The most aesthically pleasing frame size
 

I have been considering the most aesthically pleasing bike frames for larger wheeled bicycles. My conclusion is that 58cm to 59cm frames are the most pleasing to the eye. That is only my opinion of course, but the frame geometry pleases my eye.

I would like to hear other opinions on the subject.

I really don't like long head tubes. I would say 54-56 in steel and 56-58 in something wide.

I think a lot of super small ones look really cool, like a vintage 42-46. I can't say I've ever seen a 60+ that looks good, fortunately I can't ride anything that big anyway.

59 but that just happens to be my size. I think this an eye of the beholder thing.

https://cramer-institute.com/wp-cont...CanOfWorms.jpg

I don't want to cut it too finely.

Raleigh used to make 21 1/2", 23 1/2" and 25 1/2" frames. Of those, the 23 1/2" frames were the most aesthetically pleasing. The small one was too "crunched" up front. The tall one was too tall.

Aesthetically on steel, I've noticed after looking at thousands of bike images that 56-58cm frames 'look' faster. I think it's because quite a few bikes had semi-fixed top tube lengths, and the longer seat tube made the rear triangle taller. Taller than that and there's too much room on the head tube. It's too bad I ride 53-55cm frames.

I'm w/ [MENTION=159681]Bianchigirll[/MENTION] - 59cm (or 60cm :D)

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...29b7fce151.jpg

I think it would be interesting to compare catalog photos, to see if there is a common size for advertising aesthetics. To me, it's a matter of proportions. Head tubes on 50-52cm frames just don't look right. I'm partial to 55-56 cm myself.

Being tallish, a nice 63-64 always catches my eye. Okay, maybe the occasional 62.
I guess it’s a ‘form follows function’ cultivated taste.

Wheel size? Whatever rolls.

To me, the really large frames always look like the wheels are too small, and the really small frames look like the wheels are too big.

57-59 cm bikes seem well proportioned all around.

But once it's underneath you, the glide overrides the look.

55cm C-T :) The Bianchi and all three Capos are this size, and they definitely fit me well.

I'll bet my sons, at 5'11" and almost 6'3", think taller frames look better. :)
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...266816d8a2.jpg

I agree with BFisher and yes it is what your accustomed to see. I also think that the colorway treatment of the HT makes a difference with they type of lugs. [MENTION=531]John E[/MENTION] example looks good to me too.

54-56 seem the most balanced to my eye.

I've also seen examples at both ends of the spectrum that look great, so I'm not sure what I key on.

here's a smaller frame that looks "right" to me.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1fe83d48_b.jpg

Being long of leg I like em bigger, the setup, colorway and much else is a "big" part of it.

Some look great, some not so much as with all.

The taller frames when set up right make the slim tubes look elegant to me, love that aesthetic.

All that being said, most of mine are set up with bars and seat jacked up at unattractive placements so.......


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...0ab144e9c4.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2dd51dc265.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8ff0226d6c.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2987da0f7c.jpg
;)

I'll counter what most are saying, I think taller looks better. Perhaps it's an acquired taste or due to the trend of wider and wider tires, but something 60cm+ looks more pleasing to me. By being taller the bike looks more compact horizontally and quicker, sporty. I say this as someone who can ride a max 58cm.

Most of my bikes are 60-63cm and I like the way they look. I like tall bikes ‘cause I can ride em!

This one. Hands down. Wins every time.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6b61dec8fc.jpg

for a long while, during the level top tube era, a typical bike at a trade show was a 22".(56cm) frame.

54-57 in my eyes. The head tube is the key for me and I like nice separation between the top and down tubes without the head tube being too long. I also like the proportion of the chainstay length to the top tube.

+1 to this. Away from those sizes, the angles look wonky. Puegoet frame angles always look wonky no matter the size.

I'd be pleased if people would quit reacting to my 25 In./62cm bikes like they belong in a circus sideshow.

I'm too big to ride 'em, but I have long thought that smaller frames look nice (at least with conventional diamond frames with horizontal top tubes). I think it's because the top tube is lower and the bike has a longer look to it. I think the wheelbase looks longer in proportion to the frame size than on taller bikes.

For me, the lower bound on a 700C frame is 56cm, but only if the fork has a lugged crown. A unicrown forces the head tube to be a little shorter.

And Surly bikes look badly-proportioned in any size! :lol:

C'mon now. The best looking frame size is the one that fits you correctly.

+2
Proportional balance = 56cm square.
IMHO

Rowena Crest? (Rowena Crest is a scenic overlook halfway between Hood River and the Dalles, Oregon. This view is looking east up the Columbia River Gorge.)

Ben