hhnngg1

Just curious.

After owning 3 bikes now, from intro-level Shimano 2200 spec'd to Cervelo DA, I think that for me, looks are the most important factor for a road bike. I'll still take great components over cheap ones any day, but those are small factors compared to a great looking bike for me.

I guess part of it is that I haven't noticed enough of a difference to justify the greatly increased expense of better components compared to an intro-level road bike. Don't get me wrong; DA is DEFINITELY better than Shimano 2200 (duh) but will it make me faster? No. Does it improve my riding experience - marginally - I'm actually really happy with the low-end stuff.

Bioluminescence

If you're riding for looks, you're riding for the wrong reason.

pcfxer

I ride a little bit for snobbery, a little bit for street cred (I run tubbies) but mostly because it is INSANELY fun to move fast under your own power. I like to assess looks when I have a choice (part replacement or upgrade) but that drives maybe 5% of my purchase decision.

Carbon Unit

A bike's looks are very very low for me. A guy I ride with wanted a new bike a year after he got his because the newer model had, in his mind, a better looking paint job. I asked how the newer bike was better and he said that it had better graphics on it.

I remedy the problem by only owning bikes that don't have paint on them.

Sanman023

anything that i ride...looks are very important to me...

calamarichris

My modern Felt is downright ugly compared to my older bikes with horizontal top-tubes, and the SRM power meter looks like a 7800 crankset's ugly, aborted, kid sister, but I still love turning myself inside-out on the homely thing. All these years spent in oxygen debt must be affecting my vision, because she's gotten a little less hideous over the years.

Time is a magician who is cruel to beauty and kind to homeliness...



But yeah, I've been seduced by a bike's looks before...

Nachoman

I like my bike for her personality.

DrPete 

I pick what rides well and what I can afford. If all other things are equal, I'll take the nicer-looking stuff. Looks are at the bottom of the priority list, though.

calamarichris

Pretty hurtful thing to say, Nach.

jischr

Since I'm not a high performance rider I'm not hung up on 10% gains due to butt ugly technology - like sloping top tubes, 25 cm seat posts, and 100 mm wheel rims. Everyone has their preferences, mine are pretty well summed up by a Colnago Master with an art deco paint scheme.

bonz50

performance first, looks second, but looks still matter to some degree

celticfrost

Looks are about 3rd or 4th on the list. Though, in my budget, higher priority things like function, durability and performance are usually equal so, to be honest, looks are often the deciding factor.

K&K_Dad

my first roadie was a Trek. That should sum up what I have to say about it. But my Daddy's Day present is a looker for sure.

Bquillero

Isn't it weird how higher performing / more expensive technology looks nicer nicer than low end stuff? At least that's what happens to me, find myself attracted to the expensive crap..... Crap!

55/Rad

I don't give a crap about looks.

aprevo15

op, do you also match the color of your cycling apparel to the color of the bike?

Gene465

I like to find a happy balance between looks and performance! I just can't see myself on a ugly bike! Regardless of components!

dissident

one that looks all busted up but surprises people with it's performance... people on the ford focus and other car forums talk about this topic.. putting an expensive turbocharged engine in an old beater and watching people laugh at them only to pull away from the stop at a blazing speed and looking at the looks on their faces.

M_FactorX19

this sums it up for me as well.

M_FactorX19

this does seem to be the case most of the time!

2ndGen

Dura Ace made me faster.

It shifted with less effort than my Sora-Tiagra bike,
it didn't hesitate or cause problems when shifting under load,
it shifted quicker and responded to my input quicker as well.

I'd say that all depends on the type of riding one does.

Do looks matter? Yes.
There are some bikes that supposedly perform great but that I find ugly.
I'd rather pay more money and go above and beyond the ugly bike.
Are looks my first consideration? I'd say no.
I'd say looks do more to eliminate a bike from my consideration than make me buy one.

For example, I used to love Dogmas. Now, I think they're ugly.
Yet, a bike like my CAAD9 I loved back then and still love because of it's timeless design.
I'd say (for me), it's "style" vs "fashion". Fashion comes and goes, but style lasts.
Even my uber-bike will more likely than not have a close to traditional style.

celticfrost

You're either lying, in denial, being sarcastic or have turned a new leaf.

Nachoman

Is your girl friend hot?
just curious.

hhnngg1

My point being - for all you who make such a big fuss about 'performance' - what sort of performance gains are you considering when considering road bikes vs road bikes, especially compared to a standard intro-level LBS road bike (not a Wally world bike-shaped object?)

It's just I hear so many posts about how "X" technology is substantively better than what I get on an intro level road bike, but I find it hard to believe that the performance gain is so important for folks who aren't squeezing every last second out of their training. For all you folks that are saying performance #1, looks almost unimportant in comparison, what sort of performance gains are you talking compared to a typical current-gen intro level road bike that is so crucial for you?

DrPete 

Light weight, aerodynamics, stiffer frame, better handling/racing geometry, smoother shifting, reliability, comfort.