|
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!
|
Originally Posted by Maddox
(Post 13264870)
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.
Originally Posted by Drummerboy1975
(Post 13264823)
I rest my case.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by jimmuller
(Post 13264757)
Honey, does this bike make my... no, we won't go there.
|
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/...e3ef24ba1f.jpg But I think this 65cm Nobilette looks pretty good, even if it still is super tall: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/...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.
|
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'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/...b31ba9b1_b.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 |
Originally Posted by bradtx
(Post 13266984)
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, 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.
|
Originally Posted by jan nikolajsen
(Post 13267084)
Old fashioned race bars, with sweet curves and big drop. Once took a profile shot of my 65cm Trek with tight rando bars. Ugh!
|
Seems to me pretty much everybody likes the looks of their size bike. So what?
SP Bend, OR ...64cm looks real nice to me. |
Originally Posted by Drummerboy1975
(Post 13267050)
Yes Brad, I agreee, Cannondales are an exception.
SP Bend, OR |
So everyone's happy, and it's all good, except that some bikes look too big, and others look too small (just not mine).
|
Who wants to ride an ugly bike???...what fits is what's beautiful to every rider!
You wouldn't want to wear shoes that are too big for you and look like a clown, on the other hand you also don't want to wear shoes that are too small and look like you were raised by a foot binder...... ......So this thread is kinda pointless. Chombi |
bikes smaller than 56-57 cm looks like junior bikes. the wheels tend to look enormous in relation to the frame. but as stated somewhere, it looks alright if it is your own size.
|
From a technical side what would be the idea size of bike/rider? Some of these huge frames/riders with the 700 wheels looks like the center of gravity is way up high and may affect handling/cornering some. Then you look at the small frames/riders with the same wheels and it looks like that rider is practically sitting on the ground and would really be able descend/corner well.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Count me as just another who prefers the look of frames his size (62-64cm in my case) BUT, what I think is even more important is how the bike is set up. Things such as saddle setback, bar height, bar angle etc. contribute more to how 'off' or 'right' a bike looks. I don't like the look of too much seatpost or too much stem showing. I'd almost rather see the saddle shoved all the way down, and stem likewise, than a bike that is (what I think to be) clearly too small for the rider. Again this is just personal preference I suppose, and in no way do I expect other people to appreciate the way I like my bike's set up.
|
Originally Posted by newenglandbike
(Post 13268245)
Count me as just another who prefers the look of frames his size (62-64cm in my case) BUT, what I think is even more important is how the bike is set up. Things such as saddle setback, bar height, bar angle etc. contribute more to how 'off' or 'right' a bike looks. I don't like the look of too much seatpost or too much stem showing. I'd almost rather see the saddle shoved all the way down, and stem likewise, than a bike that is (what I think to be) clearly too small for the rider. Again this is just personal preference I suppose, and in no way do I expect other people to appreciate the way I like my bike's set up.
- Scott |
Originally Posted by newenglandbike
(Post 13268245)
Count me as just another who prefers the look of frames his size (62-64cm in my case) BUT, what I think is even more important is how the bike is set up. Things such as saddle setback, bar height, bar angle etc. contribute more to how 'off' or 'right' a bike looks. I don't like the look of too much seatpost or too much stem showing. I'd almost rather see the saddle shoved all the way down, and stem likewise, than a bike that is (what I think to be) clearly too small for the rider. Again this is just personal preference I suppose, and in no way do I expect other people to appreciate the way I like my bike's set up.
Brad |
Originally Posted by norskagent
(Post 13265016)
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.
|
Originally Posted by bradtx
(Post 13268913)
My son prefers a bike that's French fit, stem and seatpost nearly bottomed. The large saddle bag fills space very nicely.
Brad Never knew there was another term for "slammed" saddle setting....:rolleyes::D Also didn't know that the French typically rode their bikes mighty low... Chombi |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.