Is cycling materialistic?

The bikes and components one chooses to spend one's money on, is their value and their worth comprised entirely of their function? or do they have some value that is supplementary to function, either an aesthetic value (I love the look of my drops, but I rarely use the lower grip), a cultural value (some would be attracted to aerospoke or tripspokes because of their embedded reference to the culture of velo riding, something which one might have engaged with long term as a culturally active agent) or a supposed-function that really is an 'intellectual turn on' (some might splash out on carbon parts knowing that they will shed a couple of kilos in total - something of value, but not something that will be felt on the commute).

What people have said so far basically posits the notion that if something exceeds function, it becomes 'materialistic' but I think that investing in cycle riding, building and maintaining as a culturally expressive act, as opposed to an A-to-B mode of transport, likens it to a social endeavour, and makes it less materialistic. The objects that we purchase become signifiers of how we, individually, navigate the contemporary social sphere - and the choices/products we invest in become how we assert ourselves -

fixed riding is an interesting example as a culture that proliferated out of an inherently counter-functional way of riding - 'fuck all your million gears and disc brakes and STI shifters, I'm going to ride a stripped back, simple fixed for the love yo'

Obviously fashion as a blind culture gets involved and thus the hipster adopts the fixie but the choices to ride fixed, shoot film, run in barefoot shoes or drink fentiman's cola rather than coca cola are all materialistic, but they have value as the way in which we navigate materiality without become passively comsuptive. I guess it's the whole prosumer/consumer binary