Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Classic & Vintage (https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/)
-   -   The look of taller frames vs. smaller frames (https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/770095-look-taller-frames-vs-smaller-frames.html)

Drummerboy1975 09-22-11 01:34 PM

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?

Puget Pounder 09-22-11 01:36 PM

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

dbakl 09-22-11 01:45 PM

Anything not 56 cm looks odd to me...

Roger M 09-22-11 01:49 PM

Yep, small bikes look right

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/...406fe0a6_b.jpg

20grit 09-22-11 01:58 PM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/...dea197f8_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.

retyred 09-22-11 02:00 PM

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:

shadoman 09-22-11 02:06 PM


Originally Posted by Roger M (Post 13264068)

OTOH there...I think "Terry" style bikes are even cooler...

Anonymoose 09-22-11 02:09 PM

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.

Roger M 09-22-11 02:13 PM

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)

lostarchitect 09-22-11 02:16 PM

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.

RJM 09-22-11 02:17 PM

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

LeicaLad 09-22-11 02:19 PM

+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.

jimmuller 09-22-11 02:21 PM


Originally Posted by Roger M (Post 13264187)
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?

ColonelJLloyd 09-22-11 02:21 PM

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.

rootboy 09-22-11 02:25 PM


Originally Posted by LeicaLad (Post 13264204)
+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.

rootboy 09-22-11 02:26 PM


Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd (Post 13264225)
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:

matt0ne 09-22-11 02:31 PM

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

SteveSGP 09-22-11 02:43 PM

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.


.

Captain Blight 09-22-11 03:06 PM


Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd (Post 13264225)
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".

michael k 09-22-11 03:09 PM

Tall bikes go faster...

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c.../badges022.jpg

Small bikes = Rat rod'n

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...dsport2001.jpg

Drummerboy1975 09-22-11 03:46 PM


Originally Posted by Roger M (Post 13264187)
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.

bikingshearer 09-22-11 03:50 PM

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

WNG 09-22-11 03:52 PM

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.
;)

jbkirby 09-22-11 04:06 PM


Originally Posted by WNG (Post 13264625)
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

Drillium Dude 09-22-11 04:16 PM


Originally Posted by bikingshearer (Post 13264620)
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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.