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?

I agree. I ride 50cm bikes so I guess all mine look good

Anything not 56 cm looks odd to me...

Yep, small bikes look right

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

56 looks right to me for most frames....I ride a 51 usually though.

+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.

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?

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.

Double ditto.

58cm looks perfect to me too. (i'd stretch to a 56cm too) - smaller then that and it looks teeny..

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.


.

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".

Tall bikes go faster...



Small bikes = Rat rod'n

If it's pointless then why do you have an opinion? Not too pointless I guess.

Anything smaller than 62cm looks like it was made for people who smell like cabbage and have small hands.

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

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