how much do frame design aesthetics matter to you?

Too many solid options to chose a bike that doesn’t look good!

I used to own a 2005 Giant DH Team. That bike had the WORST brake jack I've ever experienced. But I didn't care. That bike was fast and so beautiful. But when you hit that rear brake, it was like and ejection seat at the pedals.

I'm old enough to remember all those URT bikes in the mid 90's.

I mowed lawns as a kid for 2 years to buy a Barracuda XXXC only for the fact it looked amazing back then, the suspension only worked when you sat down lol. The Trek Y frame bikes were so successful because they were sexy like Pamela Anderson stuck on your wall as a teenager...... wait what.

I kept that barracuda btw...

Since you have that pic, the "Y-Bikes'/URT's were never cool (Klein, Trek, Schwinn, etc).... even when they were new.  The suspension was basically a catapult, only 'worked' when sitting, etc.  Serious riders/racers avoided them.   

I've always cared about the aesthetics of different bikes I've owned over the years, but in deciding to buy an ebike I had to forget about what the bike looked like and just enjoy it.

I've got a Levo SL, which in my opinion is one of the better looking ebikes out there (although that didn't really come into the equation when I bought it), mostly because it isn't full fat, but it's still an ebike and I've yet to see one that I would class as visually appealing.

With pretty much every bike I’ve owned I’ve found myself staring at them every chance I get because they just look so cool and I try to take the extra time to really dial them in and make them my own. I think as a kid, seeing the industrial design work on bikes always drew me to certain bikes because it was primarily performance based. Now with everything mostly carbon, it can almost draw you in even more with how many different ways tubes can be manipulated and formed while maintaining performance characteristics. 
 

But there are certainly bikes I’ve ridden where the performance outweighs the looks. The first one that comes to mind is the Guerilla Gravity I reviewed last year. To me, thats one of the ultimate internet bikes. It had a lot of the things people ask for in terms of adjustability and modular travel setups, but was really not the best looking bike, especially from the non drive side. Looks aside it was dead silent on trail, absolutely ripped turns, and handled rough stuff quite well. All around a great bike in terms of performance and adaptability, but the looks alone would’ve kept me from buying one while they were still available. Instead, I would look for something with the most similar geometry and travel numbers and go with that. 
 

Which leads me to my personal bike, the Stumpjumper Evo. I think it looks really sick and I love the simplicity/adjustability of the bike, but it is lacking a bit in rear suspension performance. At the same time, the geometry of the bike fits like a glove and makes riding pretty much anything comfortable which lets the desire for better kinematics sort of disappear 90% of the time. It also keeps me wanting to make sure its always cleaned up and looking good so I can stare at it in the garage. 
 

All the bikes I’ve owned have looked cool.  Have lots of ugly discount bike clothing on the other hand.

It matters enough that I wouldn’t buy a Ripmo/Ripley…

I'm glad bikes don't look like they used to...

I couldn't really fit my answer into the poll options but it's similar to bikeboardorblade's.  It's not a binary choice, I won't sacrifice one for the other; it has to be both.

I usually end up going for works well and serviceable over looks, but there are limits (redalp, not even sure that worked well though) 

I think most brands that can make good, serviceable bikes are also run by people who know what good bikes look like whether it's an industrial design or sleek lines. Transition for example. 

I've also had bikes I was pretty "meh" about their looks but I grew to appreciate how they looked because of how fun they were. 

im damn sure the 'other site' users pick purely based on looks and think its the best thing in the world and then preach in the comments Thats what everyone else should be buying/using

I actually own that Klein. Full original spec and tires still. I did replace the tubes, so like 99.8% original. It is a thing of beauty. 

On a scale of 1/10? 

7.

I don't want to ride something that looks awful (to my eyes). Have always enjoyed the over built look/industrial look. Ugliest bike iv'e owned..probably a 2006 Cove Playmate FR. Though it was awesome.

Looks play a factor, always have.

It’s kind of a false choice these days. There are just so many really good bikes, there’s likely to be one that works great and still looks good.

i know I’m in the minority, but I think my Knollys are rad looking and are amazing riding bikes. But have I been thinking of upgrading to the new Chilcotin mostly because it looks even better? Maybe…

To me that Tora getting bike of the day a couple of days ago is a great example of just how subjective a bike's looks are.

Performance over looks no matter what, if no ones looking. Otherwise I would sacrifice some performance as long as it looks cool. Same goes for women.

I owned an Intense Tazer in that original yellow / black colourway.

Luckily it rode so freaking nicely because it was ugleeeeee.

Sounds like a lot of people want one more option: "Performance over looks, up to a point. Sometimes it's just too ugly"

All the bikes I've owned have looked good (at least I thought they did at the time), even though I was mostly looking for performance and fit.

I’m on my second Ripmo which is noticeably better than my old one. She might not be as pretty as some others but very few bikes can match it’s all around performance. I demoed over a dozen bikes last summer and they all came up short by comparison. 

My bike stands in my room, I have to look at it a lot. I want a bike where I’m happy while I look at it and while I ride it. 
 

I also want a bike that’s easy to live with and service. imo looks and performance aren’t the only criteria for choosing a bike but definitely among the biggest. 
 

fortunately the Raaw Madonna fulfills all those points. Thought about getting a ripmo af but that top tube just ruined it for me.
 

Designing a good looking frame does pose its challenges but there are enough companies able to do it, so I wonder why some manufacturers go out of their way to add objectively ugly curves or kinks. 

I know a lot of people love the Knolly's, I really can't stand them but hear they ride great, then they had to come out with that new design that looks great!  I have no idea what to do now.  

I love Transition's, I just think over the past 7 years since going to the horst link their bikes have always looked great and then keep getting better.  To each is own though, buy and ride what you think looks great and we will all just judge behind your back!!!  Enjoy the ride!

Look good, feel good, ride good 🤷‍♂️

As many have pointed out, bikes are damn good these days, so there is going to be a well performing bike that suites your fancy. 

I think the most important thing is don’t let others tell you your bike doesn’t look cool. Bikes are expensive. You should always be into what you’re riding at the moment regardless if someone else thinking it looks wack. 

I'll sacrifice some performance for looks, but not much. When you are paying over 5k for a bike that you know cost a fraction to build/assemble, you at least console yourself knowing that a team of designers were paid to make the bike look good.

Also to reverse the question: can performance make a bike look better? Reviews and reports from friends all point to the Lapierre GLP3 being top of the food chain right now, which has somehow made me find it quite good looking?!?

I've been getting tired of everyone's only design critique being, straight top tube.  That seems to be the only thing people see.  Eventually everything is going to look the same and boring.

I think looks are always going to matter but for me it comes down to the silhouette, the lines and the balance of tube thicknesses more than the industrial design details. Brands like Unno and Scott are doing a really good job on surfacing and design detailing but I don’t think that necessarily makes them better looking than a raaw or a commencal.

Going against everything i said above the bike that I always remember lusting after was the Blenkinsop era Lapierree dh team. That thing looked amazing in the polished and raw carbon finish with all the gold hardware and that useless little fender. They did a really tidy job on the bump stops and seat clamp too. 

Looks are definitely subjective, and performance is somewhat subjective.  I can find a bike that rides like I want that I think looks good, but someone else might disagree as to both those points.  They're wrong though.

These days, I value functionality and durability a lot more than looks or weight savings and I generally don't bother with aesthetics. But given the choice, I prefer a clean, no-frills look like this Raaw Madonna.

By the way, unfortunately this isn't my bike. It belongs to PB's Mike Kazimer.

It's definitely more about Performance than looks for me, especially since what people consider good looking now is so homogeneous! Nothing interesting allowed, only straight lines

but how can he live with a Fox fork and Ohlins shock fer gods sake!  may as well have a Conti front tire and a Maxxis rear!

I couldn't own a Kavenz for this reason, the raised chainstay and double axle pivots make it look like a dog squeezing one out.