Change my Mind: Small Frame Geometries Visually Unappealing
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Change my Mind: Small Frame Geometries Visually Unappealing
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?
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?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,516
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20808 Post(s)
Liked 9,450 Times
in
4,668 Posts
I can't help you; I agree.
#3
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,912
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10397 Post(s)
Liked 11,856 Times
in
6,071 Posts
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?
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?
On the plus side, if you're riding it, you can't really see what it looks like.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Likes For noodle soup:
#5
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,631
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4729 Post(s)
Liked 1,531 Times
in
1,002 Posts
Likes For Sy Reene:
#6
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,952
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 51 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6178 Post(s)
Liked 4,795 Times
in
3,307 Posts
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.
Likes For Iride01:
Likes For noodle soup:
#8
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 44,785
Bikes: everywhere
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12736 Post(s)
Liked 7,647 Times
in
4,055 Posts
Modern 52s generally look fine to me.
You know what looks weird? An olde 48cm Cannondale
You know what looks weird? An olde 48cm Cannondale
Likes For LesterOfPuppets:
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,516
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20808 Post(s)
Liked 9,450 Times
in
4,668 Posts
#11
Senior Member
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.
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.
Last edited by DaveSSS; 08-18-20 at 06:40 PM.
#12
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
It's the damn marriage to 700c wheels.
Likes For Bah Humbug:
Likes For Princess_Allez:
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 4,117
Bikes: 1975 Motobecane Grand Jubile, 2020 Holdsworth Competition, 2022 Giant Trance 29 3
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3350 Post(s)
Liked 3,615 Times
in
1,239 Posts
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.
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.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1067 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 259 Times
in
153 Posts
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.
Only with "XS" do they sometimes start getting a little funky.
#16
Zoom zoom zoom zoom bonk
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4,624
Bikes: Giant Defy, Trek 1.7c, BMC GF02, Fuji Tahoe, Scott Sub 35, Kona Rove, Trek Verve+2
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked 722 Times
in
366 Posts
This is an inelegant interaction. Why the hate?
Likes For znomit:
#17
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4559 Post(s)
Liked 2,802 Times
in
1,800 Posts
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:
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:
Likes For canklecat:
#18
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,210
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2761 Post(s)
Liked 2,534 Times
in
1,433 Posts
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.
Then again, I also think matching kits look stupid, so take my opinion for what it is worth.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 2,504
Bikes: Speedvagen Steel
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 429 Post(s)
Liked 248 Times
in
156 Posts
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.
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.
Likes For robbyville:
#20
Le Crocodile
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Barbara Calif.
Posts: 1,873
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 369 Post(s)
Liked 783 Times
in
311 Posts
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".
Likes For Erzulis Boat:
#21
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,912
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10397 Post(s)
Liked 11,856 Times
in
6,071 Posts
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.
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".
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Likes For genejockey:
#22
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,605
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10947 Post(s)
Liked 7,473 Times
in
4,181 Posts
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.
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.
Likes For mstateglfr:
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Branko D; 08-19-20 at 10:44 AM.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
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.
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.
Likes For rubiksoval:
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 595
Bikes: Bianchi Oltre XR4 Celeste, De Rosa SK Pininfarina, Giant TCR SL, Giant Revolt Advanced Revolt 0 Gravel Bike, Trek Madone SLR, Cervelo R5 Disk
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked 124 Times
in
65 Posts
For me the sweet spot is 52-54. Bikes 58cm and above remind me of Llamas.