Classic & Vintage - The look of taller frames vs. smaller frames

Why is it, to me any way, that a taller frame just isn't as pleasing to look at than a smaller sized one? The shape of the taller frames just look wrong too me where as a smaller one looks more proportionate. Also, 27" wheels look so small on a taller bike compared to how they look on a smaller frame.

Any one else see this?

I agree. I ride 50cm bikes so I guess all mine look good ;)

Anything not 56 cm looks odd to me...

Yep, small bikes look right

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/5188504422_28406fe0a6_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/5787566953_92dea197f8_z.jpg

I happen to think 61cm looks pretty perfect. The tops of the wheels represent a nice horizontal centerline in the grand scheme of things. Any shorter and it looks like you're riding down between the wheels.

I like taller frames. Small frames such as 54-50cm look like they are all wheels with a bit of tubing in between. Now before anybody has their feelings hurt I did ride a 54cm..... when I was twelve years old. :lol:

Yep, small bikes look right

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/5188504422_28406fe0a6_b.jpg
OTOH there...I think "Terry" style bikes are even cooler...

I concur. I think frames between 58-61 cm look well balanced. No gap between the tt and dt on the ht and too much gap both look odd to me.

This thread is kind of pointless.

Big folks ride big bikes(and generally think they look better)

Small folks ride small bikes( and think the opposite)

A longer head tube looks better than the bottom and top lugs mashed together though(with the exception of the Terry bikes, IMO)

I agree that the proportions look off when you get up in the 60 cm+ size, but hey, big folks need bikes. I also think very small ones look off as well. I think 54-58 cm tend to have the most pleasing proportions.

56 looks right to me for most frames....I ride a 51 usually though.

+3

I find that a certain balance and elegance in a classic lugged steel frame can only be achieved in that range between 58-61. Slightly smaller (57) and slightly larger (62) might achieved this, but it requires a builder's proper eye to do so.

There are too many compromises with the geometry at other sizes, although exceptions are always possible.

IMHO, obviously.

Big folks ride big bikes(and generally think they look better)

Small folks ride small bikes( and think the opposite)
You forgot us medium folks. I like my 59 just fine, thank you.

Have you ever noticed that when you have a scattering of values, some big, some small, some in between, and when you average them all together, you end up with a value that always seems sort of, well, average?

I think a 59cm seat tube frame is about the most balanced and pleasing to the eye for me.

Only two things scare me and one of them is nuclear war. What's the other? Tiny frames. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

+3

I find that a certain balance and elegance in a classic lugged steel frame can only be achieved in that range between 58-61. Slightly smaller (57) and slightly larger (62) might achieved this, but it requires a builder's proper eye to do so.

There are too many compromises with the geometry at other sizes, although exceptions are always possible.

IMHO, obviously.

Double ditto.

I think a 59cm seat tube frame is about the most balanced and pleasing to the eye for me.

Only two things scare me and one of them is nuclear war. What's the other? Tiny frames. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

:lol::D:lol::D:lol: :lol: :lol:

58cm looks perfect to me too. (i'd stretch to a 56cm too) - smaller then that and it looks teeny..

I think smaller bikes look better but when your two bikes are a 64cm and a 68cm they make everything look small :)

I really do prefer the look of smaller bikes as they just have better proportions but I'm 6'6" and don't have much choice in what I ride.


.

I think a 59cm seat tube frame is about the most balanced and pleasing to the eye for me.

Only two things scare me and one of them is nuclear war. What's the other? Tiny frames. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.There are only two things I can't tolerate: People who are intolerant of other cultures' bikes, and Swiss-threaded bikes.


I can ride anything from a 59 to a 64, fit best on a 62, and think anything bigger than a 64 starts looking funny. I'm also of the opinion that 56-58cm bikes tend to look the best. Road bikes, anyway. I think 54-56cm city bikes look the best, but I suppose that's heavily influenced by the hours and hours and advisedly do I say hours I've spent looking at pictures of constructeur bikes. Apparently nobody in Paris is taller than 5'7".

Tall bikes go faster...

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc219/walkingfloor198/badges022.jpg

Small bikes = Rat rod'n

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc219/walkingfloor198/worldsport2001.jpg

This thread is kind of pointless.

Big folks ride big bikes(and generally think they look better)

Small folks ride small bikes( and think the opposite)

A longer head tube looks better than the bottom and top lugs mashed together though(with the exception of the Terry bikes, IMO)


If it's pointless then why do you have an opinion? Not too pointless I guess.

Anything smaller than 62cm looks like it was made for people who smell like cabbage and have small hands.

This thread is like the moments when your wife asks you whether this handbag or shoes goes with that dress....or if it makes her look fat.
;)

This thread is like the moments when your wife asks you whether this handbag or shoes goes with that dress....or if it makes her look fat.
;)

+1

Anything smaller than 62cm looks like it was made for people who smell like cabbage and have small hands.

Hey!! I resemble that remark!!

I like the balanced aesthetic of between 56-58cm seat tube. It may just be that's because those are the outermost limits of what I can ride. I think we are all finding that out here :)

DD

smaller bikes... say <= 54cm... appear to have gigantic saddles...

smaller bikes... say <= 54cm... appear to have gigantic saddles...
Honey, does this bike make my... no, we won't go there.

Small frames look great with small riders. Large frames look great with large riders. Small goes for medium rides and riders.

I rest my case.
219725

This thread is kind of pointless.

Big folks ride big bikes(and generally think they look better)

Small folks ride small bikes( and think the opposite)

A longer head tube looks better than the bottom and top lugs mashed together though(with the exception of the Terry bikes, IMO)

Agreed.


If it's pointless then why do you have an opinion? Not too pointless I guess.

No, it's definitely pointless. He's right that big folks ride big bike (and tend to think they look better). Smaller folks like smaller bikes and are drawn to the way they look.

In the days of yore, smallish boys and grown men would ride bikes with huge 28" wheels and tall seat tubes. Nowadays the Tour De France and other races have grown men buying bikes 5 or more cm too small for them, just to look more 'aero.' But aesthetics doesn't matter - fit does. It doesn't matter what you *think* looks good. What matters is the way it suits you and whether it rides well.


This thread is like the moments when your wife asks you whether this handbag or shoes goes with that dress....or if it makes her look fat.
;)

Yep, but I don't think a 5'11" woman should ever buy a dress made for a petite lady just because she thinks it looks better on the rack than the one in her size. This question is nonsense.

I love the look of 58cm frames... but that might be because I ride 58cm. It's more fun to look at a bike when the possibility of riding it is real!

Agreed.



No, it's definitely pointless. He's right that big folks ride big bike (and tend to think they look better). Smaller folks like smaller bikes and are drawn to the way they look.

In the days of yore, smallish boys and grown men would ride bikes with huge 28" wheels and tall seat tubes. Nowadays the Tour De France and other races have grown men buying bikes 5 or more cm too small for them, just to look more 'aero.' But aesthetics doesn't matter - fit does. It doesn't matter what you *think* looks good. What matters is the way it suits you and whether it rides well.



Yep, but I don't think a 5'11" woman should ever buy a dress made for a petite lady just because she thinks it looks better on the rack than the one in her size. This question is nonsense.


Thank you for sharing.

+1 LeicaLad, elegance is somewhere in the middle.


I rest my case.

http://i.imgur.com/ZZQar.jpg

somebody should chart human height range against most popular frame size to show what we already know. I ride 54cm, I think 56-58cm looks "most balanced", most proportional.

I ride a 51 cm, I think small bikes look strange and out of proportion. If I could I would ride much bigger bikes

Sure, I agree that the middle of the spectrum usually look best. Even so i've got 4 bikes that are all 61cm and some of them look more elegant than others... something between the size and geometry can either make magic or an ugly duckling. I'm 6 foot tall and anything but graceful... don't know why... just cause.

Honey, does this bike make my... no, we won't go there.

It's been my experience that if she actually rides it, it makes her... look pretty dam good.

i'm not gonna go commenting on short people with small bikes (logic dictates this, right?), but my eyes glance over anything smaller than a 61cm. 20grit's above is a beauty of proportionality.

My bikes on the other hand are just freakin huge:
27" Raleigh Marathon
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6157/6154900679_e3ef24ba1f.jpg

But I think this 65cm Nobilette looks pretty good, even if it still is super tall:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/6036090078_768d79db99.jpg


But they fit me like a charm, so no complaints. My saddle comes up to a coworker's sternum. crazy.

The sweet spot seems to be between 56-58 cm frames. Smaller than that, the saddle looks too big, or the group too large.

I think a 59cm seat tube frame is about the most balanced and pleasing to the eye for me.

Only two things scare me and one of them is nuclear war. What's the other? Tiny frames. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

Funny, I was getting ready to reply that 57-61cm generally does it for me from an aesthetic standpoint. :)

There's a reason a lot catalog photos and bikes for shows in the day were 56cm. That is the perfect proportion for a race bike. But of course, we ride what fits and IMO any bike between 52-62cm can look good with the proper set-up. Frames out of that range look freakish :)

I don't have much to add to this thread, but it does make sense that some companies switch to 26" tires below a certain frame size -- so they don't have to modify the geometry too much to accomodate 700C tires. It's too bad 28" (635mm rim) tires have fallen out of favor. Someone should work on re-popularizing them so the tall folks don't have to ride such goofy-looking bikes. :)

I'll put my vote in for 58 cm, which is a little smaller than my ideal size, assuming standard sized wheels (tubular/700c/27").

Smaller riders really should ride bikes with smaller wheels (note the plural, Georgena!). Here's my 1948 RRA and my wife's 1998 Bianchi Eros.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6174615873_e7b31ba9b1_b.jpg

61cm Grandis

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j13/shrinkboy/004-1.jpg

DrummerBoy1975, Because of the larger diameter tubing my Cannondales tend to look smaller than they are in photos. In the bike club there are some really large and really small cyclists, their bikes are definately out of the norm, but once the rider is riding, it all looks graceful.

Just for aesthetics I think a compact crankset looks better on a small frame (48-50 cm).

Brad

DrummerBoy1975, Because of the larger diameter tubing my Cannondales tend to look smaller than they are in photos. In the bike club there are some really large and really small cyclists, their bikes are definately out of the norm, but once the rider is riding, it all looks graceful.

Just for aesthetics I think a compact crankset looks better on a small frame (48-50 cm).

Brad

Yes Brad, I agreee, Cannondales are an exception.

Yes, big frames can look awkward. I ride 61-65, and sometimes have a hard time taking good looking pics of my bikes.


But there's details that can make these huge contraptions easier on the eye:

Definitely 700 wheels. None of my 650b conversions scored any aesthetic points!

Fenders. Makes the wheel diameter appear larger.

For photos jam the stem down the steerer racing style. Easy to do.

Big chainring needs to be truly big (53T+)

Old fashioned race bars, with sweet curves and big drop. Once took a profile shot of my 65cm Trek with tight rando bars. Ugh!

Aah, that's why I always like the pictures of your bikes and hate the way my 65cm+ bike pictures come out. I always take pictures of the way I ride em, I may need to do some staging next time.

Old fashioned race bars, with sweet curves and big drop. Once took a profile shot of my 65cm Trek with tight rando bars. Ugh!

I think the drop on my bars definitely helps. If I had gotten the standard drop It would've looked awkward. That said, that particular bike is the first one I've set up for riding hoods. I don't know that I really needed the deeper drops other than for aesthetic reasons.

Seems to me pretty much everybody likes the looks of their size bike. So what?

SP
Bend, OR
...64cm looks real nice to me.