View Single Post
Old 01-05-16, 10:00 PM
  #3251  
nemeseri
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 465

Bikes: Trek Emonda SL build, CAAD10, Bianchi Pista '13, Litespeed Antares '03

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Monkey D.Luffy
Since all the main characters are here, I have always wondered: I assume most people can tell aesthetically what bike is good looking and which look ugly/ not as "clean". One friend told me " wow, that bike looks clean" when comparing an obviously better set up bike/ more expensive compared to a standard setup. etc. If you spend $10,000 on a bike, how likely would it be for it to be ugly compared to a cheaper bike? It probably has good looking carbon wheels and matching bottle cages + good looking stem+handlebar setup and agreeable color matching throughout. I feel like anyone with a decent eye for looks and design can not **** up a bike when they spend so much on a bike. So how much of the "hotrnot" is just on how expensive the bike is?
I think it's usually easier to end up with a "hot" bike if you have $10,000 to spend. BUT it's still easy to mess up a $10,000 bike with a +17 degree 60mm stem and 4cm spacer (madone 9 with a h2 fit? Really?).

I used to have a bianchi single speed steel bike in celeste. I bought it used for $300. I replaced almost everything on it for $150. Everybody said that it was my hottest bike. Even when it was standing next to my $3,000 trek.
nemeseri is offline