Is it in the frame or the components? I see a lot of offbrand bikes out there that feature a nice component package and generic frame. It’s almost like you buy a component group and get a free frame. So, is it better to have a nicer frame and lesser components or a better components and a lesser frame? (Yes, I know the best thing is to have a nice frame and nice components, but if you had to choose between the two, which one do you choose?)
The soul of the bike is in the rider, the bike is just a machine until we sit on it. I think the frame is the place to spend the green. Parts can be replaced but the frame is what holds it all together.
In the precision of the machining, and subtlety of design, especially in bits that would lead to instability- so, especially the rear triangle or the head-tube/fork assembly. But it’s all good. Bike is all soul, man.
If it fits well, I consider the frame to be more of a parts hanger. All it has to do is put the parts in the right geometry. Seems like the functioning parts would be more important. Especially now with most frames being made in Taiwan. Of course, I have seen people post here that bikes like Trek have no soul, so I think the soul is somewhere in the brand name sticker, maybe just under the clear coat…
I appreciate what you are getting at but it does sound like you are describing the taint of the rider rather than the soul of the bike. I vote for Tom’s definition if we are going to go that route, but it seems to make it into a trick question. I think it has more to do with the builder (ie., whether there is one)
It’s the total package: frame + components + rider = soul
You could have the sweetest ass ride around, but if I get on it and it’s the wrong fit and is no fun for me, it will not have sould, until it goes back to who it is built for.