kgt wrote:dreden513 wrote:For those who voted No, let's hear your reasoning if you have a moment. BTW, decision against based on aesthetic grounds is totally valid as far as I am concern, would be great if you articulate why, though.
Aesthetics basically which means that a bike follows a certain concept. If 'aero' is your concept do it the right way. Don't just change your handlebars. It's like an S5 with low profile wheels.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=126959
Interesting. I agree (as will many, I believe) that an S5 or its ilk, looks "incomplete" with low profile wheels. But why is the reverse not true? What I mean is, few (if anyone) will think that a Super Six or Tarmac looks silly with Zipp 404 or ENVE 6.7. This board is filled with examples just like that, in the Introduce Yourself forum. On the contrary, many thinks those bikes look great with the deep (50-60mm) rims. Why do traditional frames look ok with deep wheels, but aero frames with shallow wheels do not?
Further, what conceptually or philosophically is different between aero wheels vs aero road handlebars, when applied to non-aero frames? Why is one ok on traditional looking frames, and not the other?