Bike frame sizes (aesthetics)

Joeblack

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 ;-)

Are they? Really?

So the venge is a sportive/endurance bike.....

Who'd have thunk it :roll:

ai_1

Joeblack wrote:

....I definitely prefer a straight top tube they just look right, hence the reason I have a cannondale SS and caad10,

I suspect they only "look right" because it's what you're used to. People's aesthetic sensibilities (and other tastes) can be re-calibrated very easily. It's just a matter of time and exposure. The evidence is everywhere.

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

Why not have them sloping?
A level top tube provides a more rigid seat attachment position. Good for rigidity, bad for comfort. Sloping top tubes provide more exposed seat post which allows more versatility. The seatpost length is now less critical, so reach becomes far more important than seat tube length for sizing a bike which simplifies things a bit. Also the longer seatpost provides the ability to accomodate some flex if desired to improve comfort. The lower top tube makes it slightly safer (except that it also permits some risky aero positions on descents!). I really don't see any real issue with a sloping top tube. Bike design done properly is engineering. Bike design done badly is fashion.

Joeblack

Ai_1 wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

....I definitely prefer a straight top tube they just look right, hence the reason I have a cannondale SS and caad10,

I suspect they only "look right" because it's what you're used to. People's aesthetic sensibilities (and other tastes) can be re-calibrated very easily. It's just a matter of time and exposure. The evidence is everywhere.

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

Why not have them sloping?
A level top tube provides a more rigid seat attachment position. Good for rigidity, bad for comfort. Sloping top tubes provide more exposed seat post which allows more versatility. The seatpost length is now less critical, so reach becomes far more important than seat tube length for sizing a bike which simplifies things a bit. Also the longer seatpost provides the ability to accomodate some flex if desired to improve comfort. The lower top tube makes it slightly safer (except that it also permits some risky aero positions on descents!). I really don't see any real issue with a sloping top tube. Bike design done properly is engineering. Bike design done badly is fashion.

I agree with your statement re the re-calibration of aesthetic sense, what you 'like' can change over time, I have a trek with a sloping tube though so in my case it's what I prefer not what I'm used to.

Not sure about the second statement, most modern bikes are engineered to a standard far beyond the needs of the majority of riders.

ai_1

Joeblack wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

....I definitely prefer a straight top tube they just look right, hence the reason I have a cannondale SS and caad10,

I suspect they only "look right" because it's what you're used to. People's aesthetic sensibilities (and other tastes) can be re-calibrated very easily. It's just a matter of time and exposure. The evidence is everywhere.

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

Why not have them sloping?
A level top tube provides a more rigid seat attachment position. Good for rigidity, bad for comfort. Sloping top tubes provide more exposed seat post which allows more versatility. The seatpost length is now less critical, so reach becomes far more important than seat tube length for sizing a bike which simplifies things a bit. Also the longer seatpost provides the ability to accomodate some flex if desired to improve comfort. The lower top tube makes it slightly safer (except that it also permits some risky aero positions on descents!). I really don't see any real issue with a sloping top tube. Bike design done properly is engineering. Bike design done badly is fashion.

I agree with your statement re the re-calibration of aesthetic sense, what you 'like' can change over time, I have a trek with a sloping tube though so in my case it's what I prefer not what I'm used to.

Not sure about the second statement, most modern bikes are engineered to a standard far beyond the needs of the majority of riders.

I don't understand what you mean about the second statement.
I agree most bikes are engineered to be perfectly adequate for the needs of most. I don't believe I said or implied otherwise. Indeed that's largely my point. A sloping top tube does not compromise anything obvious and it does improve on some aspects, therefore, why not? I think it's wrong to attibute sloping top tube to some idea of "fat MAMILs" as you put it. It's certainly mean, but I believe it's also inaccurate.

Joeblack

You implied (said) that bikes designed with fashion in mind resulted in poor engineering, my comeback point was that I don't agree and that bike designed with the latest trends in mind are still engineered beyond the needs of the many.

ai_1

Joeblack wrote:

You implied (said) that bikes designed with fashion in mind resulted in poor engineering, my comeback point was that I don't agree and that bike designed with the latest trends in mind are still engineered beyond the needs of the many.

Ah right. that's not exactly what I said, but what I did say was badly worded.
What I meant was that good design is engineering based to achieve the best solution. On the other hand design that's driven by the prevailing fashions can result in poor but marketable solutions.
In reality what tends to happen is that good commercial design is a blend of the two.

simon_masterson

Ai_1 wrote:

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.

I have to say that I do like and own lugged frames, but there's something to be said for that seamless look, whatever it's made of. My 753 TT frame is fillet brazed, and the welds are beautifully finished.

ai_1

Simon Masterson wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

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.

I have to say that I do like and own lugged frames, but there's something to be said for that seamless look, whatever it's made of. My 753 TT frame is fillet brazed, and the welds are beautifully finished.

That looks like a lovely bit of workmanship!
Got a picture of the entire bike?

simon_masterson

I hate that orange tyre.

It really is a lovely frame, though - far too nice for the likes of me. It's the work of Terry Dolan, originally for Boardman in '91 when he was briefly contracted to ride their bikes. 753 throughout with oversize top and downtubes, and some fancy extras - that big steel plate (the frame still only weighs about 1600g), and the cutaway seat tube. I have a bit of a thing for late '80s - early to mid '90s bikes, but I wanted to build up something fast for club TTs and such on a small budget, and I seem to have succeeded - all I need now is a tub rear wheel with some wheel covers, and then some sort of deep section front wheel...

On topic though, I am tall, with long legs and a short torso, and long arms, and I like compact frames.

Joeblack

Ai_1 wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

You implied (said) that bikes designed with fashion in mind resulted in poor engineering, my comeback point was that I don't agree and that bike designed with the latest trends in mind are still engineered beyond the needs of the many.

Ah right. that's not exactly what I said, but what I did say was badly worded.
What I meant was that good design is engineering based to achieve the best solution. On the other hand design that's driven by the prevailing fashions can result in poor but marketable solutions.
In reality what tends to happen is that good commercial design is a blend of the two.

I see and I completely agree with that, there's something I find appealing about function over form when it comes to design even if it can look a little odd sometimes, take the new McClaren p1 not the most free flowing of design but everything is there for a reason and the function that results is flawless.