Ugly modern bikes
- Thread starter ibbz
- Start date
Rich Aitch
Retrobike Rider
- Feedback
- View
ibbz":3tooexmv said:
No s*/t really!
One of the reasons I don't "Do" modern bikes is because they look like the "Monkey with four arses" from Southpark. I've never brought anything that doesn't look "right" not even a toothbrush. It makes shopping for things a bit frought but who wants to be surrounded by ugliness for the 70 or so years of your life?
When I see a modern bike I will often mutter that no one should swing a leg over anything that ugly, in any sense of the word. And that applies whether it be the Specialized FSR, the Ducati Multistrada motorbike or the fat woman who used to be in...
I think it is a fashion thing. Today's "Yoof" don't do sublty , take Campagnolo as an example. Their Euclid and Centaur groupsets were things of ravishing beauty, their "Fulcrum" range is, well, it's back to the Southpark monkey... The point is, if they made their Fulcrum stuff look beautiful no one under 35 would buy it because it doesn't shout big label "Bling" from the rooftops.
The only "Modern" bike that I've seen is that I like the look of is the Scott Plasma Titanium time trial bike and as it costs about £8,000, I'm never gonna need to worry about buying one!
Rich Aitch":19mkjhnf said:
I concur!
The bike (Carbine) posted above, that's another example of a cross between a Motorcycle and a Bicycle - All it needs is a motor and game on! i mean why not just chuck on a 2 stroke or something? It'll save pedalling!
It's as ugly as sin - too big, too in yer face and too 'over sized', doesn't turn me on much, like an overweight Katy Price
The atom here, well it has a classic shape (bar the obvious disc brakes and modern accoutrements) and I quite like it - which brings something to mind, the size and shape of modern accoutrements and components...elPedro666":33lz6xip said:My beautiful modern
And my 'only I could love it' butt ugly modern
***FEW HOURS WARNING, PIC COMING***
Thing is that green beast is so far advanced in both adaptability and outright performance it's a totally different riding experience, barely even the same sport to what we all know & love.
And I don't find things ugly if they work effectively, if it's good engineering, it's always pretty in my eyes.
But here's another thought:
In the early nineties there were a few thousand of us(?) spending all our time, money and energy on many interesting contraptions, some wonderful, many just weird. Now there are many billions (it's true, check out sunny Sundays at any trail centre) who buy in to the marketing and nonsense, ride hideously over-graphiced bikes (not like our old DynaTechs, Astars etc) and generally show little sartorial grace.
So where are the few thousand for whom the real tech and craftmanship still matter? Still there of course, riding beautifully designed and lovingly created works of metallurgic - and plastic - art.
They're just a bit harder to spot amongst the pap, and you'll pay for the pleasure, as we always did. Luckily most of them are on here
- Feedback
- View
I wont post a picture of the new bike I am waiting for then!!
Here's an example of, in my opinion, a company making modern yet very attractive bikes;
http://www.endorfinbikes.co.uk/
Even the full sussers are subtle and nice.
Classic lines - obviously offset by the head and bottom tubes design to accomodate big travel suspension forks.
http://www.endorfinbikes.co.uk/
Even the full sussers are subtle and nice.
Classic lines - obviously offset by the head and bottom tubes design to accomodate big travel suspension forks.
gradeAfailure":3bwyd72t said:http://www.cotic.co.uk/product/rocket
British-designed, 150mm full suspension, steel front triangle, lots of lovely design touches. Price for the basic Float R-equipped model equivalent to £800 back in 1992 - that wouldn't get you a Yo frame back then.
[/img]
Eughhh!!!!
Whether a bike is ugly or not is a matter of opinion.
As long as we have a choice, that's the main thing.
Then we can just buy the things we do like.
And if it goes too far one way, it creates a gap in the market, for someone to offer an alternative.
Like when new companies came along offering steel frames - such as Cotic and Charge etc.
When it was abandoned by the mainstream, because aluminium frames were cheaper to produce.
As long as we have a choice, that's the main thing.
Then we can just buy the things we do like.
And if it goes too far one way, it creates a gap in the market, for someone to offer an alternative.
Like when new companies came along offering steel frames - such as Cotic and Charge etc.
When it was abandoned by the mainstream, because aluminium frames were cheaper to produce.
Ceefax":31tf0blc said:
I agree wholeheartedly
But this is simply a discussion, regarding modern MTB's, harmless and thought provoking, and no harm or offence nor insult is meant to any one who likes modern bikes - it's a matter of taste and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As people come on this site and buy/build Retro Bike's for many reasons - reliving their youth being one reason, and another reason is that quality Retro Bikes (rather than cheap crap from days of yore) look slick, cool and lovely, with classic lines, build and materials, rather than modern engineless motorcycles.
I do laud companies like Charge and Cotic for their steel bikes, and of course we have many modern bikes of this decade and bike builders making works of art, and bike's you'd keep for yonks, but there are even more producing stuff like you see in Evans or Halfords if you pop in for a look see.
- Feedback
- View
I cannot believe someone who owns a Raleigh RSP 300 can criticise the looks of a Cotic Rocket
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Martyn Young (Late 1960s?) build - Part II - The Rebirth- Latest: chickendrumsticks
-
-
-
-
