlightening.
@endlessblockades. Cool to hear. As to DMT they advise to sit on a bed and have someone with you to take your pipe as soon as you invale and put you in a comfortable laying pose. I did read that the observer should have some tough nerves considering that you may react as if you were to die in spasms.
I’ll try it for sure. I want it for practical reasons, same with psylocybin.
BTW Joe Rogan podcasts are rather cool I find. Especially ones with Brian Redban, Duncan Trussel and Jim Breuer. From Informative ones, the ones with Dr Rhonda Patrick and Jordan Peterson are great. He also had a great one with Lance Armstrong. Paul Stamets one was fantastic, it was about mushrooms. Something for you @Slabrung.
Upgrade your bike give him a secong breath in your eyes
Almost all of the high end bikes from Yeti, Trek, Specialized, Giant, etc etc all perform great but there's no bike in it's class that outshines the competition so much that it literally is the advantage. So, until that happens the vast majority of consumers will continue to buy a bike they are attracted to.
That being said, they are some of the most boring looking bikes out there! People def neg prop me when I say this...
I appreciate the wild colors... but pick pretty much any other brand (aside from Ellsworth... barf!) if you want an aesthetically interesting bike.
Do you think the frame aesthetics are intentional? Or more a product of function before form? Some of the European bikes look like fighter jets... I guess that would make Santa Cruz bikes the A-10 Warthog?
There's some crazy s*** out there for sure...
What a time to be alive.
Looks DO matter, but people are prone on following the fashion.
An example:
When the first suspension forks appeared, most of the (back then magazines) media, were complaining for the… bad looks! The same goes on with the fist “fatter” tires, the first rear suspension and so on.
So,
With all those clones of the “session” frame, people (and among them editors, journalists, etc.) are subjected into a “new normal”, which dictates their taste.
Sure a bike has to look good. After all it is a highly prized possession. But keep in mind that what passes today as “good looking” tomorrow will pass, at the best, as “vintage”…
The best designs follow the rule “fashion follows function”.
Wait, wait, wait, wrong application for this analogy.
I don't lick the mantel while poking the fire?
Still doesn't really apply.
People who buy ugly bikes because they are different without regard to performance are the same clique that bought Saabs.
I personally prefer to ride and race a bike that will not become a burden after 3 hours of racing, climbing, and descending.
everything has to work to its maximal best so I can concentrate on my performance. When the bikes geo and cinematics hinder me to do what I want, I don't see an issue with spending 3 to 5 grand on a bike that actually works the best but doesn't look "like a session".
Once again. I think that the reason people say its a 50/50 thing, and they are ready to give compromise to the bikes performance is because they don't race bikes.
Then I got an Evil Wreckoning and was reminded of how beautiful a bike can be. But it's still carbon and that elicits a certain level of care. But it's so pretty I can just sit there and look at it.
I want to move towards a Pole and common sense dictates to try the alloy Evolink first. But damn if it doesn't pull it aesthetic straight from a 2005 Norco. "Agricultural" is how one tester described it. Beautiful it is not.
I thought I was more function than fashion but damn if the Evolink doesn't make me think twice.
But hey, if the Evolink is awesome then maybe I'll find a way to afford The Machine a few seasons later.
But yeah, after that I do like a pretty color on my bike.
I was just talking to a girl who quit road riding because the riding groups she met all where dicks about having fancy kit. I wondered if cross was the same way. I feel like it must be a good mix just watching the crazy videos and seeing the wild culture, but also knowing that fitness nuts are sometimes pretty pompous about it.
I told her mtb is usually better. I worry that might have been a lie.
I felt it again when I got my trek remedy.
I miss that feeling. I like my yeti 575, but the feeling just isn't the same. Maybe it has to do with the change in bike fashion, but I doubt it. The dawg wasn't exactly the latest model, and honestly the yeti 575 is a hell of a lot more bike that that little kona was. I think it is because I worked in a bike shop. I couldn't fall in love at first sight anymore.
Now I have to ride a bike to feel that love. I feel it on the rocky mountain altitude and thunderbolt. I feel it on the transition scout. I feel it on the kona process. I don't feel it on the yeti 575 because the performance isn't there. Suspension has improved so much since that bike came out you can just feel the difference. I'm going to do some upgrades this year and if it can't ride like a newer bike I'm going to have to replace it.
Looks matter. That said, there aren't many "ugly" bikes, in my opinion. And sometimes ugly initially can grow on you...just ask my wife.
Sure Can't stand red...
I'm not like 100% fan of my own color scheme but pricewise it did fit and the ride is really nice... So it works
But, I'm wondering how much of that bike is marketing hype, like. Are they really that good.....?
But V4..... god no !
I could have phrased that a little differently. Some people have different tastes and priorities
Now I want to go home and see my wife
So true.
It's matte charcoal with black logos and all black everything. Sold!
And unfortunately for them, there may be no way around it with the design.
Looks matter even more now, since there are so many good choices available. Aesthetics and details -- in frame bottle mount -- matter more than ever before.
The RM Maiden is genius but sooooo ugly !