idea

File: PileofBikes.jpg (50KB, 478x329px)

50KB, 478x329px

>>1044751
we are cyclists- we just go buy the shit and install it. If we don't like it we put it in our stack of unused parts and justify wasting money by planning to use it later. If you don't have a big enough pile of parts to assemble 2 complete bikes you are doing it wrong.

Thanks for giving me this idea.
I need to Photoshop a single speed cannondale quick cx with bar end grips and dual hydraulic disks

>>1044751
Doesn't really reflect how people buy bikes imho. If you're doing a custom build, whatever shop you're at doesn't have the resources to build and maintain a tool like that. If you're buying from a shop affiliated with a big brand, then you're buying the manufacturer's spec.

>>1044754
>we are cyclists- we just go buy the shit and install it. If we don't like it we put it in our stack of unused parts and justify wasting money by planning to use it later. If you don't have a big enough pile of parts to assemble 2 complete bikes you are doing it wrong.

I just sold my waste pile at 50% of its eBay value. $520 total. Feels so good

If you have a pile of stuff you feel obligated to use, you end up burning money on stupid kludge bikes trying to "get your money's worth"

imho

>>1044751
Why would you even want to do such a thing in the first place? The components on your bike are there for functional reasons, not for looks -- unless you're planning on building a bike and hanging it on the wall purely as a decoration or something, is that what you like to do?

If you like bikes and want to impress people, perhaps you should work towards being a better, stronger, faster rider, instead? Nobody cares what your bike looks like if the way you ride it is totally unimpressive. Otherwise you're basically a Fred.

It's either going to look like shit or if it looks good it's going to cost an immense amount of money. You will need to buy every single component, photograph it and then have it retouched and cut out so that it will fit on the pre-selected frame.

You're talking many hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars for a website that a few thousand people will use and which will sell nothing tangible.

>>1044819
continued

I should mention also that I have been directly involved with the production of a website that does exactly what you're describing but with clothing instead of bike parts. It was very expensive and very time-consuming.

>>1044751
>I currently go into photoshop and edit different types of tyres and shit on my bike and it's a real pain in the ass.
>How hard would this be to create?
You're basically talking about automating what you do in photoshop, so take that pain in the ass and multiply it by about a thousand.

>>1044751
Doesn't Rose Bikes e-shop do that already?
I mean, for their own bikes.
Also, I believe one fancy fixie local bike company has this, with different bars, wheels and frame colours happening, but that's only a couple of parts you can use.

Anyway, tyres are not an option in any of those.

>>1044819
I think 3D rendering could be immensely more practical than image editing. Getting the models companies use wouldn't be easy though.