...in more ways than one.

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.

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.

Hmm, I can buy that. From what I've gathered, standover height wasn't always a big concern, so people rode bigger frames and set the saddles and handlebars lower to fit. Kind of a "classic" image, and I have to admit that any bike with a lot of seatpost or stem showing looks weird to me, as well.

- Scott

My son prefers a bike that's French fit, stem and seatpost nearly bottomed. The large saddle bag fills space very nicely.

Brad

I agree, though I might go up to 60. If I could ride a 58, I would :)

Uhmmmm... "French Fit"??? whazzdat??
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

Here ya go:
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/ht...ad_riding.html

Brad

Gahhh!:eek:..... I cant believe it, there is such a thing:eek:....I guess we can learn everyday!:thumb:

Chombi

While I like my frame size (61 cm), there is one exception. Very short wheelbase frames, like track bikes look weird.

Could be because I endoed a 58cm track frame while using the front brake and hitting a camoflaged pot hole. One broken elbow, and supershort wheelbase bikes in my size look dangerous.

Boy, are you guys missing the obvious. A bike's aesthetic beauty has nothing to do with the size; it's all in the quality of the build, nothing more. Pick one:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/a.../freehuffy.jpg

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/a.../track2001.jpg

Point proven, thanks

Obviously, people tend to like the look of bikes in their size. Duh. But I don't believe that's what the OP was getting at when this question was posed.

Look at mens' shoes in shoe ads. The art directors who design these ads can choose any size shoe they want – but they all choose the same size: 8D. Why? Because, design-wise, that size shoe has the best proportion of height to length; visually, it makes all men's shoes look better.

It's the same way with bicycles. Visually, smaller bikes tend to have a better proportion of height to length. They "look" right. Large bikes look too tall, ungainly and unbalanced. They appear top-heavy. It's a design thing. If you're not an artist or a designer, you may well think what I'm saying is BS, but if you have a "good eye," you know what I'm talking about. You can like whatever you like, but in terms of design, smaller bikes look better. It's not subjective.

I was with you the entire way until this. It is still subjective. Designers just happen to use a standard. It's still subjective.

Er... I am an artist. (Maybe, I draw comic books and cartoons, and many a wall artist has insisted I'm not an artist). Your criteria are entirely subjective. There are many more factors than simply size that factor into aesthetics and balance. Look at the two bikes I posted above. Now tell me which one is more aesthetically pleasing. If you answered the Huffy, your eyes, good or not, are missing and you need to go look for them.

This entire argument is like saying a beautiful woman can only be a certain height. Having dated both women shorter and taller than me, I can say any assertion that height is a determining factor is pretty bogus. Admittedly, it was hard to find a woman taller than me...

A Motherwell can be aesthetically pleasing, as can a Durer. Just like if the Serotta were 48cm and the Huffy 62, their aesthetic would be entirely reversed.

Seriously, claiming that a "good eye" tells you smaller bikes are more aesthetic reminds me an awful lot of the snobbish wall artists who would try and tell me Jean Giraud couldn't draw and his pages were an abomination.

http://lambiek.net/artists/g/giraud/...futuristic.jpg

And they'll say the same about Carl Barks and countless others.

I'll send you an address where you can ship that.

Not to me, I have enjoyed his work very much, primarily moebius in Heavy Metal magazine.

Brad

On a classic double diamond non compact frame over 25in and under 52cm look odd. The sweet spot being 56-61cm If you scale a shorter bike on 24in or 26in wheels the visual is better.

i think blue bikes are definitely better than green bikes.

I've seen plenty of bikes that were both quality builds and aesthetically dysfunctional. Most any Rivendell, for example.


:innocent:

Can somebody post a Bike Friday, those things look totaly ridiculous. 20" wheels and a 4' seat tube. They remind me of clown bikes.

You make several very good points. Thank you. It seems to me that we are dealing with two categories of criteria: 1) By virtue of our environment, we have adopted a sense of what a bicycle is suppose to look like, i.e., an assumption; 2) From the point of view of more objective (if possible) analysis based on the "rules" of composition and what comparative size triangles and circles look best together.

I agree that this thread is totally pointless. However, it did get me thinking about the composition question.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that the main triangle/rear triangle ratio, on a 56-58 Cm bike, are in a proportion very close to Phi, or the Golden Mean. Just eyeballing it, they seem to be-- as does the ratio of wheel disc to main triangle.