When the subject of new CF bikes comes up, often many respond that all modern CF bikes look alike.

I was thinking about this last night when I was looking at some of the "show us your" threads.

My hypothesis is that when you are dealing with double triangle C&V bikes, they are actually more similar than CF bikes. At the visual level, other than the cosmetic (i.e. paint) there is really very little that distinguishes the frames and if all C&V bikes were painted grey with no branding, there would be little C&V collecting.

Please discuss among yourselves.

Maybe. But I'd still prefer pretty much anything to a tacky plastic appearance.

It's all in the details.

That's why I'm working on this project.....


And nahhhh,...it's not a GT.....

Chombi

LOL! Perfect!

I was so close to nabbing this frame from Catnap, but I figured the $200 would be better off towards the LOOK.
Even PM'ed him about a trade...

Oh well, can't have them all.

Well yeah, they look awesome!!!

Interesting food for thought, RFC. I think that's what draws me to them. All basically that spare, simple "ten speed" look that became so much a part of our culture when I came of age, as it were, and which influenced my aesthetic sensibilities as far as bikes go.
Textures and colors are in that mix as well. Solid color frames, or with contrasting panels at most. Simple, tasty graphics. The soft, pearly glow of fine aluminum components. It all adds up to a very satisfying visual package for me.

Well, yeah, a Varsity looks more or less like a Cinelli to the untrained eye, but there sure is a difference between the two. Thankfully, I never had to ride a Varsity.

That's a funny looking bike!

Right, and when my wife granted me permission to hang one bike prominently in our front hallway--basically becoming the primary objet d'art that visitors see--and asked me which bike I would hang, my immediate reply was my Mercian. Her response? "Really? But it just looks like, you know, a 10-speed! Why don't you hang your DL1? Now that's a beautiful bike."

I agree, a lot of older 10 speeds look very similar. And as stated above, "its all in the details" you have to look closely to notice and appreciate the differences, which IMO is kinda neat. it would be pretty cool if all old bikes were just blank and gray, it would be a lot cheaper to restore them lol.

I don't think I ever said all CF frames look alike. I have said, though, that all CF frames look uniformly UGLY.

She actually referred to your DL1 by its model name? If so, she's ahead of the game. My wife distinguishes all my bikes only by their color, and I don't believe she has ever called any of them beautiful.

sounds good. you've got reinforced hooks for hanging a heavy, heavy DL1 on the wall?
I must admit that most bikes of a type look similar: modern aluminium or CF road bikes look a lot alike, C & V road bikes tend to look a lot alike, three speeds tend to look a lot alike, touring bikes ditto.
The difference is in the details. or in the slightly odball designs like flying gates, hellanic stays, "curly" stays...

The BMC Impec is a thing of robot woven glory.

Some Crumptons are the only plastic bikes that really get me aroused.

+1

I'm sure you're not just trolling, but I'm surprised that anyone who has been around this forum as long as you have could make such a comment. Even if you factor out all of the 3-speeds, mixtes, track bikes, TT bikes, constructeur bikes, etc., and just focus on C&V road racing bikes, there are still a vast amount of differences in frame details. From how the lugs are filed (or not filed), to cable routing, geometry, braze-ons, fork crowns, angle and shape of the fork blades, thickness and curvature of the tubes, brand engravings, drain holes (god, I love that thread), etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even mentioned C&V components, which were more beautiful both in finish and overall form IMHO. Also, I do not think it is fair to overlook frame paint. The back/white/red paint schemes you see over and over on carbon frames is part of what makes so many of them seem alike, whereas the tremendous variety and creativity used on C&V bikes makes them so attractive. With a few notable KOF exeptions, gone are the days of hand-painted pinstripes, embellished seat stay caps, drillium with pops of color, and ornate headbadges. Think of all the "Mystery Frame" threads. We distinguish C&V frames by a set of criteria absent from modern frames--not just where the serial number is and which direction the threading goes, but how and with what materials (lugs, tubes, braze-ons, dropouts) and skills were used in the making of the frames. These clues have been smoothed over on modern frames.

That is one pretty plastic bike. Interestingly, it looks like a pretty traditional design to my eye. Maybe that's why you like it. At least it isn't racer-boyish with tacky graphics and whatnot.

Thing is, there's really not much to a "diamond frame" bike but something like nine tubes (sometimes a couple more) and four main lugs (including the BB shell), so there is quite a bit of commonality between them, specially from like 20/30 feet away.....just in their basic architecture...

Chombi

I have to say that hellenic-stay frame that Chombi posted, well, that is a good looking frame. The parallel down tube and seat stays gives it something special.

But I agree in principal with the point made. All bikes with a horizontal top tube diamond frame and drop bars pretty much look the same. Add racks and fenders and stuff, you can change them a little... but not that much really.

Just a couple weeks ago I was out riding a century (116 miles actually) on my Fothergill, which is from the 40's:

and I passed this car for sale:

And it struck me, the bike is probably older than the car, but it's gone far more miles today than that car has, and it looks pretty modern to me. While that Packard, well, it looks pretty archaic. And though I don't know exactly how old either one is, they could both be from 1948.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not scoffing at a 1948 Packard. Very cool car. But my bike gets more use!

I've been around longer than the OP and I agree with him. While there are plenty of distinguishing factors on C&V bicycles, they are not as unique as modern, monocoque CF frames. The C&V designer was tied down to a few basic variations of the round tube. Carbon fibre monocoques allow the designer has far more latitude in his quest to find the optimum sections for the perfect frame. No two designers have the same solution and it all results in modern CF monocoque frame designs being more diverse than C&V designs.

^Fair enough. I should have chosen a more diplomatic way of putting it. Do disrespect meant, RFC.

I think what I was trying to get at in my reply is the closer you look, the more there is to appreciate and differentiate C&V bikes. From 10 feet away, I can see your point about C&V bikes looking similar. But when you look closely at a top-tier, hand-made, lugged frame, you can discern some details about the skill of the builder. I would have no comparable footing with a modern carbon bike (though I also realize it reflects my chosen ignorance on the subject).

There is great similarity in the old diamond frames, but I think the tubing is inherently more attractive than CF tubing. And the paint jobs were more varied and interesting to my eye. But styles always change with time and old curmudgeons always tend to prefer the older styles.

Ni!

https://sheldonbrown.com/org/hetchins/index.html