The look of taller frames vs. smaller frames
09-22-11, 01:34 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
The look of taller frames vs. smaller frames
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?
Any one else see this?
09-22-11, 01:58 PM
#5
Curmudgeon in Training
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rural Retreat, VA
Posts: 1,956
Bikes: 1974 Gazelle Champion Mondial, 2010 Cannondale Trail SL, 1988 Peugeot Nice, 1992ish Stumpjumper Comp,1990's Schwinn Moab
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
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.
09-22-11, 02:00 PM
#6
Senior Member
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. 
09-22-11, 02:06 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: the LOU, Mo
Posts: 584
Bikes: Bianchi Nuevo Alloro, Cannondale ST400, Fuji Palisade, GT Timberline FS, Raleigh Technium 420, Schwinn Moab, Schwinn Passage, Schwinn Tempo, Specialized Sirrus Elite (aluminum), Specialized Sirrus Triple (steel), Trek 7.6, Viner Road Record
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked 65 Times
in
19 Posts
09-22-11, 02:09 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
09-22-11, 02:13 PM
#9
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Snohomish, WA.
Posts: 2,866
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 469 Post(s)
Liked 2,443 Times
in
646 Posts
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)
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)
09-22-11, 02:16 PM
#10
incazzare.
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.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
09-22-11, 02:17 PM
#11
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
56 looks right to me for most frames....I ride a 51 usually though.
09-22-11, 02:19 PM
#12
Senior Member
+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.
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.
__________________
1959 Hilton Wrigley Connoisseur (my favorite!)
1963 Hetchins Mountain King
1971 Gitane Tour de France (original owner)
* 1971 Gitane Super Corsa (crashed)
* rebuilt as upright cruiser
1971 Gitane Super Corsa #2 (sweet replacement)
1980 Ritchey Road Touring (The Grail Bike)
1982 Tom Ritchey Everest
(replacing stolen 1981 TR Everest custom)
1982 Tom Ritchey McKinley (touring pickup truck)
1985 ALAN Record (Glued & Screwed. A gift.)
1959 Hilton Wrigley Connoisseur (my favorite!)
1963 Hetchins Mountain King
1971 Gitane Tour de France (original owner)
* 1971 Gitane Super Corsa (crashed)
* rebuilt as upright cruiser
1971 Gitane Super Corsa #2 (sweet replacement)
1980 Ritchey Road Touring (The Grail Bike)
1982 Tom Ritchey Everest
(replacing stolen 1981 TR Everest custom)
1982 Tom Ritchey McKinley (touring pickup truck)
1985 ALAN Record (Glued & Screwed. A gift.)
09-22-11, 02:21 PM
#13
What??? Only 2 wheels?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Boston-ish, MA
Posts: 13,434
Bikes: 72 Peugeot UO-8, 82 Peugeot TH8, 87 Bianchi Brava, 76? Masi Grand Criterium, 74 Motobecane Champion Team, 86 & 77 Gazelle champion mondial, 81? Grandis, 82? Tommasini, 83 Peugeot PF10
Mentioned: 189 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1222 Post(s)
Liked 645 Times
in
232 Posts
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?
__________________
Real cyclists use toe clips.
With great bikes comes great responsibility.
jimmuller
Real cyclists use toe clips.
With great bikes comes great responsibility.
jimmuller
09-22-11, 02:21 PM
#14
Senior Member
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.
Only two things scare me and one of them is nuclear war. What's the other? Tiny frames. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.
__________________
Bikes on Flickr
I prefer email to private messages. You can contact me at justinhughes@me.com
Bikes on Flickr
I prefer email to private messages. You can contact me at justinhughes@me.com
09-22-11, 02:25 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Wherever
Posts: 16,748
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 132 Times
in
78 Posts
+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.
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.
09-22-11, 02:31 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 353
Bikes: 90s Gios Compact Pro. 80s Battaglin w/ Dura Ace 7400s. 70s Medici Pro Strada
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
58cm looks perfect to me too. (i'd stretch to a 56cm too) - smaller then that and it looks teeny..
09-22-11, 02:43 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Minnesota- the frozen tundra
Posts: 1,946
Bikes: 1977 Raleigh Super Grand Prix, 1976 Gitane Tour de France
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
09-22-11, 03:06 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,470
Bikes: -1973 Motobecane Mirage -197? Velosolex L'Etoile -'71 Raleigh Super Course
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
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".
09-22-11, 03:46 PM
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
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)
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)
If it's pointless then why do you have an opinion? Not too pointless I guess.
09-22-11, 03:50 PM
#22
Crawlin' up, flyin' down
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Democratic Peoples' Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 5,658
Bikes: 1967 Paramount; 1982-ish Ron Cooper; 1978 Eisentraut "A"; two mid-1960s Cinelli Speciale Corsas; and others in various stages of non-rideability.
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 2,531 Times
in
1,059 Posts
Anything smaller than 62cm looks like it was made for people who smell like cabbage and have small hands.
__________________
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
09-22-11, 03:52 PM
#23
Spin Forest! Spin!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Arrid Zone-a
Posts: 5,956
Bikes: I used to have many. And I Will again.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
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.
09-22-11, 04:16 PM
#25
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PAZ
Posts: 12,294
Mentioned: 255 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2588 Post(s)
Liked 4,824 Times
in
1,709 Posts
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
