Quiglesnbits

I am a hair over 5'7", just about 171cm tall, and generally speaking, bike frames in the size 52 range are my target size. I find most modern frames of this size visually unappealing for two reasons:
1. the sloping top tube is exacerbated in this size range vs 56-58.
2. the squat headtube, which causes, to me, an inelegant interaction between the top tube and the downtube.

So, which frame makers do you think have well proportioned frames in this size range that I should consider?

WhyFi

I can't help you; I agree.

genejockey 

Yeah, there's a reason everybody shows their bikes in 56 in their catalogs.

On the plus side, if you're riding it, you can't really see what it looks like.

noodle soup

+1

Ride whatever fits, and don't worry about how the bike looks.

Sy Reene

Well.... not sure you can take vanity out of cycling?

Iride01 

Ride what fits. No one else cares what it looks like. If you need a showpiece, then have someone carry it on a car for you and bring it out to put near you at the end of the ride.

noodle soup

52cm bikes always look odd. Maybe the OP can grow 3-4 inches, so he'll fit a 56cm bike.

LesterOfPuppets

Modern 52s generally look fine to me.

You know what looks weird? An olde 48cm Cannondale

WhyFi

noodle soup

I used to date a woman that rode one of those. Our bikes looked very strange together.

DaveSSS 

Inaccurate generalities for the most part. For one thing, frame size numbers mean nothing these days. Fit is dictated by stack and reach. Rarely, the seat tube length might change a lot from one size to the next.

I'm 168cm tall with long legs and a 73cm saddle height. The Colnago that I ride has a stack and reach that would match a traditional 52cm, but with a sloping top tube, the seat tube is 48cm and that's the current frame size assigned to it. I could also ride a 45cm, since the stack is nearly the same and the reach would only require one size longer stem. The seat tube being only 45cm would push the limit of seat post exposure.

Most people choose to have a lot of post showing, since it looks racey.

Bah Humbug

It's the damn marriage to 700c wheels.

Princess_Allez

I ride a 52cm and I feel the same way about it. I don't think frame geometries look good until 54 or larger...if only God had gave me longer legs...le sigh

abshipp 

Correct.

Bike wheel size should scale with frame size. The Terry design bikes almost picked up on that by running a 24" (520mm BSD) on the front.

My wife's ~50cm mixte has massive toe overlap since it was designed for 27" (630mm) wheels. Should have been designed for 559mm or maybe 584mm wheels from the start.

Dean V

I don't agree. 52cm which is around what most manufacturers would call "Small" still have quite normal proportions in my view.
Only with "XS" do they sometimes start getting a little funky.

znomit

This is an inelegant interaction. Why the hate?

canklecat

Check out Emma Pooley's Wyndy Milla bike, which she rode for her recent Everesting record. Emma is tiny, supposedly 5'2" but... nah. Both my wives were 5'2". Emma is tinier than that. And she's a mountain goat.

But after trying small frame conventional designs, including as a pro, she finally treated herself to a custom bike built to her dimensions. To get the right frame dimensions she went with 650 wheels. Sure seemed to work for her as a climbing bike for her Everesting record.

If you compare the Wyndy Milla custom bike with her previous "custom" bike -- a Bond bike in 700c -- it's apparent switched to 650 wheels and a more proportioned frame suited her better. The Bond bike looked like a squashed frame to make a 700c wheel bike fit a very small person.

Note also that Emma doesn't go for a particularly aggressive saddle to bar drop, and a rather short stem (well, it would be for me). She looks very comfortable on her bikes.

Check out the videos.

Emma'sWyndy Milla:

Her previous custom bike, a Bond:

Kapusta

I think sloping top tubes look better.

Then again, I also think matching kits look stupid, so take my opinion for what it is worth.

robbyville

Love the look of the Bond bike.

i agree that modern smaller frames look inelegant. But then again large bikes look even worse to me, for the exact same reasons of how exacerbated the long head and seat tubes appear against the backdrop of a 700c wheel. But having owned lots of bikes in the past I can certainly appreciate the modern design approach when it comes to fit, agility, and comfort. FWIW I too am a shade under 5’7 and ride a 52.

loving the appearance of a bike is important to me, I’m totally vain that way. My answer was my current bike custom built. The top tube has only a 3 degree slope which is barely noticeable. Although more aggressive geometry than the Domane was it’s equally as comfortable to me at least.

Erzulis Boat 

I think that the really "tall" bikes look the goofiest. It's all about the package anyway (meaning both cyclist and cycle). I was watching the 2003 TDF mountain stages last night and didn't even notice how small the frames were on the many of the climbers until I looked at the head tube. The riders themselves looked so strong and fit, that it completely masked the fact that the bike was "small".

genejockey 

I had a friend, a woman about 5'2" whom I rode with a couple times. She also had short arms and legs, and between that and her generally short stature, it was obvious that 700c wheels were just silly on a bike for her. You end up with screwy head and seat tube angles, toe overlap, and crappy handling, JUST to get those (relatively) huge wheels on it. If you build a smaller bike, with 650c wheels, shouldn't it be possible to replicate the angles of the 56/medium-large?

Sweet spot for "normal" looking bikes seems to be 54-58, centered on 56. 52 and below, the wheels look huge. Over 60, they look too small.

mstateglfr 

The ends of the spectrum look goofy. Super tiny bikes and super big bikes look equally odd, but for different reasons.
54-58cm is the sweetspot.

For me, what looks goofier than a frame size is bars that tilt up. Whether its bars that tilt up and have levers comically high in the air which renders em useless in the drops or if its bars and levers that are placed on the same plane as a positive angled stem and shoot up into the air, all combinations look goofy as hell.

All this is coming from someone who rides 65cm frames and fully recognizes their bikes wouldnt win a hot or not contest.

Branko D

Sloping top tubes do look bad to me, but you can get away from that by getting an aero bike which generally have straight-ish top tubes.

The small headtube is a plus, however. I mean, if one wants to sit up and beg, they could get a hybrid instead. A small bike with no spacers under the stem is visually and functionally correct when it comes to the front end, with the bars setup horizontal. Just use a long stem.

A fan of smallish (52-54) sizes, myself. At a bit over 5ft 10, I ride a 53.
​​​

rubiksoval

I agree. I also think the lack of saddle to bar drop on most smaller sizes adds to the lack of appeal.

With that said, I think larger frame sizes are even less visually appealing than small frame sizes. Their gargantuan headtubes and seatstays look ugly.

54-56 is the sweet spot.

Noctilux.95

For me the sweet spot is 52-54. Bikes 58cm and above remind me of Llamas.