Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79
  1. #1
    Senior Member Drummerboy1975's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    My Bikes
    '81 Fuji Royale/ '96 Rockhopper
    Posts
    1,168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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?

  2. #2
    Wookie Jesus inspires me. Puget Pounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,225
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree. I ride 50cm bikes so I guess all mine look good

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    My Bikes
    Cinelli, Paramount, Raleigh, Carlton, Zeus, Gemniani, Frejus, Legnano, Pinarello, Falcon
    Posts
    5,775
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anything not 56 cm looks odd to me...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Roger M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Snohomish, WA.
    Posts
    1,532
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Yep, small bikes look right


  5. #5
    Curmudgeon in Training 20grit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rural Retreat, VA
    My Bikes
    1974 Gazelle Champion Mondial, 2010 Cannondale Trail SL, 1988 Peugeot Nice, 1992ish Stumpjumper Comp,1990's Schwinn Moab
    Posts
    1,934
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member shadoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    ChokeYa, Illinois
    My Bikes
    Specialized Sirrus Triple, Schwinn Passage, Raleigh Tech 420, Viner Road Record, Soma Sport, Schwinn Tempo, Bianchi Nuevo Alloro, Takara Prestige SS, Diamondback Outlook
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger M View Post
    Yep, small bikes look right

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

  8. #8
    Senior Member Anonymoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Roger M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Snohomish, WA.
    Posts
    1,532
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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)

  10. #10
    incazzare. lostarchitect's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    My Bikes
    See sig
    Posts
    4,101
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson) San Remo Plus, 1989 Trek 520, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter

  11. #11
    I'm doing it wrong. RJM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    My Bikes
    Rivendell Roadeo, Rivendell Sam Hillborne.
    Posts
    1,890
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    56 looks right to me for most frames....I ride a 51 usually though.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Work in Asia, now based in Vienna, VA
    Posts
    1,346
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    +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.
    1959 Hilton Wrigley Connoisseur (still my favorite!)
    1963 Hetchins Mountain King (the gravel grinder)
    1971 Gitane Tour de France (The War Horse)
    1971 Gitane Super Corsa (The Garage Queen)
    1980 Ritchey Touring (The Grail Bike)
    1984 Tom Ritchey Team Competition (NOS show bike)
    (replacing the stolen 1981 Tom Ritchey Everest custom)

  13. #13
    What??? Only 2 wheels? jimmuller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Boston-ish, MA
    My Bikes
    '73 Raleigh Carlton Gran Sport, '72 Peugeot UO-8, '82 Peugeot TH8, '87 Bianchi Brava, '76? Masi Grand Criterium, '72 Bertin C32, '87 Centurion Ironman Expert, '74 Motobecane Champion Team, and lots of uncertainty on some
    Posts
    6,919
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger M View Post
    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?
    Real cyclists use toe clips.
    jimmuller

  14. #14
    Senior Member ColonelJLloyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    8,211
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Bikes on Flickr
    I prefer email to private messages. You can contact me at justinhughes@me.com

  15. #15
    Senior Member rootboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sand Spit East
    Posts
    11,964
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LeicaLad View Post
    +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.

  16. #16
    Senior Member rootboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sand Spit East
    Posts
    11,964
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Senior Member matt0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    My Bikes
    90s Gios Compact Pro. 80s Battaglin w/ Dura Ace 7400s. 70s Medici Pro Strada
    Posts
    353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    58cm looks perfect to me too. (i'd stretch to a 56cm too) - smaller then that and it looks teeny..

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Minnesota- the frozen tundra
    My Bikes
    1977 Raleigh Super Grand Prix, 1976 Gitane Tour de France
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.


    .
    My name is Steve and I don't have a bent fork anymore :)

    1979 Raleigh Competition G.S.- mine
    197? Raleigh Super Grand Prix- mine
    1979 Raleigh Super Grand Prix- mine
    1970? Bottecchia- wifes
    1980s Vitus 979- sons
    1974 Viscount Aerospace sons
    1972 Peugeot AO8- sons
    1990s Schwinn hybrid- daughters

  19. #19
    Senior Member Captain Blight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    My Bikes
    -1973 Motobecane Mirage -197? Velosolex L'Etoile -'71 Raleigh Super Course
    Posts
    2,474
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd View Post
    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".
    '71 Raleigh Super Course ("Loose Change")
    '74 Raleigh Professional
    '7? VeloSolex L'Etoile rando build ("Chocolate Star")
    '77 Peugeot UE/O-8/10/9 mongrel
    '81 Trek 616
    '87 Trek 560 Pro Series
    '88 Schwinn Impact ("Burning Chrome")
    '92 Specialized Allez Comp
    '08 Specialized Crossroads winterbike ("Icicle the Bicycle")

  20. #20
    Senior Member michael k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Portland,Or
    Posts
    948
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tall bikes go faster...



    Small bikes = Rat rod'n


  21. #21
    Senior Member Drummerboy1975's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Arkansas
    My Bikes
    '81 Fuji Royale/ '96 Rockhopper
    Posts
    1,168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger M View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Crawlin' up, flyin' down bikingshearer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Democratic Peoples' Republic of Berkeley
    My Bikes
    1967 Paramount, 1982-ish Ron Cooper,1986 De Rosa Professional, 1978 Eisentraut "A," 1961 BianchiCompetizione, 1994 Trek 520, 199? Burley Bossa Nova
    Posts
    3,018
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anything smaller than 62cm looks like it was made for people who smell like cabbage and have small hands.
    "I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney

  23. #23
    WNG
    WNG is offline
    Spin Forest! Spin! WNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arrid Zone-a
    My Bikes
    I used to have many. And I Will again.
    Posts
    5,901
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    “You meet the nicest people on two wheels!"
    "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow." ~Albert Einstein

  24. #24
    Senior Member jbkirby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dothan, AL
    My Bikes
    1971 Raleigh International; 1972 Raleigh International; 1971 Schwinn Sports Tourer
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WNG View Post
    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
    1971 Raleigh DL170 International, Chartreuse; 1972 Raleigh DL170 International, Champagne

  25. #25
    Senior Member Drillium Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Seattle, WA - Center of the Universe
    My Bikes
    69 Masi Special, 71 Mondia Special, 74 Colnago Super, 78 Colnago Super, 78 Medici, 79 Dennis Sparrow, 80 Alpina, 83 Colnago Mexico, 85 Somec Super Corsa, 85 Casati Perfection, 85 Spinella (Olympia), 02 Bill Davidson custom
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bikingshearer View Post
    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
    My Flickr pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30331021@N08/

    "You can't buy happiness, but you can buy a bike and that's pretty close"

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •