Function > Form?

[Dan K]

I go with function over form almost every time.  You?

[stew71]

Most of the time, yes. But I'm sure someone who rides an Italian bike will be along shortly to disagree with you.

[Orson]

Don't let Ducati's 57 consecutive WSBK championships fool you, it's all about form.

[county]

Function is usually attractive, except for women....

[Dan K]

I had a Tuono for a while (miss it) and bolted on a top case so I could commute to work (used a piece of wood with a givi plate, a bracket and a seat pin instead of the rear seat).  Looked goofy as hell, but did the job.

While the Tuono looks great, also bought it for its honkin motor and ergos.  Not discounting form completely, just relegating it to a spot behind function...

[gradus]

No, I wouldn't put a top box on my bike.  

[Kneescrubber]

No, I wouldn't put a top box on my bike.  

Agreed.

Although if it were designed as a part of the whole package, I could probably live with it. But that's expressing a preference of form over function.

[antvq]

I still wear Crocs.   Function over form baby      

[AutoXer]

No matter how good something works, if it's ugly to my eye I ain't buying (motorcycles, cars, cameras, women).  And no matter how beautiful something is, if it doesn't work good I won't buy it (motorcycles, cars, cameras, women).  It has to offer a blend of both.  

[axelwik]

Don't let Ducati's 57 consecutive WSBK championships fool you, it's all about form.

+1

[Meemuh]

I have a Concours.

[Kneescrubber]

I still wear Crocs.   Function over form baby      

Right. And you wear them all day every day. Right?

[gritsngravy]

Pretty much always go with what works for me.   Bolted on a screen and a top box on my King and it's cool as hell.  Fashion is for women and men of a certain persuasion.

[mesmotized]

I've always believed in function over form.  Then again, that doesn't mean that form is irrelevant either!

[CLAY]

Function over form, almost every time.  

[JReazor]

I mostly agree but there are limits.

[radlefty]

No matter how good something works, if it's ugly to my eye I ain't buying (motorcycles, cars, cameras, women).  And no matter how beautiful something is, if it doesn't work good I won't buy it (motorcycles, cars, cameras, women).  It has to offer a blend of both.  

+1

[antvq]

Right. And you wear them all day every day. Right?

No, only where they function well.  For other times, there is other footwear that is better suited.  

[phoenix]

I waiver back and forth. Sometimes I buy something because I believe in either side (function over form, or form over function). But then a little while down the road, when I have had my fill with the negatives, I sell it off.

[greasemonkey79]

I chose my bike because, to me, it was the best blend of function and form.
Is it the most beautiful bike ever made? No, but it’s a good looking machine in its own right. It’s pleasing to my eye so it meets the “form” standard I have.
Is it the best touring bike ever made (function)? Nope, but it’ll get the job done well enough for me. It meets a lot of the other “functions” I look for as well (power, handling, comfort, fun) so all in all I’d say my function requirements are met.

Most of the bikes that excel at “function” are less than pleasing to the eye, IMHO, and out of all the most beautiful bikes ever made I ‘m not sure I’d want to put any significant number of miles on any of them (not without a LOT of ibuprofen on hand).
There has to be a balance between the two (function and form). It’s difficult to define the point where both are met to a satisfactory level but I know it when I see it.
So basically in all of my rambling what I’m saying is, I agree with this guy:

No matter how good something works, if it's ugly to my eye I ain't buying (motorcycles, cars, cameras, women).  And no matter how beautiful something is, if it doesn't work good I won't buy it (motorcycles, cars, cameras, women).  It has to offer a blend of both.