Mountain Biking - Why are new bikes so dammed ugly?

So I'm now 21 and are for the most part have been using all my spai time with my 2001 Yamaha R6. When I was younger (10-18) I rode my 1996 Trek 8500 with Judy ALL THE TIME . I just recently have been getting back into mountain biking. The Yamaha is officially for sale, Almost died WAY to many times. I thought I would buy a new bike but after looking ALL OVER THE PLACE I came to this simple conclusion, TODAYS BIKES SUCK. I can remember when my friends and I all Had a gigantic poster of the infamous Y-33 on our walls. What are kids supposed to put up today? The Fuel LINE? I think not, it looks like a bike frame designe by your local trash truck designers. Maybe it performs better but man its ugly! But all in all my wheelies were still WAYYYYYY LONGER on my R6!

Does missy giovie still race these days?

Just ask your local custom steel frame builder to make the bike of your dreams.

Good Idea but I would never build my dream bike out of steel or any steel alloy. Sounds crazy but perhaps a space-age platic that is virtually weightles yet infinately strong. Think NASA would help me?

:mad:
Me Neither....




LOL
:beer:

I dare you to say this bike is ugly...muahahahahahahaaaaa!

I hate to say it but,
THIS BIKE IS BUTT UGLY!!!!!!!! NO CURVES

I'm gonna go tell my mommy.

How about this one?

O.K. it's no longer being made, but it's definately curvy!

There are some interesting designs out there:

http://www.bikes.com/images/bikes/detailview/RM7FR.jpg

http://www.kalomtb.com/frames/balfa_bb7.jpg

http://www.santacruzmtb.com/graphics/main_super8.jpg

Originally posted by scaliaman
Good Idea but I would never build my dream bike out of steel or any steel alloy. Sounds crazy but perhaps a space-age platic that is virtually weightles yet infinately strong. Think NASA would help me?
:beer:

See
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/howibuil.htm
for further details.

The current ultimate bike material has to be Zylon.
http://www.toyobo.co.jp/e/seihin/kc/pbo/menu/fra_menu_en.htm
Its stronger than Kevlar, and used on some stupid-ultra-light wheels.

I once had a really close look at the original Lotus track bike (even got on it). It looked like it was handbuilt, a bit rough at the edges, and wasnt all the lightweight, but what a beauty.

Originally posted by fubar5
I dare you to say this bike is ugly...muahahahahahahaaaaa!

Matt did you see the one I have for sell in buy and sell ?

no, no I didn't. I'll have to go check it out. But I have no money and no garuntee of a job in the near future.

No, THIS is ugly.

why does a bike have to curve to be attractive? If curves are what you're into, get a mixte frame!

Originally posted by stumpjumper
No, THIS is ugly.

why does a bike have to curve to be attractive? If curves are what you're into, get a mixte frame!

Ermmm I quite like the simplicity of it :blush:

Sort of form and function...

Now these I find pretty ugly:

http://www.phatcycles.com

but I guess it's an individual thing...

Richard

Now these I find pretty ugly:

Agreed. I didnt make it past the splash screen :eek:

I kind of like these...
http://www.mrazek.com/

I disagree that ALL new bikes are ugly. Full suspension bikes, maybe, but not ALL bikes.

Man, do I totally agree! I don't know if it's because I come from a roadie background or what, but I think all those bikes look too freaky! The Kona looks ok though. My idea of nice ride is a double diamond frame. OK old fashion I am....

Simple solution -- go retro!

Personally, I don't think there are any ugly bikes. Just that some are better looking than others!;)

Originally posted by RayBan
Man, do I totally agree! I don't know if it's because I come from a roadie background or what, but I think all those bikes look too freaky! The Kona looks ok though. My idea of nice ride is a double diamond frame. OK old fashion I am....

But that doesn't have any curves either. :confused:

The prettiest MTB I ever saw was an early-90s steel Specialized S-Works. It had a gorgeous luminescent green finish, polished Suntour components and just screamed pedigree. They just don't make 'em like that anymore...

Even my '97 S-Works M2 fails to live up. It's mango yellow and, as much as I enjoy the performance of XTR and the Manitou fork, it just isn't beautiful. Aluminum bikes are, in my opinion, incapable of beauty.

This is one of my old bikes. Pretty damn ugly, but rode like a dream!

I wanted this bike to stand out! I think I pretty much accomplished that!

L8R

Originally posted by aerobat
Personally, I don't think there are any ugly bikes. Just that some are better looking than others!;)

I'll take that statement a step further: there are no ugly bikes, but there are plenty of ugly SUVs.

Ugly Bikes are trendy. Thats all. When things come full round good looking bikes will be trendy.

Originally posted by scaliaman
So I'm now 21 and are for the most part have been using all my spai time with my 2001 Yamaha R6. When I was younger (10-18) I rode my 1996 Trek 8500 with Judy ALL THE TIME . I just recently have been getting back into mountain biking. The Yamaha is officially for sale, Almost died WAY to many times. I thought I would buy a new bike but after looking ALL OVER THE PLACE I came to this simple conclusion, TODAYS BIKES SUCK. I can remember when my friends and I all Had a gigantic poster of the infamous Y-33 on our walls. What are kids supposed to put up today? The Fuel LINE? I think not, it looks like a bike frame designe by your local trash truck designers. Maybe it performs better but man its ugly! But all in all my wheelies were still WAYYYYYY LONGER on my R6!

Does missy giovie still race these days?

Interesting point of view. I disagree as I think mtb were damn ugly back in the day. Especially the duallies. The colouring was horid and way to bright and shiny. You may not like that Dawg's design but I think it is hot.

If I wanted a road bike I would buy one. I want something tough and burly looking. I don't need a pretty bike, I need one thats tough and does the job and looks burly which means dark colours, fat tubing ahhhh the exctasy.

i dont know about looks but the 4" travel forks provided more wheel clearance than i was accustomed to looking at. geometry is all messed up i used to ride a 18" and it was tad bit small (1996). so i figure i needed a 19.5 c-c which is like 20-21 c-t, but bikes today i fit more like a 17.5

So my ride is ugly, huh?!

I agree that most new bikes are ugly. Fat, misshapen downtubes and threadless headsets combine to make a hideous bicycle.

a2psyklnut - uggg, personally I think those Cannondales are the uglies bikes ever.

Now THIS is pretty!
http://www.bikes.com/2003/images/bikes/etsx-70.jpg

(Edit: the bike... the bike)

http://www.anthonysloan.com/surly29ProtoDriveside.jpg

My next bike, on order and arriving mid Feb.

Not ugly at all. And there's a curve!

A

Fubar5, if it makes you feel better, I'm drooling over that Kona picture. ;)

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
How about this one?

O.K. it's no longer being made, but it's definately curvy!

I ride a similar bike (K2 OzM aka ProFlex 5500c) and it's also no longer in production.

http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/cycling/bikes/K2/1999-OzM/images/10620620/PICT0002.JPG

However if one is looking for a full suspension CF mountain bike with some curves, there are still choices such as the EPX Terrashark (http://www.epxbikes.com/epx/products/mountain.asp),
http://www.epxbikes.com/epx/products/images/terrashark_purple.jpg

the Kestrel Rubicon SX (http://www.kestrel-usa.com/products/mountain/rubiconsx.html),
http://www.kestrel-usa.com/products/images/large/rubicon-large.jpg

and if you really want to fork over the cash, the Colnago-Ferrari CF2 (http://www.trialtir-usa.com/2003-colnago/ferrari/cf1-2/cf2.htm).

http://www.trialtir-usa.com/2003-colnago/ferrari/cf1-2/images/cf2-1-lar.jpg

In the CF hardtail arena, there are plenty of more choices.

I don't have this bike but I can dream. This bike is so purrty I feel like I'm looking at a dirty magazine when I look at it.

Oops, somehow the pic didn't post. Or maybe it's censored (haha). I'll try again.

Yup, I guess it is censored... it's too purrty. Here's the link of the most beautiful ride you ever could see. http://www.konaworld.com/kw_index.cfm

I'm gonna have to swing the opposite way of the original post. I really like the way the Fuels look. They have the classic frame arrangement with just a little bit of rounding over the edges. They are like the pickups of ten years ago versus today. Not overexaggerated (something I connect with walmart bikes), but subtle curves. Functional looking as well. Somebody posted an absolutely gorgeous looking kona, too. Very fun looking.

Regarding the original idea of a bike constructed of some sort of thermoplastic, glas-reinforced plastic, etc...
The problem is that the process required to mold such a shape yields a seam, similar to that which you see on any molded o.j. container and the like. Just like a weld, this is the weakest part of the frame. Previous attempts at such a bike had the seam running through the bb. Icky bad failures result, and everyone gets back to happily making frames from alu.

Originally posted by Waldo
Regarding the original idea of a bike constructed of some sort of thermoplastic, glas-reinforced plastic, etc...
The problem is that the process required to mold such a shape yields a seam, similar to that which you see on any molded o.j. container and the like. Just like a weld, this is the weakest part of the frame. Previous attempts at such a bike had the seam running through the bb. Icky bad failures result, and everyone gets back to happily making frames from alu.

There were many ways that manufacturers got around this problem. Although initial frames had poor quality control and would literally split apart at the seams (usually seperation at the lugs), many CF makers have by and large solved this problem. My K2 is actually constructed from three main pieces. The right CF half and left CF half are bonded to a carbon fibre substructure that acts like an internal frame. This makes for a generally heavier than normal CF frame but it also makes it very durable. The process was also very expensive and despite the high sticker-tag of the frames, K2 was never able to fully recoup on their investment (partly because not enough people were willing to pay it). The bikes were discontinued after only two production runs because the overhead was so high and many (like me) were able to pick them up for a "steal" (relatively speaking). Here's the propoganda (http://cynosure.homedns.org/proflex/resources/carbon_tech_sheet.pdf) if you're interested. I've been through many bad crashes with my K2 and have thoroughly inspected the frame each time (as one should with anything that is CF). There's no indication of anything coming apart. I once missed a line and tumbled with the bike 50 feet down the side of a hill. A tree was nice enough to break my fall. I was lucky it didn't break anything else. Someone else reported that they hit a low hanging branch with their bike that was secured to a roof-rack while going home from a day on the trails. The force of the impact was enough to rip the roof-rack off peeling away the roof of the car in the process. The bike was undamaged.

My Aegis CF roadbike is molded in a full-bladder process (using three bladders to maintain compaction) and they don't use a clamshell lay-up so there are no seams. Also there are no breaks in the fiber as there would be in a clamshell layup. The same strand runs the length of the assembly. Essentially the bike only has three strands. One each for the front triangle, seatstay and chainstay. Of course they're oriented differently in different places to bias the strength.

Fibre/thermoplastics can be made plenty strong. As with anything, it's all in the manufacturing process and not all manufacturers use the same process.

There are some ugly SUV's and some purty SUV's. Huh, just like bikes :) What's your point?

Dude, if you like curves like on the Y33, get a new Specialized Enduro. It looks like an evolved Y33. Don't tell me it's ugly because it's shaped very similar!

Y33: http://www.ishop.co.uk/ishop/images/399/Y33w.jpg


Enduro Pro: http://www.specialized.com/OA_MEDIA/2003/bikes/eprowht_xt_l.jpg

I personally think my new bike is purdy. It's very simple, yet rugged. Who cares how pretty you are anyway. The trees and rocks can't tell the difference. If you want ugly new products, look at the new basketball shoes, not mountain bikes.

http://www.harobikes.com/2003/ex3.html

khuon, I have no problems with CF bikes (though I personally don't care for their ride characteristics). My point was that the early attempts at a thermoplastic bike (entirely different material and in some cases process) involved manufacturing processes that doomed the bikes to failure.

Originally posted by corndogggy
Dude, if you like curves like on the Y33, get a new Specialized Enduro. It looks like an evolved Y33. Don't tell me it's ugly because it's shaped very similar!

Y33: http://www.ishop.co.uk/ishop/images/399/Y33w.jpg


The Y-bikes were ugly for other reasons. |8^) URT was a horrible idea.


Originally posted by corndogggy
Enduro Pro: http://www.specialized.com/OA_MEDIA/2003/bikes/eprowht_xt_l.jpg

Although they look somewhat similar. They're fundamentally different bikes. Y33 is an OCLV frame with a single-pivot URT. The Enduro is an aluminum frame with a 4-bar Horst link rear suspension. About the only thing they have in common is the interrupted seat tube.

Khuon knows his stuff, especially about the Y bike. Those things felt like pogo sticks to me.

For some reason I thought we were talking about general frame purdiness and shape...

Sorry, I think today's bikes are far more elegant. Function is a part of beauty and, no doubt, today's bikes function far better than those of years ago.

I'll take a fast bike over a pretty bike anyday, and today's bikes are faster, work better and lighter.