Bike frame sizes (aesthetics)

Joeblack

I think that frame sizes have a dramatic effect of the general look of a bike, I just wondered what the general consensus is on what is the idea size of frame from a aesthetic point of view?

Obviously people are generally going to pick the size of the bike they usually ride as that's what they are used to but I'm still interested.

For me anything above a 60 or below a 50 tend to look a bit odd so I'd say a 54/56

markhewitt1978

I would imagine most bikes are designed around a 54/56 sizing and then up or down scaled from there.

ai_1

Wheel size is standard (with the exception of the very occasional 650 for smaller riders) so the proportions of the frame differ at different sizes rather than simply scaling up or down.
I think most people will prefer the appearance of small and medium sized frames as they looks more minimal and are also more typical of the bikes we see on TV since most pros ride smaller bikes to allow aggressive positions.

buckmulligan

Yes, I agree. Most stock photos (e.g. on manufacturer's websites) seem to be of 54 or 56 cm frames, so I'd presume those are the sizes that people see as 'normal' and other sizes are scaled up or down from there.

Am I right in thinking that Specialized or Pinarello make a point of designing tube profiles/wall thicknesses etc for each size of frame individually? I can't remember where I heard that, but I thought it was interesting being at the smaller end of the spectrum, could mean some extra weight savings.

styxd

54/56/58 look the best. Obviously the aesthetics are ruined as soon as inline seatposts/short stems/stem spacers are used.

dwanes

i tend to think 54 frames look the best.

Some of those Specialized frames look pretty ugly in their largest sizes, but look great in a 54.

If I were to need a very large or very small frame I would go for a minimalistic looking frame, like you expect a steel frame would look, ie. straight lines with no funny curves or shapes.

styxd

dwanes wrote:

i tend to think 54 frames look the best.

Some of those Specialized frames look pretty ugly in their largest sizes, but look great in a 54.

If I were to need a very large or very small frame I would go for a minimalistic looking frame, like you expect a steel frame would look, ie. straight lines with no funny curves or shapes.

Fair shout. Those Roubaix's in particular look atrocious in a large size. Infact alot of carbon fames look rubbish in a large size, especially when paired with a low profile wheel like a Ksyrium. The new Canyon carbon frames are antoher one, gopping. The old model with the round tubes looked superb.

sloppyschleckonds

Sloping top tubes look atrocious, the bigger the slope the worse they look.

arthur_scrimshaw

I'm a sucker for flat(ish) top tubes too.
Just don't get me started on wavy forks and seat stays.

on-yer-bike

Roubaix are hiddeous. The bigger they get the more hiddeous they become. 54 Venge looks good though.

JayKosta

I prefer the look of a horizontal top tube, and for there to be some distance between where the top tube and the down tube meet the head tube.

I especially don't like 'bulky' welding joints on aluminum tubes, or having very stark tube-stuck-to-tube joining. As an 'old timer', I still like the look of steel frame lugged construction. I don't like the look of having the stem slammed down to the top of the head tube.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

morstar

Medium or large, anything else looks silly. Don't like huge stacks spacers but rather an inch of spacers than no spacers and a tall headtube.

Anonymous

I vote 55cm (for various reasons) but a small framed (48cm) high spec 'wifes' bike still looks better

Anonymous

on-yer-bike wrote:

Roubaix are hiddeous. The bigger they get the more hiddeous they become. 54 Venge looks good though.

I think Roubaix's are looking pretty good these days (mellowing in my old age ).
61cm Secteurs were the real monsters IMO. They looked like fcuking warhorse's lol.
Specialized seem to be 'reining' in their design a bit.

Cannock Chase

I think all carbon (and aluminium) frames due to their large tube profiles look awful when compared to a nice steel frame. Nothing wrong with a carbon frame, I have one, but when parked next to a quality Mercian or Brian Rourke steel frame bike at the cafe stop they may as well be made of painted scaffold tubing. Wouldn't look much different.

86inch

I'm dead opposite... i could be considered an "old timer" ridden and raced many 531/531pro/753 bikes and loved them at the time. But i don't like the look of them at all now. Thin tubing looks all weak and wishy washy.
Call me a heretic but this yearning for the "classic" look isn't for me. Give me a nice modern carbon beauty any day (like my Ridley Helium :-) )
Even my Caad8 winter bike is better looking than any steely...

Disclaimer: - I confess i do own a steel Surly LHT aswell which for its purpose is superb, but horses for courses.

ai_1

Cannock Chase wrote:

I think all carbon (and aluminium) frames due to their large tube profiles look awful when compared to a nice steel frame. Nothing wrong with a carbon frame, I have one, but when parked next to a quality Mercian or Brian Rourke steel frame bike at the cafe stop they may as well be made of painted scaffold tubing. Wouldn't look much different.

While the aesthetics are completely subjective and beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, I can't see any sense in your scaffold comment? Surely a nice steel frame looks just like a bunch of water pipe welded together whereas the larger sized carbon and aluminium frame tubes are generally highly shaped and therefore many don't really look anything like scaffold tubing, water pipe or any other collection of raw materials. To me anyway! They look much more like a single continuous structure.
That's the main reason I prefer many (not all) carbon frames over their steel counterparts. As an engineer I appreciate the practicality, simplicity and in some cases workmanship in steel tube frames but I prefer the purpose specific elegance of design available when working in carbon and to a much lesser extent shaped aluminium. The quality of the joints in a steel or aluminium frame gets a lot of attention and for good reason, they are the weak points and the junction between separate parts. A carbon monocoque on the other hand is a single piece and much closer to my idea of engineering perfection as a result.

jgsi

86inch wrote:

I'm dead opposite... i could be considered an "old timer" ridden and raced many 531/531pro/753 bikes and loved them at the time. But i don't like the look of them at all now. Thin tubing looks all weak and wishy washy.
Call me a heretic but this yearning for the "classic" look isn't for me. Give me a nice modern carbon beauty any day (like my Ridley Helium :-) )
Even my Caad8 winter bike is better looking than any steely...

Disclaimer: - I confess i do own a steel Surly LHT aswell which for its purpose is superb, but horses for courses.

I doubly agree... I cannot for the life of me see myself wanting ever to get back on a 'classic' steel.
However, in a minority it appears as the Eroica and Eroica Brit version are always fully subscribed, the Brit version very much so. There is a market for this old metal... a quick look at the prices being charged for something a bit iffy flumoxes me. And if you want anything with proper heritage ... unbeievable what is being charged.... and they say money is tight.

ai_1

JGSI wrote:

86inch wrote:

I'm dead opposite... i could be considered an "old timer" ridden and raced many 531/531pro/753 bikes and loved them at the time. But i don't like the look of them at all now. Thin tubing looks all weak and wishy washy.
Call me a heretic but this yearning for the "classic" look isn't for me. Give me a nice modern carbon beauty any day (like my Ridley Helium :-) )
Even my Caad8 winter bike is better looking than any steely...

Disclaimer: - I confess i do own a steel Surly LHT aswell which for its purpose is superb, but horses for courses.

I doubly agree... I cannot for the life of me see myself wanting ever to get back on a 'classic' steel.
However, in a minority it appears as the Eroica and Eroica Brit version are always fully subscribed, the Brit version very much so. There is a market for this old metal... a quick look at the prices being charged for something a bit iffy flumoxes me. And if you want anything with proper heritage ... unbeievable what is being charged.... and they say money is tight.

Nostalgia sells!

And to be fair, top quality workmanship takes expertise and time = money. So assuming these top end steel frames are hand built by really skilled craftsmen then the price may be justified. However I can't say I'd be inclined to pay it. Then again I have no great emotional attachment to steel frames. I had a cheap, rather rubbish one as a teenager that was just a bike as far as I was concerned and was really just for getting around. Those with lots of good memories of training, racing or touring on their high quality steel steeds are likely to have much more fondness for that style of bike.

Aesthetics are subjective and I think based heavily on the idea we have in our heads about what a bike, a car, a plane, a house (a woman ) is supposed to be and the memories and emotions associated with this.

Anonymous

Well put Ai_1 ;-)

Am not knocking steel at all (neither past, present or future) but think a lot of peoples spoken love of it is disingenuous.
It seems to me its just giving them some instant expert knowledge/experience by saying steel is/looks great.

Its so much easier to embrace (with rose tinted glasses) a past thats well documented than a present that is evolving.

seanorawe

Smaller frames always look better. they look neater and more compact and aggressive. Perfect example, mark Cavendish' venge

styxd

seanorawe wrote:

mark Cavendish' venge

....looks like a child's bike.

seanorawe

styxd wrote:

seanorawe wrote:

mark Cavendish' venge

....looks like a child's bike.

Probably has the same geometry

dilatory

52/54 for me. As soon as there's a gap between the top tube and the down tube the head tube looks too long and it looks wrong to me.

thegreatdivide

A lot of tall Pro's ride size small framed bikes because they're stiffer. God knows how many watts a six foot Greipel puts out but he rides a Noah in a tiny (my size) frame:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ast-39703/

Gilbert and Voekler also ride size small frames:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... r01-36238/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro ... am-edition

The Venge will never look good regardless of it's frame size. It's in the fugly pile along with the Dogma. Vile bikes.

DeVlaeminck

Personally I prefer the look of bigger bikes, which is lucky as I ride fairly big frames. It's purely subjective though isn't it.

Joeblack

As somewhat of a modernist (not sure if that's a thing) I would be the kind of person to appreciate a modern carbon frame and I think if I had to pick one bike forever it would probably be a modern thick framed carbon job but I do think there's a certain class to some of the smaller framed steel/titanium bikes out there, however I'm talking something dressed with modern kit, as someone who has only ridden modern bikes I have no attachment to downtube shifters and the like,

Points I do agree with though are the ugliness of the venge and pinnarello bikes out there and I definitely prefer a straight top tube they just look right, hence the reason I have a cannondale SS and caad10,

Im pretty sure it was Ugo that said a while ago that the only reason manufacturers made sloping tubes was so fat mamil's can get their legs over the bloody things

thegreatdivide

Joeblack wrote:

Im pretty sure it was Ugo that said a while ago that the only reason manufacturers made sloping tubes was so fat mamil's can get their legs over the bloody things

I think they're called endurance/sportive bikes ;-)

flasher

thegreatdivide wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Im pretty sure it was Ugo that said a while ago that the only reason manufacturers made sloping tubes was so fat mamil's can get their legs over the bloody things

I think they're called endurance/sportive bikes ;-)

Well it certainly worked for John Degenkolb on his recent sportive wins!

pippi_langsamer-2

Flasher wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Im pretty sure it was Ugo that said a while ago that the only reason manufacturers made sloping tubes was so fat mamil's can get their legs over the bloody things

I think they're called endurance/sportive bikes ;-)

Well it certainly worked for John Degenkolb on his recent sportive wins!

What "works", is irrelevant. We seem to be talking about form over function here?

Anyway, the answer is 56 (54 at an absolute push )

flasher

Pippi Langsamer wrote:

Flasher wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Im pretty sure it was Ugo that said a while ago that the only reason manufacturers made sloping tubes was so fat mamil's can get their legs over the bloody things

I think they're called endurance/sportive bikes ;-)

Well it certainly worked for John Degenkolb on his recent sportive wins!

What "works", is irrelevant. We seem to be talking about form over function here?

I'm replying to the previous posts, not to the thread.