Fortunetly, most of the "form" decisions are very functional; Campagnolo, Cinelli, Look, etc...

This is entrapment!

i'm glad the poll is "form vs. function" rather than "aesthetics vs. function"

a lot of people here use "aesthetics" when they mean "appearance." i'm guessing it's a combination of repeating the most commonly used word, the desire to use big words in order to sound smart, and a little bit of self-loathing for caring so much how your bike looks (which i certainly feel sometimes).

aesthetics is a branch of value theory that deals with sensory responses. technically, it includes the way the bike feels under your butt. which, of course, is what's really important.

two days straight? what are you on welfare!?!?!

well first you build it for form , then you find out its hella uncomfortable to ride and make ajustments back to function.

try all the time to still keep it looking good.

hee heee

That about sums it up

Or instead of wasting your money you build a bike to ride not look at.

First you pick stuff out that works well then if there is some way to make it look a little better without compromising function you go with it.

my taste in form is generally a result in function but that rule is not fundamental, as I often purchase things with no desire except to improve the style of my bicycle. That said I ride my bicycle for recreation and arguably its function is to be enjoyable to look at and ride. While still being functional

We must integrate form and function!
Aero Dynamic Frames look sweet and have less air resistance
Same Deal with AeroSpokes and Deep V's

nah, there is always someone out there to sell your stuff to.

I was waiting for you to chime in.
what took so long this seems like you favorite kind of thread to rant in.