Kamn the difference is that you have enough riding experience to know that even if you want a certain style there are things (like frame and steering geometry) which must be taken into account to ensure a well functioning and safe machine. Too many people out there who have never even ridden see these garbage art bikes on Pipeburn and think that it's acceptable because it has been published in some high gloss photos. We are simply trying to educate these types of people that you can get that look without sacrificing performance. Some of the modifications and supposed upgrades are really detrimental to performance and that the aesthetic itself shouldn't drive the build. I am all for having a bike that looks as well as it goes, but not if performance is sacrificed. In all instances there is a bit of a give and take, quid pro quo, etc. and I have no problem accepting that sometimes you choose aesthetics over functionality just because you can. But not on a bike that is meant to be ridden. There are so many guys out here building bikes that they've never ridden, thinking it's going to be their new daily, only to find that it is borderline unrideable even for short distances, end up selling it on eBay for 5x what they bought it for, and further exacerbate the entire problem.