Protecting the dropouts

BTW, there's no confusion on my part over the difference between personal vanity and a mindset that would let preservation of /// form impede lifelong function.

I suppose the conversation really pivots around what we consider that desire to preserve form (or to covet/create/preserve that form) over function to actually be.

My point (not made here very well if at all) is that the gravity/pull towards form is functional.

I'm not going to deny their inextricability, but like most things, I think it's a 2-way process.

The ways that's phrased makes it sound pretty preclusive i.e. the other facets aren't quickly dismissed etc. I'm sure you're not being deliberating obfuscatory.

deliberating = deliberately (intentionally) ?

Not at all, I am only saying that in my opinion aesthetics is to this day handled poorly by even the most liberal (insert your own position) thinkers.

I understand, Help!

You go on the classifieds section and a bike with pristine paintwork and decorated lugs will sell for hundreds of pounds more, even if it is the same tubing and lugs underneath.

You'd kind of want to preserve that value. It's just more satisfying to look at a bike that isnt scuffed and scratched. I suppose that's a function.

But then again sentimental value trumps that in some cases.

^^^just a pissed typo.

The OP reminded me of Nigel Tufnel getting proctective of a guitar with the price tag still inserted in the strings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZhrbE2rS1M&feature=related

Damn. I was ordering a glass display box for it once it's finished too.

And a dehumidifier.

If you go down to Herne Hill when the sprinters are 'training', you'll often see them holding up their frames and talking about how great the power transfer is, much like the Gibson's imaginary sustain.

I'm not going to deny their inextricability, but like most things, I think it's a 2-way process.

Well, I am not 100% sure what you are saying, but if I could take the chance to make clear what I am saying, it would be that: when people like how things look, that is often met with a kind of priggish cynicism coupled with a certain masochism. . . which is at odd with how things actually work.

You go on the classifieds section and a bike with pristine paintwork and decorated lugs will sell for hundreds of pounds more, even if it is the same tubing and lugs underneath.

That has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with investment / trading.

It's just more satisfying to look at a bike that isnt scuffed and scratched. I suppose that's a function.

What function is it !?

I am uncomfortable with the idea that you stick "I suppose" in front of your conclusion, if only because I suspect you don't really agree with what I am saying !

: )

Although I agree wholeheartedly with your point: "It's just more satisfying to look at a bike that isnt scuffed and scratched".

^^Masochism? Do you mean in the sense that not attending to how something looks could harm its efficient functioning?

If so, the original scenario didn't really apply, as the loss of paint would, if anything, improve function (where function=ability of nut to grip dropout).

Although I agree wholeheartedly with your point: "It's just more satisfying to look at a bike that isnt scuffed and scratched".

Whereas I'd find it more satisfying to look at a dirty bike in some contexts e.g. photo of bike before/after Paris-Roubaix. To me, the latter tells a story. This is also why I won't be botoxing my face.

^^Masochism? Do you mean in the sense that not attending to how something looks could harm its efficient functioning?

Whoops, sorry BMMF, my spellchecker replaces 'Machismo' with 'Masochism' - : (

I meant 'machismo'.

I hate this thread.
Every point i wanted to make appeared as i came to the end of typing it up.

Sing, if i had know your concern came from an aesthetic point of view, i would have responded differently. To be concerned about the look of something that is rarely appreciated, even by its owner (imo at least), then covered up by axle bolts, would be silly. To realise that you were concerned about the integrity of the frame makes more sense, but like BMMF said, it really isn't a problem, especially if you intend to ride the darn thing, butting it in the line of danger of much worse scenarios.

Also, for some kind of bender related reason (im looking at you help!) i cant quote a single post without quoting every post ¬,¬

Whereas I'd find it more satisfying to look at a dirty bike in some contexts e.g. photo of bike before/after Paris-Roubaix. To me, the latter tells a story. This is also why I won't be botoxing my face.

"I'd find it more satisfying to look at a dirty bike"

You might find it satisfying to look at a dirty bike, other might find it satisfying to look at a polished frame from 1932, others still a perfectly formed drop out in pristine condition, and others still a perfect TDF carbon fantasy bike . . . and so on.

The issue is that you ascribe function as the value here, others ascribe form.

having paint missing on your dropouts separates the posers from the hipsters, shows them your a real man.

I'm quite a hardcore cyclist. Not a hipster or a poser and don't have any desire to be. Just like things preserved, but then I suppose you always get to a point where it goes to shite after locking up, scraping against something, it falling over, leaning it against things and then you're not too bothered anymore, but you still like the bike... Always happens!

End of the day I'm still going to be carefully putting those bolts on my brand new frame when it comes to it!

To be concerned about the look of something that is rarely appreciated, even by its owner (imo at least), then covered up by axle bolts, would be silly.

Why the fucking interest ?

To realise that you were concerned about the integrity of the frame makes more sense, but like BMMF said, it really isn't a problem

Dreadful low level idiotic non-sequiter and online classic straw man argument.

Gold.

Also, for some kind of bender related reason (im looking at you help!) i cant quote a single post without quoting every post ¬,¬

You dirty dirty.

God it seems like an argument starts on every thread I start!

having paint missing on your dropouts separates the posers from the hipsters, shows them your a real man.

Possibly the post that makes the point about this thread.

A: If you worry about how your bike looks you are a 'poser'.

B: If you don't worry about how your bike looks you are seen as a 'real man'.

Result, if you want to look cool, option B seems obvious.

God it seems like an argument starts on every thread I start!

gay

lol

"I'd find it more satisfying to look at a dirty bike"

You might find it satisfying to look at a dirty bike, other might find it satisfying to look at a polished frame from 1932, others still a perfectly formed drop out in pristine condition, and others still a perfect TDF carbon fantasy bike . . . and so on.

The issue is that you ascribe function as the value here, others ascribe form.

I used 'satisfying' as it was the word used by singspeed in a post quoted by yourself, so there's no need to reiterate the fact that some people find the unsullied objects preferable. Yes, I'm generally more turned on by function - perhaps because I'm emotionally placated by activity - but there's still an appreciation of form; it just happens to be form placed in a functional context rather than a rarified/abstracted one. I have a titanium bike, FFS. I love the way it looks. But I also love the way it rides. If it didn't get ridden, being able to look at it would not be reason enough to keep it (although that's partly economics); unless perhaps that day came many years down the line, and sentimental value was an issue (mentioned by singspeed upthread).

This is all very interesting, but I have to go to bed. My hours are all out of whack, and I need to taken my son to nursery first thing tomorrow. It can be quite a traumatic experience due to some of the other parents :/