The most aesthically pleasing frame size
12-01-19 | 11:32 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,837
Likes: 376
From: Maryland
Bikes: Lots of English 3-speeds, a couple of old road bikes, 3 mountain bikes, 1 hybrid, and a couple of mash-ups
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 would like to hear other opinions on the subject.
12-01-19 | 11:40 AM
#2
With a mighty wind
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 1,548
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.
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.
12-01-19 | 11:51 AM
#3
Bianchi Goddess
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 28,976
Likes: 4,245
From: Shady Pines Retirement Fort Wayne, In
Bikes: Too many to list here check my signature.
59 but that just happens to be my size. I think this an eye of the beholder thing.
__________________
“One morning you wake up, the girl is gone, the bikes are gone, all that's left behind is a pair of old tires and a tube of tubular glue, all squeezed out"
Sugar "Kane" Kowalczyk
“One morning you wake up, the girl is gone, the bikes are gone, all that's left behind is a pair of old tires and a tube of tubular glue, all squeezed out"
Sugar "Kane" Kowalczyk
12-01-19 | 11:53 AM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,612
Likes: 921
From: So Cal, for now
Bikes: 1974 Bob Jackson - Nuovo Record, Brooks Pro, Clips & Straps
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.
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.
12-01-19 | 11:55 AM
#5
The dropped
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 1,055
From: Columbus, OH
Bikes: Pake C'Mute Touring/Commuter Build, 1989 Kona Cinder Cone, 1995 Trek 5200, 1973 Raleigh Super Course FG, 1969 Raleigh Superbe, 1986 Miyata Nine : 1960/61 Montgomery Ward Hawthorne "thrift" 3 speed, by Hercules (sold), 1966 Schwinn Deluxe Racer (sold)
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.
)
12-01-19 | 12:19 PM
#7
Hump, what hump?
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 305
From: SC midlands
Bikes: See signature
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.
__________________
2010 AB T1X ** 2010 Cannondale SIX-5 ** 1988 Bottecchia Team Record ** 1989 Bianchi Brava ** 1987 Centurion Ironman Expert(2) ** 1985 DeRosa Professional SLX ** 1982 Colnago Super ** 1982 Basso Gap ** 198? Brian Rourke ** 1970 Raleigh Professional MK I ** 1952 Raleigh Sports
2010 AB T1X ** 2010 Cannondale SIX-5 ** 1988 Bottecchia Team Record ** 1989 Bianchi Brava ** 1987 Centurion Ironman Expert(2) ** 1985 DeRosa Professional SLX ** 1982 Colnago Super ** 1982 Basso Gap ** 198? Brian Rourke ** 1970 Raleigh Professional MK I ** 1952 Raleigh Sports
12-01-19 | 12:25 PM
#8
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 193
Likes: 6
I guess it’s a ‘form follows function’ cultivated taste.
Wheel size? Whatever rolls.
12-01-19 | 12:40 PM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 1,921
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.
57-59 cm bikes seem well proportioned all around.
But once it's underneath you, the glide overrides the look.
12-01-19 | 01:40 PM
#10
feros ferio
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 22,417
Likes: 1,882
From: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
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.
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.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
12-01-19 | 02:39 PM
#11
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 2,762
From: Fredericksburg, Va
Bikes: ? Proteous, '65 Frejus TDF, '73 Bottecchia Giro d'Italia, '83 Colnago Superissimo, '84 Trek 610, '84 Trek 760, '88 Pinarello Veneto, '88 De Rosa Pro, '89 Pinarello Montello, 'Litespeed Catalyst'94 Burley Duet, 97 Specialized RockHopper, 2010 Langster
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.
__________________
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.
Bikes don't stand alone. They are two tired.
12-01-19 | 02:44 PM
#12
weapons-grade bolognium
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,620
Likes: 3,344
From: Across the street from Chicago
Bikes: Battaglin Cromor, Ciocc Designer 84, Schwinn Superior 1981
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.
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.
Last edited by thinktubes; 12-01-19 at 02:47 PM.
12-01-19 | 02:57 PM
#13
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 16,194
Likes: 9,579
From: PDX
Bikes: Merz x 5 + Specialized Merz Allez x 2, Strawberry/Newlands/DiNucci/Ti x3, Gordon, Fuso/Moulton x2, Bornstein, Paisley,1958-74 Paramounts x3, 3rensho, 74 Moto TC, 73-78 Raleigh Pro's x5, Marinoni x2, 1960 Cinelli SC, 1980 Bianchi SC, PX-10 X 2
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.......
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.......
12-01-19 | 03:07 PM
#14
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 154
Likes: 61
Bikes: '84 specialized expedition, '87 specialized sirrus, '84 specialized stumpjumper sport
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.
12-01-19 | 03:20 PM
#16
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 5,538
From: Central Florida, USA
Bikes: Litespeed (9); Slingshot (7); Specialized (3); Kestrel (2); Trek (2); Cervelo (1); FELT (1); Quintana Roo (1)
This one. Hands down. Wins every time.
__________________
WTB: Slingshot bicycle promotional documents (catalog, pamphlets, etc).
WTB: American Cycling May, Jul, Aug, Oct, 1966.
WTB: Bicycle Guide issues 1984 (any); Dec 1985; Apr 1994; May, Jun 1996; May 1997.
WTB: bicyclist May, Dec 1997: Jun-Dec 1998.
WTB: Bike World issue Jun 1974.
WTB: Litespeed head badge (circa 2000)
WTB: Slingshot bicycle promotional documents (catalog, pamphlets, etc).
WTB: American Cycling May, Jul, Aug, Oct, 1966.
WTB: Bicycle Guide issues 1984 (any); Dec 1985; Apr 1994; May, Jun 1996; May 1997.
WTB: bicyclist May, Dec 1997: Jun-Dec 1998.
WTB: Bike World issue Jun 1974.
WTB: Litespeed head badge (circa 2000)
12-01-19 | 03:22 PM
#17
for a long while, during the level top tube era, a typical bike at a trade show was a 22".(56cm) frame.
12-01-19 | 03:22 PM
#18
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 5,382
Likes: 5,316
From: Central Virginia
Bikes: Numerous
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.
__________________
N = '96 Colnago C40, '04 Wilier Alpe D'Huez, '10 Colnago EPS, '85 Merckx Pro, '89 Merckx Century, '86 Tommasini Professional, '04 Teschner Aero FX Pro, '05 Alan Carbon Cross, '86 De Rosa Professional, '95 Gios Compact Pro, '95 Carrera Zeus, ‘81 Masi Gran Criterium, ‘81 Merckx Pro, ‘89 Cinelli Supercorsa, ‘83 Bianchi Specialissima, ‘VO Randonneur, Ritchey Breakaway Steel, Rivendell Rambouillet, Heron Randonneur, ‘92 Ciöcc Columbus EL
N = '96 Colnago C40, '04 Wilier Alpe D'Huez, '10 Colnago EPS, '85 Merckx Pro, '89 Merckx Century, '86 Tommasini Professional, '04 Teschner Aero FX Pro, '05 Alan Carbon Cross, '86 De Rosa Professional, '95 Gios Compact Pro, '95 Carrera Zeus, ‘81 Masi Gran Criterium, ‘81 Merckx Pro, ‘89 Cinelli Supercorsa, ‘83 Bianchi Specialissima, ‘VO Randonneur, Ritchey Breakaway Steel, Rivendell Rambouillet, Heron Randonneur, ‘92 Ciöcc Columbus EL
12-01-19 | 03:32 PM
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,841
Likes: 2,859
+1 to this. Away from those sizes, the angles look wonky. Puegoet frame angles always look wonky no matter the size.
12-01-19 | 04:08 PM
#20
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,434
Likes: 1,603
From: 700 Ft. above sea level.
Bikes: Not as many as there were awhile ago.
I'd be pleased if people would quit reacting to my 25 In./62cm bikes like they belong in a circus sideshow.
__________________
".....distasteful and easily triggered."
".....distasteful and easily triggered."
12-01-19 | 04:12 PM
#21
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,244
Likes: 908
From: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Bikes: More bikes than riders
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.
12-01-19 | 04:26 PM
#22
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 22,676
Likes: 2,643
From: CID
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
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!
And Surly bikes look badly-proportioned in any size!
12-01-19 | 05:19 PM
#24
Banned.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 27,199
Likes: 1,463
12-01-19 | 05:21 PM
#25
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 14,190
Likes: 5,326
From: Portland, OR
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder